ctcole77, NothingatAllXD & koertje should all be friends with each other so that they could be closed-minded, ignorant & oblivious sheeple with each other.
They didn't mention that many young people also enlist because there are limited job opportunities.So a draft isn't the only way to force enough people into the military.
@dirtandmud2000 AGREED. THEY ALSO DIDN'T MENTION SOME PEOPLE WILLINGLY ENLIST BECAUSE AFTER PLAYING LOTS OF VIDEO GAMES GROWING UP, OVER TIME, THEY BECAME A HUGE FAN OF WAR, GUNS, AND THE THOUGHT OF MURDERING PEOPLE. SAD, BUT TRUE. NOT EVERYONE THAT ENLISTS IS "LURED" INTO DOING SO. MOST DO IT WILLINGLY, AND SEE IT AS SOME SORT OF THRILL,WITH POTENTIAL TO BE LOOKED AT AS A "HERO" THAT "FOUGHT FOR THEIR COUNTRY".
@koertje Not sure what the "religion" aspect is to which you refer. I'd argue that belief -- an unquestioning faith -- in an official mythology is a telltale signifier of religiosity.
On the contrary, questioning that mythology is kinda the opposite, no?
@koertje Mate, all those mountains of narcotics you've consumed over the years have taken a toll on your intellect and reasoning powers. You sound like someone who had lived on Mars or Pluto for the last 11 years. You haven't noticed with your drugged up brain that it is the 9/11 Truth movement that had ALWAYS been "blocked" and "censored" in ALL of the media?
Keep your drugged-up gu-gu-gu-gullible face shut or you'll be put in the same category along with all of the American dumbasses.
@koertje No mate, I am not an American, I only live in this country, amongst countless gu-gu-gu-gullible American dumbasses. I was born in Eastern Europe and grew up in the Soviet Union. Living in the USSR, I can tell you that it makes an individual a bit more critical of the "trusty" government.
If you don't believe government when they say that an airplane hit the Pentagon, why do you believe when it says that airplanes hit WTC? Isn't it more likely that no airplanes were used in the attacks given that there is no evidence of a plane wreckage in any of the supposed crash sites?
@SilentKek well i believe the planes hit the wtc's because there are too many vids where it actually shows a plane...and theres too many witnesses seeing a plane....i would say there is a very small chance that they were not planes but IMO i think those kinds of facts are irrelevant because when you start debating the wether or not it was a plane or a missle you steer yourself away from debate of did our government do it...or did they not...
@ihaveaverybadcold i agree that there are a lot of videos showing fake planes and a lot of fake witnesses. imo the chance of a plane hitting anything that day is 0%. I think the question of what actually happened is relevant because it is producing a long term effect on the health of new yorkers and especially the first responders. Radiation poisoning from nuclear explosions is a slow killer. As for who's responsible I think the whole thing is a lot bigger than just the US government.
And the truth shall set you free. To those who still lie for the government, you shall be judged by your works. It matters not where the truth comes from. It remains the truth for there is only one truth. The truth is more important than god.
@ctcole77 Actually the Jersey Girls, the highest profile 9/11 widows in the US, are the most famous 9/11 truthers at the moment - they all signed an open letter of support to Richard Gage a month ago. Maybe you can go can call them 'twoofers' to their face, shithead, and see what response you get.
@anthonyjthorne Found the article, totally agree with you. Twoofers is just another word of their child-like vocabulary. It really makes them sound rediculous and as if they are carrying diapers and wet-wipes.
@spectre0075 1. Your English is badly constructed, but you seem to think I'm American? I'm British. We have our own version of "freedom", Magna Carta, that predates yours by some 700+ years (and, thanks to your super new Patriot Act(s), gives us far more freedom than your Constitution now gives you).
2. OBL has been dead for years. But hey - you needed SOMETHING to show for your multi-billion "War on Terror", eh?.
3. To reply so fast, you're either REALLY bored or you're "Oz1976" in disguise.
@spectre0075 Well, now you sound like a rude, dismissive and uneducated redneck who can't string together a coherent sentence in basic English. Just another standard, out-of-the-mould anti-Truther who resorts to invalid argument techniques, aggression, insults and deliberate(?) miscomprehension of his opponent's points in order to repeat his own (inaccurate) views (well, the US Govt's).
If THIS is an improvement on "how stupid" you sounded before, you must REALLY have made no sense back then!!
I'm searching for answers and, until I have them, I have no theory.
That said, it's evident that the "official line" is wrong on many levels. The fact that NIST used a computer model, not the actual WTC rubble/steel (which was, almost entirely, hastily destroyed), in its analysis, and then refused to release its input data for peer review, is highly suspect - not to mention their ALTERING their data when a real heat test showed the trusses DIDN'T fail!
DRG's shortcomings notwithstanding, can anyone explain what NIST itself now admits, i.e. that WTC7 went into free-fall during the first 100 feet of its collapse? Meaning that NOTHING resisted those falling floors? Or even, far easier, explain how office materials were made to burn for SEVEN HOURS, to "weaken" the famous "critical column"...? Or how WTC1's c.10-storey "pile-driver" survived destroying 100 storeys below it, contrary to Newton's 3rd Law...?
LMAO - This just in: President Barack Obama plans to name CIA Director Leon Panetta as the next secretary of defense and move Gen. David Petraeus, now running the war in Afghanistan, into the CIA chief's job. Hmm...
@ministerofleisure David Ray Griffin is an idiot who was stumped several times by the ERTC when they conducted physical testing challenging the inside job theories. When he was asked a question by the ERTC he fumbled desperately trying to find a thing to say....
"well, uh, heh heh, that's awkward. I don't know... The testing...uh, um....irrelevent, it's irrelevent."
@Oz1976 The one time he was in the National Geographic special 9/11: Science and Conspiracy. When he asked a question, the EMRTC analyst answered promptly and asked DRG a simple question. What did DRG say? "Oh, um, heh heh, this is awkward, ..um... irrelevant, it's irrelevant." Richard Gage and Dylan Avery were there and they couldn't back him up.
@godzilla1077 Irrelevant ad hominem arguments such as yours, aimed at one of the MOST eccentric of the Truth movement membership, prove nothing. Perhaps you also think THIS individual wears a tin-foil hat and has no idea what he is talking about?
watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E
... After all, what would HE know? He was only Head of All Intelligence for the USA during his career. An obvious silly "twoofer" if ever there was one! David Ray Griffin doesn't have the monopoly on believing in the Truth, you know.
@godzilla1077 correct, I mixed up my "twoofers". Difference is I can admit when I'm wrong. Neither of them can. And in fact David Ray Griffin refuses to confront his detractors. At least Steven Jones has the balls to go out on TOURS to sell his nano-thermite dvd pack! Lotsa twoof there.
@Oz1976 If you're looking for "lotsa twoof" (I wonder why anti-Truthers seem to feel the need to resort to playground insults? Anyway...), have a look here, as I also suggested "godzilla1077" might like to try:
watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E
... Maybe you'd like to mix THAT "twoofer" in with the others? Or doesn't he quite fit your stereotype and serve the purposes of YOUR ad hominem argument? If you're going to argue, at least argue facts, not personalities. DRG's shortcomings aren't shared by all of us.
@NellJSmith "lotsa twoof there" counts as ad-hominem now? ROFL...Godzilla and I have a running dialogue through pm.
As for your video. That guy is senile, he states "they all belong to me"...sorry, no Major General has ever been in charge of "all intelligence", only military. CIA has ALWAYS worked outside of the military. Stubblebine was not at the pentagon that day...he is not a structural engineer and is making the same argument that Loose Change made. He is misinformed. Wings sheered
@LongLiveOx cool...but you're a Jones-Truther, so I would expect the simplest comments to make you laugh, doesn't take much does it? I mean shit, you fall for his schtick...so...
@Oz1976 Briefly: Stubblebine referred to "all ARMY intelligence", not CIA (I know which I'd trust most). I never "defend" my opinions (it was obvious to me when I first saw the Twin Towers fall, live on the BBC, that they were demolished - the only question is how), but your argument IS ad hominem, i.e. you criticise the man (DRG), not his views. By the rules of logic, ad hominem (no hyphen) arguments are always invalid, as they criticise the proponent (irrelevant), not his/her views (relevant).
@Oz1976 And as a P.S. (I really don't have time for "running dialogues", whether in open messages or PMs), your reply to me contained ANOTHER ad hominem argument, i.e. that Stubblebine is "senile" (based on no evidence in the video - he did not claim any knowledge of the CIA, nor did he say he was at the Pentagon, nor that he was a structural engineer, and he seemed perfectly lucid). Again, an attack on the MAN, not his VIEWS. I have time for sensible debate, but not for juvenile name-calling.
(@Oz1976 (P.S. cont.) I had no space to point out that your statements regarding Stubblebine (not in charge of CIA, not at Pentagon, not structural engineer) are a fine example of yet ANOTHER logical fallacy (i.e. invalid argument technique), commonly known as the "straw man" argument technique. Namely, you create arguments which the proponent (Stubblebine) does NOT make, then refute those arguments (creating and then attacking a false "straw man"). To argue anything, one must know HOW to argue.
@NellJSmith dude, did you even listen to his spiel? he was regurgitating Loose Change near word for word! It's not a strawman, I'm not misrepresenting his position at all. I'm flat out calling him senile (which is Ad-hominem if anything).
Fact: he's not in the CIA
Fact: he was not at the Pentagon
It's not a "fallacy". He was not there, he could not know, and those that were there say otherwise. GTFO
1. The "senile" remark = ad hominem. As I said before.
2. Stating that Stubblebine is not in the CIA, at the Pentagon, or a structural engineer demonstrates the "straw man" technique - HE didn't say those things, YOU did - you built the straw man, then attacked it - you created and then refuted your OWN points.
3. Supporting "Loose Change" is not, a priori, wrong. You need to argue WHY you think it's wrong.
Oh and...
4. I'm not a "dude". "Nell" is short for Eleanor. Just FYI :)
@Oz1976 Yay! So we reach the end-game "throw rattle out of pram and shout abuse" argument!
I'm just no match for your informed rhetoric and terrific debating skills, and must retire at this point.
PS: I have studied Philosophy, including logical debate, to graduate level, but thanks for the link anyway! Sadly, the definition there is inaccurate: straw man arguments are not necessarily "distortions" of one's opponent's actual views - they can include ANY points the opponent doesn't actually make.
@Oz1976 Paternal size notwithstanding, I've suddenly had a great idea, which I'm sure you'll agree is going to provide me with wealth beyond my wildest dreams! The next time some big mega-corp wants to get rid of an old high-rise it no longer needs, instead of paying a fortune to a demolition firm to pull it down, they can pay me a tenner or so to bash a big hole in its side, chuck kerosene over it, set it on fire and watch it neatly collapse! Wow! Why has nobody else thought of this! WTG me! :D
@NellJSmith BAHAHAHHAHA you think 911 was done in order for silverstein to rebuild it? You are truly clueless.
1) Larry Silverstein's lease on the WTC, in order to retain the right to rebuild, forced him to pay $120 million annually to maintain the lease.
2) The Insurance payout was $4.3 billion of which he ceded the rights to 1 World Trade (AKA the Freedom Tower BACK to the Port Authority along with a portion ofthe insurance to facilitate rebuilding)
@Oz1976 Er... I wasn't talking about Silverstein. At all. Sorry you wasted so much effort refuting a point I wasn't making! By "mega-corp" I was referring to ANY owner, and by "high-rise" I meant ANY large building. You with me so far...?
I know sarcasm can be hard to grasp, but I was attempting to use it in order to prove how nonsensical the "official story" is - i.e., if all it takes to vapourise huge buildings is an impact and some fire, why pay for expensive demolitions? However... (cont.)
@Oz1976 (Continued) As I was saying.. I've had an even better idea!
Never mind the annoyance of bashing a hole in the side of a building and setting it on fire with kerosene - I've had a brainwave! Even cheaper and simpler - it's the Building 7 method!
Take a steel building that needs demolishing, damage its exterior slightly, get a few fires burning, wait a few hours, and bingo! Hundreds of thousands of expensive controlled demolition dollars saved!
^^complete story, Silverstein Enterprises has had to fork out the insurance and then some and the Freedom Tower still is not completed, the new WTC 7 is only 85% occupied, and he's still paying 120 million a year in rent.
So please, before you want to talk about demoing to rebuild, please know the facts about the costs endured by the rebuilder.
911 was an outside job, plain and simple, get over it.
I was NOT referring to any "demolish to rebuild", nor to Silverstein's gains/losses from 9/11. His windfall (including handy avoidance of paying $1bn+, uninsured, to remove asbestos) COULD have been lucky coincidence (jury's out).
I was making a sarcastic comparison between how CHEAP and EASY it was, "officially", to get rid of WTC 1, 2 and 7 by FREE "gravity collapse" vs real-world CD costs.
So... please know WHAT you are refuting before you refute it!
911myths .com doesn't have the monopoly on "truth" and is FAR from an unbiased (or, in many cases, even accurate) website.
Unquestioningly believing what you read there puts you in the same boat as anyone who unquestioningly repeats DRG's arguments.
When I saw the Towers fall, live on the BBC, it was OBVIOUS to me that it was deliberately done. I'm still unsure as to how. But I base my opinions on MY OWN judgement and resarch, not on what I read on a biased website.
@NellJSmith It's sourced and documented...unlike "truther" bullshit.
debunking911 . com
ae911truth . info
911myths . com
sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies
forums.randi . org
Intentionally brought down? YEs buy terrorists crashing planes into them. NO building EVER has been "demo'd" from the top down. AND they claim CD that the core was lined with explosives...
/watch?v=ESaIEVxLnK4 <- from :40 to :49 you can see core columns still up 55 stories worth. Not possible if it was CD.
Seeing as I haven't yet even stated my ideas, I wonder why you keep posting statements refuting what seem to be randomly chosen "Truther" theories, as if you believe I espouse any one or another in particular? e.g. did I ever say the cores WERE lined with explosives...?
No single theory (but especially not the IMPOSSIBLE "official" pancake/pile-driver fairy tale) seems to adequately explain ALL the bizarre phenomena of 9/11.
For now, whilst still searching, I keep my own counsel.
@NellJSmith Oh the great Operation Northwoods. Yes...during the Kennedy Administration that was thrown out by JFK. He did NOT approve it. Next, it did not call for a single solitary US or Cuban CIVILIAN to be killed. Not one. Try again. Alot of things have been "discuessed", not alot of them have ever come to fruition.
If our government/military is so "devious"...why the hell didn't we plant WMDs in Iraq so as to not look like idiots when none were found?
@Oz1976 Read more closely. I said Op. Northwoods was approved UP TO Presidential level, not AT that level. JFK opposed it. Would Bush have done so...?
No civilian deaths called for? You believe in websites, so here, from Wikipedia:
"Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets [and] for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas."
@NellJSmith Wikipedia is not an accurate source, you should do YOUR research and actually read the declassified documents. And you should also learn to comprehend ENGLISH (being a brit I'm amazed you can't)....I said it did not call for a single solitary US or Cuban CIVILIAN...didn't say shit about "innocent lives". YOU need to do the research. AND REREAD. Don't post shit from wikipedia, I can go to that page and edit it myself right now...
@Oz1976 Speaking as one of the nations which actually SOLD Saddam WMDs over a long period of time (I'm British), he either shipped his WMDs elsewhere hastily when he had to (probably Syria... don't be surprised if Syria becomes the next American target) and/or destroyed them hurriedly when it became obvious they would be found). "Planting" WMDs isn't as easy as hiding chocolate eggs from the Easter Bunny for kids to find. There's a reverse trail to follow. And who truly cared they weren't found?
@Oz1976 Gosh. That gives me lots to argue against. Again I ask you: what happened to Newton's 2nd and 3rd Laws (Conservation of Momentum and Equal and Opposite Reaction) on 9/11? At least I'm giving you laws of physics arguments to debate - in contrast to your (typical and not surprising) ad hominem attack against me, not my arguments.
@NellJSmith You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Neither of those laws were broken. Pray tell how you THINK they were, and I will destroy you.
@NellJSmith ad hominem is all your idiocy deserves, if you can't see for yourself how stupid your ideas and claims are, then you deserve to be treated as such.
@Oz1976 Final PS: "You just don't get it, obviously you're incapable of discerning thought. "
That's exactly what the University of Oxford thought when they awarded me my place there. Were you on the admissions board?!
This is my final comment : I have had enough of being insulted simply because I pointed out, originally, that you were using an invalid ad hominem argument. Find yourself another target, because this one has better things to do than listen to you refuting ideas I haven't proposed.
@NellJSmith run away...typical "Truther". You have no evidence. Science has beaten you soundly. Admissions board? Really? Cause I should just believe you right? Some physics laws you fail to include:
Law of Conservation of Momentum / Law of Transfer of Momentum
Law of Conservation of Energy
Again. You're either a liar, blind, or deluded. Take your pick, I don't care. You keep saying you aren't going to be drawn in and yet you continue to respond. Just stfu and go away, or is that a lie 2?
@Oz1976 And, more to the point, ignoring your attempts to distract attention from the HUGE problem anti-Truthers have regarding the apparent holiday which the laws of physics took on 9/11, would you care to provide one, even ONE, reputable scientist who can explain what NIST itself admits, i.e. that Building 7 went into free-fall during the first 100 feet of its collapse? Meaning that NOTHING resisted the collapsing floors? And that both Twin Towers equally contravene Newton's 2nd and 3rd Laws?
@NellJSmith Sorry, you're wrong again. There was no "holiday" of the laws of physics. "Truthers" just tend to ignore certain laws that don't fit their agenda.
Newton's 2nd Law: F = MA was not on holiday
Newton's 3rd Law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. To say this was on "holiday" shows your utter ineptitude at observation. I'm guessing you failed rudimentary physics in high school (or whtever it's called in Britain)
@Oz1976 Newton's 2nd Law requires that there be a jolt, even momentary, when a falling body strikes a body below. Evidenced by NONE of the video footage from 9/11. That's the "conservation" bit.
Newton's 3rd Law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore: Tower 1 should have been able to destroy a maximum of 10 storeys below itself before being destroyed (a bit less, since the upper storeys were weaker). Tower 2 fell sideways, so should have failed entirely.
@NellJSmith Really? No evidence? Do you not understand how the WTC was constructed? You want to go and say physics took a holiday and you don't even take into account the structure. Hint... tube in tube design. Secondly, We sure as hell did see exactly this "jolt" you speak of, evidenced of the freaking crash points as the buildings collapsed. Not to mention, evidenced by the remains, IE the "meteors" that were 8 to 10 floors COMPRESSED TOGETHER. You're completely discounting structure design.
@Oz1976 "Tube in tube" is a myth. It implies weak, non-cross-supported columns.
The core, since they avoided reinforced concrete (as is normal), featured MASSIVE beams, possibly the strongest ever made, spandrel-reinforced and cross-welded into a hugely strong structure. NOT a hollow tube.
The outer columns were placed extremely close together to create a 2000% over-engineered load-bearing capacity. NIST said max. 25% over-capacity occurred. Er...?
@NellJSmith I never said meteors were formed by massive heat did I? Again, you can't comprehend simple english. I said COMPRESSED. Seriously, you need re-educate yourself. Your comprehension and vocabulary are terrible.
Tube in tube is not a myth. The core columns WERE NOT as massive as you say. The largest was 52" by 12" and hollow. Congratulations on continuing to speak about things you don't understand. If Tube in Tube was a myth why is Leslie Robertson abandoning the designin china?
@Oz1976 ... And yes, I have studied the WTC blueprints in detail. Not least because it WAS a non-standard design, relying as it did upon vastly strong steel instead of reinforced concrete for its gravitational load strength.
In that ridiculously small pile of rubble for each Tower, where WERE those hundreds of thousands of tons of steel? Where did it go? What kind of heat or force "disappeared" those columns? Certainly the lower columns, FOUR INCHES thick on all sides, should have been standing.
@NellJSmith You have not studied anything. And if you have you've completely forgotten everything you claim to have studied. Not one column wasn't accounted for. Not one. You're being ridiculous with hyperbole. Go look up rescue workers reports of the massive rubil pile. Or better yet, look at this and try to fathom the scale...this is the debris field.
You think 125,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers would sign off on collapse mechanic models that ignored the laws of physics? You think they deliberately made new model software that did that as well? You have no clue what you're talking about and are obviously regurgitating "The Physics of 9/11" bullshit videos. They're wrong and were debunked 7 years ago. NEXT?
@Oz1976 You seem to be getting awfully upset about something which, if it were as straightforward and unquestionably, self-evidently true as you seem to think it is, should HAVE no loopholes, no anomalies, no pecularities - indeed, nothing to distinguish it from any other collapse(s) of any other large buildings(s)... and, indeed, no army of "anti-Truth" warriors such as yourself to defend it against those of us to whom it is obvious that not just a few, but DOZENS of anomalies exist. (Cont...)
@Oz1976 (Cont..) And as far as the behaviour of the ACSE's membership goes, try this: From Wikipedia: "Galileo's championing of Copernicanism [heliocentricity] was controversial within his lifetime, when a large majority of philosophers and astronomers still subscribed to the geocentric view, [and] in 1632 he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest." But who was right? Galileo or his (educated) peers?
@NellJSmith Are you really trying to equate something that occured in the 21st century to that of the 17th? 400 years ago? You really have lost your damn mind. Just stop. You're wrong. Plain and simple. The laws of physics were not broken. There was no controlled demolition. All of the steel was recovered. There was no therm*te. You're just plain wrong. You have no evidence to back anything up. You ignore what's right in your face from accreditted scientists. You're WRONG.
@NellJSmith As for building 7...My homie's would like to discuss that with you....
youtube.com/watch?v=jS2xj1M_N9k&feature=feedu
youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U
I hear having a load bearing core column fail, pluss massive structural damage from a 110 story building falling onto you, plus unfought fires, plus having a huge electrical penthouse fall through the entire building might cause the rest to collapse. Stop being retarded. Not one explosion. Not one.
@Oz1976 Maybe you and your "homies" never sleep nor spend any time away from your PCs, but I'm off to bed. Another day awaits to answer your arguments (not your personal insults, sorry - life's too short).
But as a parting clarification:
Yes, a (very) few EXTERIOR columns were left standing or fallen sideways.
But as I keep saying, where were the immense INTERIOR ones? Which one of us fails to comprehend English?
I haven't said CD, but yes - where DID those 50+ storeys of CORE columns go?
@NellJSmith They collapsed straight down into the pile. I already said ALL THE STEEL WAS RECOVERED. That's a fact you fail to see. Go look at the pictures of IRON WORKERS CUTTING THE STANDING CORE COLUMNS so they could be removed. DUH! You're so wrong it's pathetic. No steel was missing. None. And it's only 8pm here. Those core columns got carted off to a hanger to be investigated. All columns were accounted for...good game.
@Oz1976 No matter that it's 1am+ here, I HAVE to comment on your Banker's Trust pic.
I can refute all you say, just not today. But I won't be relying on either YouTube videos or websites to do it - those are so easily faked and manipulated that a child would be a fool to trust them, on either side of the argument.
All I can say is this: your .jpg shows a rubble pile even lower than 3 storeys and NO core columns. Are you mad?
No. You're in the land of "None so blind as WILL NOT see".
@NellJSmith Right. Any evidence that refutes you is automatically faked or manipulated. Give me a fucking break. No one is faking that image. The ONLY people who have indeed been caught manipulating images are the 911 Truth Movement. GG you're wrong .
1. One or two sets of standing outer columns do not a rubble pile make. If anything, the few standing 3-4 storey (mainly lobby) columns, next to the fallen ones, show how LOW the piles are.
2. The photos showing an apparently deeper pile are including the collapsed sub-street-level basement floors (6 storeys). Even then, the piles should equal the height of nearby 6-8 storey buildings, but don't.
@Oz1976 And if your "homies" would care to talk to anyone, maybe they'd like to talk to the acknowledged leading European expert on controlled demolition, who found NOTHING in the footage of Building 7's collapse to suggest it was NOT a CD except for the fact that the team must have "worked fast". Everything else he found typical of CD, to the last detail. He knows a bit more than you, I, OR your homies, probably. Then again, who were the tenants of Building 7? Not your standard crew, for sure.
@NellJSmith You really wanna bring up Danny Jowenko and what he said about WTC 7 while being shown LOOSE CHANGE #1 by the interviewer" Loose Change #1 that was a "mockumentary" (Dylan Avery's own words - until he saw the money it could bring in). And you REALLY sure you want to bring Mr. Jowenko into this when he DOES NOT believe WTC 1 and 2 were demo'd? Your star witness, rebut's your 1 and 2 theory there doll.
@Oz1976 You evidently have plenty of leisure time to engage in Internet ranting, which (as I have said) I lack.
I have said I have no need or wish to "defend" my ideas (of which you are still in ignorance).
You have hurled abuse at me and (why?) "refuted" any number of "Truther" theories, none of which I have proposed.
I have also said I will not be drawn into what you have called a "running dialogue" like yours with "godzilla1077". And nor will I. But I have a few parting points to make.(Cont.)
@Oz1976 (Cont.) 1. Jowenko stated that WTC 1 and 2 were not standard CDs. I heartily agree. But WTC7 was. CD takes months to prepare. Not 7 hours in a bulding with fires in it. And for the "collapse" cover story of WTC7 to be credible, it REQUIRED that WTC7 had ALREADY BEEN DAMAGED by rubble from the COLLAPSING WTC1 and/or 2. Even a child can work out the logic. I do not know how WTC1 and 2 were brought down, but obviously WTC7's demolishers were sure they would be. Are planes certain enough...?
@NellJSmith no jowenko flat out said in his most recent interview 1 and 2 WERE NOT demolitions. WTC 7 was severely damaged by WTC 1's collapse. Seriously, as someone who claims to be on the admission board of Oxford University, you are either blind, deluded, or flat out lying.
@Oz1976 Sorry, but in case someone who knows me reads this, this DOES require clarification: re-read my comment. I won an UNDERGRADUATE PLACE at Oxford. I was not saying I was on the admissions board, but rather was making a sarcastic remark about how stupid you seem to think I am when they, amongst the best minds in the world, rather disagreed. You're not great with sarcasm, are you? It's necessary to clarify, since I use my real name online and others may read this. SO! *Now* I can bow out! :)
@NellJSmith You can run and hide...it shows how soundly beaten you are.
Everything you hold true is wrong and has been proven such. You're a whack job conspiracy theorist, nothing more. The fact you spin OBL's death last night as fake proves it. The fact you failed at physics proves it. The fact you think Stubblebine, who believes he can astrally project to some far off planet (as he stated on Alex Jones), is credible...proves it.
Bye liar don't let that truth smack you in the face any harder
I've studied debating all my life and, as you've noticed, it takes more than expletives, ranting, abuse, personal attacks and even accusations of cowardice to cause me to lose my temper. You're a name on a screen, no less, no more, and I'm sorry (really) to have upset you so badly. You have my sympathies.
I hear it helps to get rid of pent-up aggression if you punch a rolled-up pillow? Never needed to try.
@NellJSmith I abuse those that deserve to be abused. People who fabricate truth's to suit agenda's such as yourself and the "truth" movement. People who claim knowledge of simple physics when they clearly are totally inept. People who continue to lie saying "i'm done with you" yet can't resist the urge to try and get the last word in. You have failed. You are nothing more than a liar. You will NOT get the last word in. Upset me? You're not exactly being a saint are ya there ya bitchass liar.
@Oz1976 (Cont.) 2. Say what you will about the rubble pile for WTC1 and 2, and list as many websites as you wish. No photograph has yet shown me what it should do: a rubble pile amounting to c.12% of the height of the original building, i.e. c.13 storeys. Or anything near it. From any angle, it looks more like ~3 storeys. The rest MAY be in the basement, but if so - what cleared the way for it? Note the word "may" before you accuse me of proposing something I am merely curious about. (Cont.)
@NellJSmith then you didn't take the time to look at any of those links, they're ALL photographs showing exactly that. You're a liar, plain and simple.
@Oz1976 (Cont.) 3. Quote: "Are you [] trying to equate something that occured in the 21st century to that of the 17th?" - Yes. Why not? Why should innovation be the preserve of the ancients? Was Einstein's work NOT revolutionary because it occurred in the 20th Century? He had many opponents too.
4. Speaking of physicists: Newton's 3rd Law states that the "pile-driver" would have BEEN destroyed while destroying a similar mass to itself, i.e. c.10 and c.20 storeys each. So what destroyed the rest?
@Oz1976 (Cont.) - Final. The core columns. Obviously I need to explain to you what I mean, since you have consistently misunderstood, either by accident or deliberately, what I mean.
The core column structure, (yes, hollow, but still massively strong) being cross-welded columns, embedded in bedrock, and incapable of being "pulverised", should have remained after the collapse to a significant height - dozens of storeys. Not the two or three storeys we saw the steelworkers cutting up. {Bows out.}
@NellJSmith I've posted several pictures of that day...you're wrong. Plain and simple. You are wrong with what you think remained standing. You are wrong in the total kinetic energy the buildings had (over 100 tons of tnt worth of kinetic energy, look it up...for comparison sake...several atomic bombs worth).
The fact is you're wrong. There was no controlled demolition. There was no inside job. And now Osama Bin Laden sleeps with the fishes. It's over for the "truth" movement.
@NellJSmith See, you're a liar, you respond yet agian. Point, set...and match. You've been completely obliterated now run and hide. The fact you think he hasn't been shows your utter detachment from reality. I guess you're going to claim he's been in some cryo-genic freeze for 9 years too huh? Typical truther spin.
FACT: 19 hijackers under the direction of Osama Bin Laden took control of 4 planes and used them as missiles on 911
@Oz1976 Quote: "You've been completely obliterated now run and hide."
... Aw. Sob. So I can leave now? Thank Heavens! Being rudely insulted and spammed with URLs (which I'd seen anyway) has, I must say, fallen short of a thrilling debate. Oh, and it's "GAME, set and match" :)
PS: I wonder whether the several (so-say dead) 9/11 hijackers whom the BBC has located, alive and well, are going to sue the U.S. Govt for defamation of character...?
@Oz1976 One more point regarding Building 7... WHY did a load-bearing column fail?
Why was the building design so poor initially that ONE failed column could bring down the building? This was the Mayor's Emergency HQ Building!!
How did they get the office contents next to this famous load-bearing column to burn for SEVEN HOURS?! That's more than SIX HOURS longer than normal office materials?
@spectre0075 That Bush would "take over the world," and your sarcastic take that the US military is "sooooo powerful" are *your* extrapolations of Griffin's speech (which are incorrect, mind you, as he neither states, nor implies either within the framework you suggest). I merely responded to what you posted. So, how is that "back tracking?" Typical right-wing projection: they impute to their long list of 'enemies' that which they do, are guilty of, harbor unconsciously, & more fully represent.
@spectre0075 The world already does live with a militant American empire: 702 military bases in 130 countries. The PNAC, hegemony, advancing the domestic police $tate infrastructure, abridging civil liberties, and of course, war profiteering of the military-industrial complex, along with similarly vested interests, are what drives such actions...not for Bush, the person, to be a "dictator," or to make "America" rule the world. It's always about corporations' religion: Profit$ Over People.
I really can appreciate a fear of the unknown. What I cannot appreciate is the burying of the head in the sand on things not before known....when faced with the fact that any and every possibility exists. Shit happens, lies are told...people die and oftentimes in many unjustifiable ways. I never doubt what can be...I would be an ass to do so. Open mindedness comes with maturity and wisdom comes with open mindedness. Never forget the "For they know not what they do" message
I can appreciate a fear of the unknown, as a human being with feelings. What I cannot appreciate is the burying of the head in the sand....where faced with the fact that any and every possibility exists. Shit happens, lies are told...people die and oftentimes for someone's gain......in many nonsensical ways. I never doubt what can be...I would be an ass to do so. Open mindedness comes with maturity and wisdom comes with open mindedness. Never forget the "For they know not what they do" message
Arabs r dumb and stupid people. But on 911 they are hyper intelligent. Context of situation controls story. Objective controls direction.
You have communism, democracy and other systems that benefit the elite. And then you have sharia that benefits everyone. And its not sharia that you were fed by media.
Who the hell would listen to anything a "theologian" has to say? He specializes in fantasy. He's a lying dumbass spreading his superstition around and destroying the truth with his pessimistic disinfo crapola.
@jdh501 Clearly you've already made up your mind and not addressed any of the actual claims or why these claims or correct or incorrect or what, if correct, they might imply or not imply. Sounds like you're the idiot.
@musicalidea This Griffin clown is not moral and he is not a Christian. Didn't Christ teach that lying and slandering innocent people is a sin? He is ignoring the FACT that radical shit4brains Islamic terrorists MURDERED 3000 people on 9/11 and he's blaming other people (the US govt) who had nothing to do with the attack. Could it be that he's reluctant to accept the fact that fellow religious fanatics did it and he would prefer to blame secular types? I hate religious freaks of ALL types.
@jdh501 You're an unthinking dogmatist who simply accepts the official byline without the interest or cognitive capacity to assess information that might contradict the standard gag. You simply state a FOREGONE conclusion as "fact" without examining any of the evidence for his claims. You simply assume "the US govt had nothing to do with the attack" and that SIMPLY BY POINTING OUT CONTRADICTIONS IN OFFICIAL GOVT REPORTING regarding 911 he is "slandering innocent people". You are a bought tool.
@musicalidea bla blabla blabab babababababbity-blabababb!!
This so-called "theologian" is a radical theorist with an agenda, just like the other clowns who have jumped aboard the 9/11 slander wagon, like Stephen Jones, Rosie O'Donnell, Richard Gage, Willie Nelson, Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen, etc etc
I don't have to dive headfirst into a steaming vat of bullshit to recognize it for what it is. Look, leave a comment on my channel & we'll discuss it there if you want. Freedom of speech. Gotta go.
what I dont get is "they" tell us they are trying to kill us then they come over and kill some of us then when they get back they lean back and call us up on the phone and tell us that was them that killed some of us but if you say anything bad about them ......? DO FUCKING WHAT ???....
On 9/11 1991 President George H. W. Bush made his famous New World Order speech before a joint session of congress. On 9/10, 2001 Sec. of Defense Don Rumsfeld spoke before a joint session of Congress exposing the fact that 2.7 billion dollars in defense expenditures could not be accounted for. The section of the Pentagon hit was the accounting dept. The backup records were at WTC bldg.7. This was a CIA-Military black opps. job.
INSIDE JOB! if these so called 'muslims' had such success on 9-11,destroying buildings at several locations all at the same time.....why did they stop? why was it just a one-off? why haven't these 'muslims' carried on,on the back of this success.....all around the world-repeating their 9-11s,ahead of security changes? .....
I'm a rapper putting these words into my music. Please check out my page and help me push this out. My latest is Controversial Rap By Elysian Truth. Please subscribe. 9/11 is an inside job and I know WHY they did it. It involves the End Times. I'm a Christian. Please help stop.
By the way, which was the only country who openly declared that there were no mass destruction weapons in 2003? Which people became unwanted in the US at that time?
It all depends on which "truth" you want to believe. Look at the gov't today and see if it doesn't control us more, & serve us less. Oh, by the way, where is the plane that crashed in Penn.? No parts in the hole, no nothing. They shot it down and won't tell us the truth along with other facts they won't tell us the truth on as well. Read the findings of nanothermite in the dust collected around the site in 4 locations. It's very telling.
This corresponds with my theory that attacking in the morning left the least casualties. If they had hit at lunch they would have killed many more. Terrorist mistake or by design.???
Poor America is in a bad situation. Its being run by lunatics. Everyone who knew of the attacks before hand must be found. Get the top people, Cheney, Rumsfield, Bush, and they will give you everyone else in exchange for a deal. Then weed out everyone of the crazy bastards who knew this crime would happen.
@Patrick5009 that's great! but america needs "cohones". the majority of the people already speak with fear in public. there will be an american holocaust if things continued the way they are. Why there was a civil war in america? to fix something that wasn't right... maybe is time for another, against the lunatics that are making this GREAT NATION sick. GOD BLESS AMERICA AND LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION. I wonder what hell JFK was talking about in "the speech"?,, "HR3162=CONSTITUTION KILLER",,
@Patrick5009 You falsely assume that we live in some kind of Democracy: we don't. The plutocracy & their mercenary army rule & public opinion is irrelevant. Who actually supported massive tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans? The sheep r already led abt easily enough w TV, triviality & consumerism & will believe anything that doesn't challenge their lifestyle. The elite allow certain critics like Griffin to talk out loud so as to maintain the illusion of transparency & representation.
This corresponds with my theory that attacking in the morning left the least casualties. If they had hit at lunch they would have killed many more. Terrorist mistake or by design.???
This is real right? Some people just invaded my land and is killing my neighbors and we have proof govt is committing crimes and lying about it to cover things up?
it seems most people dont realise just how many people continuous US administrations have killed. its up there in the tens of millions- supporting genocides and wars in Indonesia, Iraq, Chile, Honduras, Panama, Afghanistan, Palestine etc etc etc
The naïve individuals who make these videos are blood sucking vampires. The nature and philosophy of their argument is utterly devoid of fact, and wrought with conjecture and slander. Not one attempt is made to justify or fully explain even one theory. Instead, like a child commenting on an adult discussion, they just superficially jump from topic to topic, vandalizing logic and truth with non-contextual clips as they go. Holocaust deniers under a different name.
@ostormer WHAT IS 911 WAS TO DO WITH THE HOLOCAUST...ARE YOU ANTI-SEMITE? WHY DON'T WHO RESPECT THE HOLOCAUST VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES? hOW DARE YOU BRING OUR SUFFERING IN VAIN? THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HITLER DID IN GERMANY TO GO AFTER THE JEWS. ANTI-SEMITE.
Dr. Griffin is simply too intelligent for the "debunkers". They are afraid of 911 Truth, thus they constantly resort to straw man arguments which distort the events of that day and the claims made by Truthers.
Also, if the "terrorists" wanted to kill Americans it would've been more conveniant to attack the Towers later during the day, when everyone was in. That would have killed a mere 45,000. The ones who died in the towers were "just" people who could be replaced.
Don't shoot the messenger, I read that in a book about the attack.
The people laughing and heckling in the audience are complete morons.
turdlinger5000 2 weeks ago
TOP 5 MOST FAMOUS 911 DEBUGGERS.
Snoopysuited-ctcole77-Bestiverhad-jazzfan5000-12weasel100
Liars spreading lies to silence the movement, Best proof they have is "YOU'RE A RETARD IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS, I AM EDUCATED SO I DON'T"
Perfect debuggers who do as they are told & cry about it when you don't.
Snowman374th 1 month ago
ctcole77, NothingatAllXD & koertje should all be friends with each other so that they could be closed-minded, ignorant & oblivious sheeple with each other.
ocf1fan1 2 months ago
They didn't mention that many young people also enlist because there are limited job opportunities.So a draft isn't the only way to force enough people into the military.
dirtandmud2000 3 months ago
@dirtandmud2000 AGREED. THEY ALSO DIDN'T MENTION SOME PEOPLE WILLINGLY ENLIST BECAUSE AFTER PLAYING LOTS OF VIDEO GAMES GROWING UP, OVER TIME, THEY BECAME A HUGE FAN OF WAR, GUNS, AND THE THOUGHT OF MURDERING PEOPLE. SAD, BUT TRUE. NOT EVERYONE THAT ENLISTS IS "LURED" INTO DOING SO. MOST DO IT WILLINGLY, AND SEE IT AS SOME SORT OF THRILL,WITH POTENTIAL TO BE LOOKED AT AS A "HERO" THAT "FOUGHT FOR THEIR COUNTRY".
Cap420 3 weeks ago
So nice to be in the conspiracy religion.
Join the club and pray 5 x a day to the holy chemtrail .
koertje 3 months ago
@koertje Not sure what the "religion" aspect is to which you refer. I'd argue that belief -- an unquestioning faith -- in an official mythology is a telltale signifier of religiosity.
On the contrary, questioning that mythology is kinda the opposite, no?
ministerofleisure 3 months ago 2
@ministerofleisure if people only value ideas of their own group and block opposite opinions, like the conpiracy folks,
then it looks like religion, isn't it?
koertje 3 months ago
@koertje While I get your point, it looks more like censorship, which, I suppose, is an element of fundamentalism.
Not sure what you're referring to, though. Who is blocking the opinion of whom?
All I see in corporate media is "9/11 truthers are nutballs." Just like we've seen 50 years of "JFK conspiracy theorists are nutballs."
What's your perspective?
ministerofleisure 3 months ago 3
@koertje Mate, all those mountains of narcotics you've consumed over the years have taken a toll on your intellect and reasoning powers. You sound like someone who had lived on Mars or Pluto for the last 11 years. You haven't noticed with your drugged up brain that it is the 9/11 Truth movement that had ALWAYS been "blocked" and "censored" in ALL of the media?
Keep your drugged-up gu-gu-gu-gullible face shut or you'll be put in the same category along with all of the American dumbasses.
valereydyachuk 16 hours ago
@valereydyachuk I aint american. Are you?
koertje 16 hours ago
@koertje No mate, I am not an American, I only live in this country, amongst countless gu-gu-gu-gullible American dumbasses. I was born in Eastern Europe and grew up in the Soviet Union. Living in the USSR, I can tell you that it makes an individual a bit more critical of the "trusty" government.
You westerners have become "soft" pussies.
valereydyachuk 16 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
megamogx 4 months ago
Church ells in the background? eerie
sgentlemanjack112 4 months ago
If you don't believe government when they say that an airplane hit the Pentagon, why do you believe when it says that airplanes hit WTC? Isn't it more likely that no airplanes were used in the attacks given that there is no evidence of a plane wreckage in any of the supposed crash sites?
SilentKek 4 months ago
@SilentKek well i believe the planes hit the wtc's because there are too many vids where it actually shows a plane...and theres too many witnesses seeing a plane....i would say there is a very small chance that they were not planes but IMO i think those kinds of facts are irrelevant because when you start debating the wether or not it was a plane or a missle you steer yourself away from debate of did our government do it...or did they not...
ihaveaverybadcold 4 months ago
@ihaveaverybadcold i agree that there are a lot of videos showing fake planes and a lot of fake witnesses. imo the chance of a plane hitting anything that day is 0%. I think the question of what actually happened is relevant because it is producing a long term effect on the health of new yorkers and especially the first responders. Radiation poisoning from nuclear explosions is a slow killer. As for who's responsible I think the whole thing is a lot bigger than just the US government.
SilentKek 4 months ago
@SilentKek yup i would agree that its probably bigger than our government as well
ihaveaverybadcold 4 months ago
And the truth shall set you free. To those who still lie for the government, you shall be judged by your works. It matters not where the truth comes from. It remains the truth for there is only one truth. The truth is more important than god.
Daddyo930 6 months ago 2
Comment removed
cappucinokid100 7 months ago 3
TOP 5 MOST FAMOUS 911 TWOOFERS
Jared Lee Loughner - Murdered 6 people in Tucson
James von Brunn - Murdered a security guard at the Holocaust Museum
Luke Rudkowski – Stole 20,000 dollars from WeAreChange to pay his college tuition
Richard Gage - 75,000 dollar salary + expenses from A&EFor911LIES
David Ray Griffin – 50 dollars per ticket, 500 per conference, 20 conferences = 500,000 dollars per year
911 TRUTH = 911 LIES
ctcole77 3 months ago
@ctcole77 Actually the Jersey Girls, the highest profile 9/11 widows in the US, are the most famous 9/11 truthers at the moment - they all signed an open letter of support to Richard Gage a month ago. Maybe you can go can call them 'twoofers' to their face, shithead, and see what response you get.
anthonyjthorne 3 months ago 3
@anthonyjthorne Found the article, totally agree with you. Twoofers is just another word of their child-like vocabulary. It really makes them sound rediculous and as if they are carrying diapers and wet-wipes.
NothingAtAllXD 2 months ago
CSPAN does not air anything of this nature anymore.
roscogre 8 months ago in playlist AE911 Truth 5
@spectre0075 1. Your English is badly constructed, but you seem to think I'm American? I'm British. We have our own version of "freedom", Magna Carta, that predates yours by some 700+ years (and, thanks to your super new Patriot Act(s), gives us far more freedom than your Constitution now gives you).
2. OBL has been dead for years. But hey - you needed SOMETHING to show for your multi-billion "War on Terror", eh?.
3. To reply so fast, you're either REALLY bored or you're "Oz1976" in disguise.
NellJSmith 9 months ago 3
@spectre0075 Well, now you sound like a rude, dismissive and uneducated redneck who can't string together a coherent sentence in basic English. Just another standard, out-of-the-mould anti-Truther who resorts to invalid argument techniques, aggression, insults and deliberate(?) miscomprehension of his opponent's points in order to repeat his own (inaccurate) views (well, the US Govt's).
If THIS is an improvement on "how stupid" you sounded before, you must REALLY have made no sense back then!!
NellJSmith 9 months ago 3
PS : I'm not supporting any theory as such.
I'm searching for answers and, until I have them, I have no theory.
That said, it's evident that the "official line" is wrong on many levels. The fact that NIST used a computer model, not the actual WTC rubble/steel (which was, almost entirely, hastily destroyed), in its analysis, and then refused to release its input data for peer review, is highly suspect - not to mention their ALTERING their data when a real heat test showed the trusses DIDN'T fail!
NellJSmith 9 months ago 2
(Oz... look the other way for a moment!)
DRG's shortcomings notwithstanding, can anyone explain what NIST itself now admits, i.e. that WTC7 went into free-fall during the first 100 feet of its collapse? Meaning that NOTHING resisted those falling floors? Or even, far easier, explain how office materials were made to burn for SEVEN HOURS, to "weaken" the famous "critical column"...? Or how WTC1's c.10-storey "pile-driver" survived destroying 100 storeys below it, contrary to Newton's 3rd Law...?
NellJSmith 9 months ago
"CIA has ALWAYS worked outside of the military."
LMAO - This just in: President Barack Obama plans to name CIA Director Leon Panetta as the next secretary of defense and move Gen. David Petraeus, now running the war in Afghanistan, into the CIA chief's job. Hmm...
LongLiveOx 9 months ago
2.3 trillion is correct sir...now Rummy says in his new autobio that it was a clerical error....no missing funds.
bartlettohio 10 months ago
@bartlettohio Which is exactly what he said at the time and in all the previous times he spoke about it.
cwlldoran 9 months ago
David Ray Griffin believes you're a buffoon, Oz, because nope, he doesn't.
DRG now officially owns you.
ministerofleisure 10 months ago
@ministerofleisure David Ray Griffin is an idiot who was stumped several times by the ERTC when they conducted physical testing challenging the inside job theories. When he was asked a question by the ERTC he fumbled desperately trying to find a thing to say....
"well, uh, heh heh, that's awkward. I don't know... The testing...uh, um....irrelevent, it's irrelevent."
Debunking the Debunkers indeed.
godzilla1077 9 months ago
@ministerofleisure DRG owns nothing but a bunch of false assumptions and continues to hide from debate.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 The one time he was in the National Geographic special 9/11: Science and Conspiracy. When he asked a question, the EMRTC analyst answered promptly and asked DRG a simple question. What did DRG say? "Oh, um, heh heh, this is awkward, ..um... irrelevant, it's irrelevant." Richard Gage and Dylan Avery were there and they couldn't back him up.
godzilla1077 9 months ago
@godzilla1077 Irrelevant ad hominem arguments such as yours, aimed at one of the MOST eccentric of the Truth movement membership, prove nothing. Perhaps you also think THIS individual wears a tin-foil hat and has no idea what he is talking about?
watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E
... After all, what would HE know? He was only Head of All Intelligence for the USA during his career. An obvious silly "twoofer" if ever there was one! David Ray Griffin doesn't have the monopoly on believing in the Truth, you know.
NellJSmith 9 months ago
David Ray Griffin believes Jesus visited the Amercas AFTER his "resurrection"....nuff said.
Oz1976 10 months ago
@Oz1976 Actually, that was Steven Jones. The difference is that David Ray Griffin believes in Steven Jones.
godzilla1077 9 months ago
@godzilla1077 correct, I mixed up my "twoofers". Difference is I can admit when I'm wrong. Neither of them can. And in fact David Ray Griffin refuses to confront his detractors. At least Steven Jones has the balls to go out on TOURS to sell his nano-thermite dvd pack! Lotsa twoof there.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 If you're looking for "lotsa twoof" (I wonder why anti-Truthers seem to feel the need to resort to playground insults? Anyway...), have a look here, as I also suggested "godzilla1077" might like to try:
watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E
... Maybe you'd like to mix THAT "twoofer" in with the others? Or doesn't he quite fit your stereotype and serve the purposes of YOUR ad hominem argument? If you're going to argue, at least argue facts, not personalities. DRG's shortcomings aren't shared by all of us.
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith "lotsa twoof there" counts as ad-hominem now? ROFL...Godzilla and I have a running dialogue through pm.
As for your video. That guy is senile, he states "they all belong to me"...sorry, no Major General has ever been in charge of "all intelligence", only military. CIA has ALWAYS worked outside of the military. Stubblebine was not at the pentagon that day...he is not a structural engineer and is making the same argument that Loose Change made. He is misinformed. Wings sheered
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 - "CIA has ALWAYS worked outside of the military."
LOL, that's a good one; thanks for the laugh.
LongLiveOx 9 months ago
@LongLiveOx cool...but you're a Jones-Truther, so I would expect the simplest comments to make you laugh, doesn't take much does it? I mean shit, you fall for his schtick...so...
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 Briefly: Stubblebine referred to "all ARMY intelligence", not CIA (I know which I'd trust most). I never "defend" my opinions (it was obvious to me when I first saw the Twin Towers fall, live on the BBC, that they were demolished - the only question is how), but your argument IS ad hominem, i.e. you criticise the man (DRG), not his views. By the rules of logic, ad hominem (no hyphen) arguments are always invalid, as they criticise the proponent (irrelevant), not his/her views (relevant).
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@Oz1976 And as a P.S. (I really don't have time for "running dialogues", whether in open messages or PMs), your reply to me contained ANOTHER ad hominem argument, i.e. that Stubblebine is "senile" (based on no evidence in the video - he did not claim any knowledge of the CIA, nor did he say he was at the Pentagon, nor that he was a structural engineer, and he seemed perfectly lucid). Again, an attack on the MAN, not his VIEWS. I have time for sensible debate, but not for juvenile name-calling.
NellJSmith 9 months ago
(@Oz1976 (P.S. cont.) I had no space to point out that your statements regarding Stubblebine (not in charge of CIA, not at Pentagon, not structural engineer) are a fine example of yet ANOTHER logical fallacy (i.e. invalid argument technique), commonly known as the "straw man" argument technique. Namely, you create arguments which the proponent (Stubblebine) does NOT make, then refute those arguments (creating and then attacking a false "straw man"). To argue anything, one must know HOW to argue.
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith dude, did you even listen to his spiel? he was regurgitating Loose Change near word for word! It's not a strawman, I'm not misrepresenting his position at all. I'm flat out calling him senile (which is Ad-hominem if anything).
Fact: he's not in the CIA
Fact: he was not at the Pentagon
It's not a "fallacy". He was not there, he could not know, and those that were there say otherwise. GTFO
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 *Sigh*
1. The "senile" remark = ad hominem. As I said before.
2. Stating that Stubblebine is not in the CIA, at the Pentagon, or a structural engineer demonstrates the "straw man" technique - HE didn't say those things, YOU did - you built the straw man, then attacked it - you created and then refuted your OWN points.
3. Supporting "Loose Change" is not, a priori, wrong. You need to argue WHY you think it's wrong.
Oh and...
4. I'm not a "dude". "Nell" is short for Eleanor. Just FYI :)
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith I admitted it was ad hominem...do you comprehend anything? Or did you do too many drugs in the 80's and 90's?
nizkor . org/features/fallacies/straw-man .html
I am not distorting his position. If anything HE is the one arguing "straw man".
Face it, you don't know shit about this. I'll end it with more ad-hominem cause that's all you're worth.
Stupid fucking "Truther" sheep.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 Yay! So we reach the end-game "throw rattle out of pram and shout abuse" argument!
I'm just no match for your informed rhetoric and terrific debating skills, and must retire at this point.
PS: I have studied Philosophy, including logical debate, to graduate level, but thanks for the link anyway! Sadly, the definition there is inaccurate: straw man arguments are not necessarily "distortions" of one's opponent's actual views - they can include ANY points the opponent doesn't actually make.
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith you're wrong on all counts as usual, and a waste of time. Brain damage from those raves me thinks.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 Absolutely. And my Dad's bigger than your Dad :)
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith I doubt that.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 Paternal size notwithstanding, I've suddenly had a great idea, which I'm sure you'll agree is going to provide me with wealth beyond my wildest dreams! The next time some big mega-corp wants to get rid of an old high-rise it no longer needs, instead of paying a fortune to a demolition firm to pull it down, they can pay me a tenner or so to bash a big hole in its side, chuck kerosene over it, set it on fire and watch it neatly collapse! Wow! Why has nobody else thought of this! WTG me! :D
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith BAHAHAHHAHA you think 911 was done in order for silverstein to rebuild it? You are truly clueless.
1) Larry Silverstein's lease on the WTC, in order to retain the right to rebuild, forced him to pay $120 million annually to maintain the lease.
2) The Insurance payout was $4.3 billion of which he ceded the rights to 1 World Trade (AKA the Freedom Tower BACK to the Port Authority along with a portion ofthe insurance to facilitate rebuilding)
3) he also rebuilt WTC 7 with no tennant
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 Er... I wasn't talking about Silverstein. At all. Sorry you wasted so much effort refuting a point I wasn't making! By "mega-corp" I was referring to ANY owner, and by "high-rise" I meant ANY large building. You with me so far...?
I know sarcasm can be hard to grasp, but I was attempting to use it in order to prove how nonsensical the "official story" is - i.e., if all it takes to vapourise huge buildings is an impact and some fire, why pay for expensive demolitions? However... (cont.)
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@Oz1976 (Continued) As I was saying.. I've had an even better idea!
Never mind the annoyance of bashing a hole in the side of a building and setting it on fire with kerosene - I've had a brainwave! Even cheaper and simpler - it's the Building 7 method!
Take a steel building that needs demolishing, damage its exterior slightly, get a few fires burning, wait a few hours, and bingo! Hundreds of thousands of expensive controlled demolition dollars saved!
Wonder if NIST have patented the idea yet ?!
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith 911myths . com/html/windfall.html
^^complete story, Silverstein Enterprises has had to fork out the insurance and then some and the Freedom Tower still is not completed, the new WTC 7 is only 85% occupied, and he's still paying 120 million a year in rent.
So please, before you want to talk about demoing to rebuild, please know the facts about the costs endured by the rebuilder.
911 was an outside job, plain and simple, get over it.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 Once more for those at the back...
I was NOT referring to any "demolish to rebuild", nor to Silverstein's gains/losses from 9/11. His windfall (including handy avoidance of paying $1bn+, uninsured, to remove asbestos) COULD have been lucky coincidence (jury's out).
I was making a sarcastic comparison between how CHEAP and EASY it was, "officially", to get rid of WTC 1, 2 and 7 by FREE "gravity collapse" vs real-world CD costs.
So... please know WHAT you are refuting before you refute it!
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@Oz1976 Oh, and by the way...
911myths .com doesn't have the monopoly on "truth" and is FAR from an unbiased (or, in many cases, even accurate) website.
Unquestioningly believing what you read there puts you in the same boat as anyone who unquestioningly repeats DRG's arguments.
When I saw the Towers fall, live on the BBC, it was OBVIOUS to me that it was deliberately done. I'm still unsure as to how. But I base my opinions on MY OWN judgement and resarch, not on what I read on a biased website.
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith It's sourced and documented...unlike "truther" bullshit.
debunking911 . com
ae911truth . info
911myths . com
sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies
forums.randi . org
Intentionally brought down? YEs buy terrorists crashing planes into them. NO building EVER has been "demo'd" from the top down. AND they claim CD that the core was lined with explosives...
/watch?v=ESaIEVxLnK4 <- from :40 to :49 you can see core columns still up 55 stories worth. Not possible if it was CD.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 Websites? Anything from excellent research to total nonsense.
I prefer the laws of physics.
Newton's 2nd and 3rd Laws mean the Towers CANNOT have "collapsed" in c.10 seconds.
The cores? Indeed, where WERE they? In those <3-storey piles of rubble?
Planes and fires? Spectacular distractions, weren't they? But that's all.
Top-down demo? Hard, but not impossible.
Something pulverised the WTC and 1700+ people, and it wasn't gravity, nor yet Bush's incompetent mob.
I'm still seeking the truth.
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@Oz1976 P.S...
Seeing as I haven't yet even stated my ideas, I wonder why you keep posting statements refuting what seem to be randomly chosen "Truther" theories, as if you believe I espouse any one or another in particular? e.g. did I ever say the cores WERE lined with explosives...?
No single theory (but especially not the IMPOSSIBLE "official" pancake/pile-driver fairy tale) seems to adequately explain ALL the bizarre phenomena of 9/11.
For now, whilst still searching, I keep my own counsel.
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@Oz1976 Seeing as you like to rely on websites:
Here's a great example of a so-called "outside job", proposed by the US military establishment:
Operation Northwoods : wikipedia . org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
It was approved all the way up to the level of the President (JFK). Who was then mysteriously killed.
There are, indeed, "... more things in Heav'n and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy".
Only we don't get to hear about them until decades after they lose (much of) their relevance.
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith Oh the great Operation Northwoods. Yes...during the Kennedy Administration that was thrown out by JFK. He did NOT approve it. Next, it did not call for a single solitary US or Cuban CIVILIAN to be killed. Not one. Try again. Alot of things have been "discuessed", not alot of them have ever come to fruition.
If our government/military is so "devious"...why the hell didn't we plant WMDs in Iraq so as to not look like idiots when none were found?
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 Read more closely. I said Op. Northwoods was approved UP TO Presidential level, not AT that level. JFK opposed it. Would Bush have done so...?
No civilian deaths called for? You believe in websites, so here, from Wikipedia:
"Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets [and] for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas."
Please, do your research.
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith Wikipedia is not an accurate source, you should do YOUR research and actually read the declassified documents. And you should also learn to comprehend ENGLISH (being a brit I'm amazed you can't)....I said it did not call for a single solitary US or Cuban CIVILIAN...didn't say shit about "innocent lives". YOU need to do the research. AND REREAD. Don't post shit from wikipedia, I can go to that page and edit it myself right now...
Oz1976 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Oz1976 Quote: "Don't post shit from wikipedia, I can go to that page and edit it myself right now.."
Indeed. And you, or I, or my Aunt Fanny's dog, can go to any of the following, which YOU have cited as reputable, and contribute to them, too:
"debunking911 . com"
"ae911truth . info"
"911myths . com"
"sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies"
"forums.randi . org"
You can't have your cake AND eat it. You either believe websites or you don't. I prefer "don't", seeing as they are 100% anonymously created.
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@Oz1976 Speaking as one of the nations which actually SOLD Saddam WMDs over a long period of time (I'm British), he either shipped his WMDs elsewhere hastily when he had to (probably Syria... don't be surprised if Syria becomes the next American target) and/or destroyed them hurriedly when it became obvious they would be found). "Planting" WMDs isn't as easy as hiding chocolate eggs from the Easter Bunny for kids to find. There's a reverse trail to follow. And who truly cared they weren't found?
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith You just don't get it, obviously you're incapable of discerning thought.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 Gosh. That gives me lots to argue against. Again I ask you: what happened to Newton's 2nd and 3rd Laws (Conservation of Momentum and Equal and Opposite Reaction) on 9/11? At least I'm giving you laws of physics arguments to debate - in contrast to your (typical and not surprising) ad hominem attack against me, not my arguments.
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Neither of those laws were broken. Pray tell how you THINK they were, and I will destroy you.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@NellJSmith ad hominem is all your idiocy deserves, if you can't see for yourself how stupid your ideas and claims are, then you deserve to be treated as such.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 Final PS: "You just don't get it, obviously you're incapable of discerning thought. "
That's exactly what the University of Oxford thought when they awarded me my place there. Were you on the admissions board?!
This is my final comment : I have had enough of being insulted simply because I pointed out, originally, that you were using an invalid ad hominem argument. Find yourself another target, because this one has better things to do than listen to you refuting ideas I haven't proposed.
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith run away...typical "Truther". You have no evidence. Science has beaten you soundly. Admissions board? Really? Cause I should just believe you right? Some physics laws you fail to include:
Law of Conservation of Momentum / Law of Transfer of Momentum
Law of Conservation of Energy
Again. You're either a liar, blind, or deluded. Take your pick, I don't care. You keep saying you aren't going to be drawn in and yet you continue to respond. Just stfu and go away, or is that a lie 2?
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 And, more to the point, ignoring your attempts to distract attention from the HUGE problem anti-Truthers have regarding the apparent holiday which the laws of physics took on 9/11, would you care to provide one, even ONE, reputable scientist who can explain what NIST itself admits, i.e. that Building 7 went into free-fall during the first 100 feet of its collapse? Meaning that NOTHING resisted the collapsing floors? And that both Twin Towers equally contravene Newton's 2nd and 3rd Laws?
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith Sorry, you're wrong again. There was no "holiday" of the laws of physics. "Truthers" just tend to ignore certain laws that don't fit their agenda.
Newton's 2nd Law: F = MA was not on holiday
Newton's 3rd Law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. To say this was on "holiday" shows your utter ineptitude at observation. I'm guessing you failed rudimentary physics in high school (or whtever it's called in Britain)
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 Newton's 2nd Law requires that there be a jolt, even momentary, when a falling body strikes a body below. Evidenced by NONE of the video footage from 9/11. That's the "conservation" bit.
Newton's 3rd Law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore: Tower 1 should have been able to destroy a maximum of 10 storeys below itself before being destroyed (a bit less, since the upper storeys were weaker). Tower 2 fell sideways, so should have failed entirely.
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith Really? No evidence? Do you not understand how the WTC was constructed? You want to go and say physics took a holiday and you don't even take into account the structure. Hint... tube in tube design. Secondly, We sure as hell did see exactly this "jolt" you speak of, evidenced of the freaking crash points as the buildings collapsed. Not to mention, evidenced by the remains, IE the "meteors" that were 8 to 10 floors COMPRESSED TOGETHER. You're completely discounting structure design.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 "Tube in tube" is a myth. It implies weak, non-cross-supported columns.
The core, since they avoided reinforced concrete (as is normal), featured MASSIVE beams, possibly the strongest ever made, spandrel-reinforced and cross-welded into a hugely strong structure. NOT a hollow tube.
The outer columns were placed extremely close together to create a 2000% over-engineered load-bearing capacity. NIST said max. 25% over-capacity occurred. Er...?
Meteors were formed by MASSIVE heat. Source...?
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith I never said meteors were formed by massive heat did I? Again, you can't comprehend simple english. I said COMPRESSED. Seriously, you need re-educate yourself. Your comprehension and vocabulary are terrible.
Tube in tube is not a myth. The core columns WERE NOT as massive as you say. The largest was 52" by 12" and hollow. Congratulations on continuing to speak about things you don't understand. If Tube in Tube was a myth why is Leslie Robertson abandoning the designin china?
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 ... And yes, I have studied the WTC blueprints in detail. Not least because it WAS a non-standard design, relying as it did upon vastly strong steel instead of reinforced concrete for its gravitational load strength.
In that ridiculously small pile of rubble for each Tower, where WERE those hundreds of thousands of tons of steel? Where did it go? What kind of heat or force "disappeared" those columns? Certainly the lower columns, FOUR INCHES thick on all sides, should have been standing.
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith You have not studied anything. And if you have you've completely forgotten everything you claim to have studied. Not one column wasn't accounted for. Not one. You're being ridiculous with hyperbole. Go look up rescue workers reports of the massive rubil pile. Or better yet, look at this and try to fathom the scale...this is the debris field.
debunking911 . com/fig-1-7.jpg
seriously, you don't have a clue...
911 was an outside job, get over it.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@NellJSmith In other words. You fail.
You think 125,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers would sign off on collapse mechanic models that ignored the laws of physics? You think they deliberately made new model software that did that as well? You have no clue what you're talking about and are obviously regurgitating "The Physics of 9/11" bullshit videos. They're wrong and were debunked 7 years ago. NEXT?
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 You seem to be getting awfully upset about something which, if it were as straightforward and unquestionably, self-evidently true as you seem to think it is, should HAVE no loopholes, no anomalies, no pecularities - indeed, nothing to distinguish it from any other collapse(s) of any other large buildings(s)... and, indeed, no army of "anti-Truth" warriors such as yourself to defend it against those of us to whom it is obvious that not just a few, but DOZENS of anomalies exist. (Cont...)
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@Oz1976 (Cont..) And as far as the behaviour of the ACSE's membership goes, try this: From Wikipedia: "Galileo's championing of Copernicanism [heliocentricity] was controversial within his lifetime, when a large majority of philosophers and astronomers still subscribed to the geocentric view, [and] in 1632 he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest." But who was right? Galileo or his (educated) peers?
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith Are you really trying to equate something that occured in the 21st century to that of the 17th? 400 years ago? You really have lost your damn mind. Just stop. You're wrong. Plain and simple. The laws of physics were not broken. There was no controlled demolition. All of the steel was recovered. There was no therm*te. You're just plain wrong. You have no evidence to back anything up. You ignore what's right in your face from accreditted scientists. You're WRONG.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@NellJSmith As for building 7...My homie's would like to discuss that with you....
youtube.com/watch?v=jS2xj1M_N9k&feature=feedu
youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U
I hear having a load bearing core column fail, pluss massive structural damage from a 110 story building falling onto you, plus unfought fires, plus having a huge electrical penthouse fall through the entire building might cause the rest to collapse. Stop being retarded. Not one explosion. Not one.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 If you can show me 110 storeys of massive steel columns lying in a pile in the street, I'll believe you.
In any CD, one expects c.12% of the original mass to remain in a pile at the bottom.
For the Twin Towers, that would equal at least 9-10 storeys. Not the <3 storeys we saw.
Where was the rest? Where were the VAST cross-supported core columns? Why not still standing, at least in part?
NIST didn't even bother to model the Towers' collapse. I wonder why? Couldn't distort the data enough?
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith You mean like this picture:
debunking911 . com/Bankers.jpg
Where you can CLEARLY see severealy sets of exterior columns nearly perfectly lined up after collapse?
You're completely out of your mind and wrong. You need to give up, or stop watching videos and go read. cause you don't have a clue.
If it was CD, why were there 50+ stories of WTC 1 core columns still standing for a good 8+ seconds after the rest of the building had fallen away?
watch?v=ESaIEVxLnK4
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 Maybe you and your "homies" never sleep nor spend any time away from your PCs, but I'm off to bed. Another day awaits to answer your arguments (not your personal insults, sorry - life's too short).
But as a parting clarification:
Yes, a (very) few EXTERIOR columns were left standing or fallen sideways.
But as I keep saying, where were the immense INTERIOR ones? Which one of us fails to comprehend English?
I haven't said CD, but yes - where DID those 50+ storeys of CORE columns go?
Night!
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith They collapsed straight down into the pile. I already said ALL THE STEEL WAS RECOVERED. That's a fact you fail to see. Go look at the pictures of IRON WORKERS CUTTING THE STANDING CORE COLUMNS so they could be removed. DUH! You're so wrong it's pathetic. No steel was missing. None. And it's only 8pm here. Those core columns got carted off to a hanger to be investigated. All columns were accounted for...good game.
youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 No matter that it's 1am+ here, I HAVE to comment on your Banker's Trust pic.
I can refute all you say, just not today. But I won't be relying on either YouTube videos or websites to do it - those are so easily faked and manipulated that a child would be a fool to trust them, on either side of the argument.
All I can say is this: your .jpg shows a rubble pile even lower than 3 storeys and NO core columns. Are you mad?
No. You're in the land of "None so blind as WILL NOT see".
OK - PC off!
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith Right. Any evidence that refutes you is automatically faked or manipulated. Give me a fucking break. No one is faking that image. The ONLY people who have indeed been caught manipulating images are the 911 Truth Movement. GG you're wrong .
youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY
Oz1976 9 months ago
@NellJSmith These faked too? Look at the scale, firefighters look lke ants.
september11news . com/Sept11WTCFirefightersAmidRubble.jpg
news.webshots . com/photo/1166148864057459759bqBnEE
news.webshots . com/photo/1166148870057459759OtQkvp
i.dailymail . co . uk/i/pix/2010/02/10/article-1249885-083BEFD2000005DC-203_964x1175.jpg <core still standing taller than wtc 7
solcomhouse . com/images/therealthingcoke.jpg
solcomhouse . com/images/wtc.ht4.jpg <---hmm what's that still standing?
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 Argh! Why can't I give this up?!!
OK - Your photos.
1. One or two sets of standing outer columns do not a rubble pile make. If anything, the few standing 3-4 storey (mainly lobby) columns, next to the fallen ones, show how LOW the piles are.
2. The photos showing an apparently deeper pile are including the collapsed sub-street-level basement floors (6 storeys). Even then, the piles should equal the height of nearby 6-8 storey buildings, but don't.
{Leaves AND closes the door, finally!}
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith more cont.
solcomhouse . com/destruction . htm
All just faked right? Looky all that steel there....
But you've "researched" this thoroughly huh? You're a fucking retard.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 And if your "homies" would care to talk to anyone, maybe they'd like to talk to the acknowledged leading European expert on controlled demolition, who found NOTHING in the footage of Building 7's collapse to suggest it was NOT a CD except for the fact that the team must have "worked fast". Everything else he found typical of CD, to the last detail. He knows a bit more than you, I, OR your homies, probably. Then again, who were the tenants of Building 7? Not your standard crew, for sure.
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith You really wanna bring up Danny Jowenko and what he said about WTC 7 while being shown LOOSE CHANGE #1 by the interviewer" Loose Change #1 that was a "mockumentary" (Dylan Avery's own words - until he saw the money it could bring in). And you REALLY sure you want to bring Mr. Jowenko into this when he DOES NOT believe WTC 1 and 2 were demo'd? Your star witness, rebut's your 1 and 2 theory there doll.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 You evidently have plenty of leisure time to engage in Internet ranting, which (as I have said) I lack.
I have said I have no need or wish to "defend" my ideas (of which you are still in ignorance).
You have hurled abuse at me and (why?) "refuted" any number of "Truther" theories, none of which I have proposed.
I have also said I will not be drawn into what you have called a "running dialogue" like yours with "godzilla1077". And nor will I. But I have a few parting points to make.(Cont.)
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@Oz1976 (Cont.) 1. Jowenko stated that WTC 1 and 2 were not standard CDs. I heartily agree. But WTC7 was. CD takes months to prepare. Not 7 hours in a bulding with fires in it. And for the "collapse" cover story of WTC7 to be credible, it REQUIRED that WTC7 had ALREADY BEEN DAMAGED by rubble from the COLLAPSING WTC1 and/or 2. Even a child can work out the logic. I do not know how WTC1 and 2 were brought down, but obviously WTC7's demolishers were sure they would be. Are planes certain enough...?
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith no jowenko flat out said in his most recent interview 1 and 2 WERE NOT demolitions. WTC 7 was severely damaged by WTC 1's collapse. Seriously, as someone who claims to be on the admission board of Oxford University, you are either blind, deluded, or flat out lying.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 Sorry, but in case someone who knows me reads this, this DOES require clarification: re-read my comment. I won an UNDERGRADUATE PLACE at Oxford. I was not saying I was on the admissions board, but rather was making a sarcastic remark about how stupid you seem to think I am when they, amongst the best minds in the world, rather disagreed. You're not great with sarcasm, are you? It's necessary to clarify, since I use my real name online and others may read this. SO! *Now* I can bow out! :)
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith You can run and hide...it shows how soundly beaten you are.
Everything you hold true is wrong and has been proven such. You're a whack job conspiracy theorist, nothing more. The fact you spin OBL's death last night as fake proves it. The fact you failed at physics proves it. The fact you think Stubblebine, who believes he can astrally project to some far off planet (as he stated on Alex Jones), is credible...proves it.
Bye liar don't let that truth smack you in the face any harder
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 One of us is pretty cross and one isn't.
I've studied debating all my life and, as you've noticed, it takes more than expletives, ranting, abuse, personal attacks and even accusations of cowardice to cause me to lose my temper. You're a name on a screen, no less, no more, and I'm sorry (really) to have upset you so badly. You have my sympathies.
I hear it helps to get rid of pent-up aggression if you punch a rolled-up pillow? Never needed to try.
Why am I still here?
Oh yes - I'm not :)
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith I abuse those that deserve to be abused. People who fabricate truth's to suit agenda's such as yourself and the "truth" movement. People who claim knowledge of simple physics when they clearly are totally inept. People who continue to lie saying "i'm done with you" yet can't resist the urge to try and get the last word in. You have failed. You are nothing more than a liar. You will NOT get the last word in. Upset me? You're not exactly being a saint are ya there ya bitchass liar.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 (Cont.) 2. Say what you will about the rubble pile for WTC1 and 2, and list as many websites as you wish. No photograph has yet shown me what it should do: a rubble pile amounting to c.12% of the height of the original building, i.e. c.13 storeys. Or anything near it. From any angle, it looks more like ~3 storeys. The rest MAY be in the basement, but if so - what cleared the way for it? Note the word "may" before you accuse me of proposing something I am merely curious about. (Cont.)
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith then you didn't take the time to look at any of those links, they're ALL photographs showing exactly that. You're a liar, plain and simple.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 (Cont.) 3. Quote: "Are you [] trying to equate something that occured in the 21st century to that of the 17th?" - Yes. Why not? Why should innovation be the preserve of the ancients? Was Einstein's work NOT revolutionary because it occurred in the 20th Century? He had many opponents too.
4. Speaking of physicists: Newton's 3rd Law states that the "pile-driver" would have BEEN destroyed while destroying a similar mass to itself, i.e. c.10 and c.20 storeys each. So what destroyed the rest?
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@Oz1976 (Cont.) - Final. The core columns. Obviously I need to explain to you what I mean, since you have consistently misunderstood, either by accident or deliberately, what I mean.
The core column structure, (yes, hollow, but still massively strong) being cross-welded columns, embedded in bedrock, and incapable of being "pulverised", should have remained after the collapse to a significant height - dozens of storeys. Not the two or three storeys we saw the steelworkers cutting up. {Bows out.}
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith I've posted several pictures of that day...you're wrong. Plain and simple. You are wrong with what you think remained standing. You are wrong in the total kinetic energy the buildings had (over 100 tons of tnt worth of kinetic energy, look it up...for comparison sake...several atomic bombs worth).
The fact is you're wrong. There was no controlled demolition. There was no inside job. And now Osama Bin Laden sleeps with the fishes. It's over for the "truth" movement.
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 The fact is that I've had enough of you. As I (hope?) I made clear. You're too rude to talk to.
And if you actually believe Osama has been ALIVE for the past 7 or 8 years, I - well, actually, I'm not surprised!
Please, as I said, go away and find another target. I'm bored now.
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@NellJSmith See, you're a liar, you respond yet agian. Point, set...and match. You've been completely obliterated now run and hide. The fact you think he hasn't been shows your utter detachment from reality. I guess you're going to claim he's been in some cryo-genic freeze for 9 years too huh? Typical truther spin.
FACT: 19 hijackers under the direction of Osama Bin Laden took control of 4 planes and used them as missiles on 911
FACT: 2980 people perished as a result
FACT: you're a liar
Oz1976 9 months ago
@Oz1976 Quote: "You've been completely obliterated now run and hide."
... Aw. Sob. So I can leave now? Thank Heavens! Being rudely insulted and spammed with URLs (which I'd seen anyway) has, I must say, fallen short of a thrilling debate. Oh, and it's "GAME, set and match" :)
PS: I wonder whether the several (so-say dead) 9/11 hijackers whom the BBC has located, alive and well, are going to sue the U.S. Govt for defamation of character...?
FACT : I really AM bored now. And leaving.
Cheerio! :)
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@Oz1976 One more point regarding Building 7... WHY did a load-bearing column fail?
Why was the building design so poor initially that ONE failed column could bring down the building? This was the Mayor's Emergency HQ Building!!
How did they get the office contents next to this famous load-bearing column to burn for SEVEN HOURS?! That's more than SIX HOURS longer than normal office materials?
NIST ruled out a diesel fire.
WHAT burned so long and so hot?
Questions, questions...
NellJSmith 9 months ago
@spectre0075 project for the new american century,maybe do some research pal
mattyarnott1 10 months ago
@spectre0075 That Bush would "take over the world," and your sarcastic take that the US military is "sooooo powerful" are *your* extrapolations of Griffin's speech (which are incorrect, mind you, as he neither states, nor implies either within the framework you suggest). I merely responded to what you posted. So, how is that "back tracking?" Typical right-wing projection: they impute to their long list of 'enemies' that which they do, are guilty of, harbor unconsciously, & more fully represent.
TheeUnidentified 11 months ago
@spectre0075 The world already does live with a militant American empire: 702 military bases in 130 countries. The PNAC, hegemony, advancing the domestic police $tate infrastructure, abridging civil liberties, and of course, war profiteering of the military-industrial complex, along with similarly vested interests, are what drives such actions...not for Bush, the person, to be a "dictator," or to make "America" rule the world. It's always about corporations' religion: Profit$ Over People.
TheeUnidentified 11 months ago
I really can appreciate a fear of the unknown. What I cannot appreciate is the burying of the head in the sand on things not before known....when faced with the fact that any and every possibility exists. Shit happens, lies are told...people die and oftentimes in many unjustifiable ways. I never doubt what can be...I would be an ass to do so. Open mindedness comes with maturity and wisdom comes with open mindedness. Never forget the "For they know not what they do" message
flyingfish4u 11 months ago
I can appreciate a fear of the unknown, as a human being with feelings. What I cannot appreciate is the burying of the head in the sand....where faced with the fact that any and every possibility exists. Shit happens, lies are told...people die and oftentimes for someone's gain......in many nonsensical ways. I never doubt what can be...I would be an ass to do so. Open mindedness comes with maturity and wisdom comes with open mindedness. Never forget the "For they know not what they do" message
flyingfish4u 11 months ago
people believe in this crap? america is stupider than i thought......
jguerrero3192 1 year ago
Arabs r dumb and stupid people. But on 911 they are hyper intelligent. Context of situation controls story. Objective controls direction.
You have communism, democracy and other systems that benefit the elite. And then you have sharia that benefits everyone. And its not sharia that you were fed by media.
universalstudios13 1 year ago
Who the hell would listen to anything a "theologian" has to say? He specializes in fantasy. He's a lying dumbass spreading his superstition around and destroying the truth with his pessimistic disinfo crapola.
jdh501 1 year ago
@jdh501 Clearly you've already made up your mind and not addressed any of the actual claims or why these claims or correct or incorrect or what, if correct, they might imply or not imply. Sounds like you're the idiot.
musicalidea 1 year ago
@musicalidea This Griffin clown is not moral and he is not a Christian. Didn't Christ teach that lying and slandering innocent people is a sin? He is ignoring the FACT that radical shit4brains Islamic terrorists MURDERED 3000 people on 9/11 and he's blaming other people (the US govt) who had nothing to do with the attack. Could it be that he's reluctant to accept the fact that fellow religious fanatics did it and he would prefer to blame secular types? I hate religious freaks of ALL types.
jdh501 1 year ago
@jdh501 You're an unthinking dogmatist who simply accepts the official byline without the interest or cognitive capacity to assess information that might contradict the standard gag. You simply state a FOREGONE conclusion as "fact" without examining any of the evidence for his claims. You simply assume "the US govt had nothing to do with the attack" and that SIMPLY BY POINTING OUT CONTRADICTIONS IN OFFICIAL GOVT REPORTING regarding 911 he is "slandering innocent people". You are a bought tool.
musicalidea 1 year ago
@musicalidea bla blabla blabab babababababbity-blabababb!!
This so-called "theologian" is a radical theorist with an agenda, just like the other clowns who have jumped aboard the 9/11 slander wagon, like Stephen Jones, Rosie O'Donnell, Richard Gage, Willie Nelson, Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen, etc etc
I don't have to dive headfirst into a steaming vat of bullshit to recognize it for what it is. Look, leave a comment on my channel & we'll discuss it there if you want. Freedom of speech. Gotta go.
jdh501 1 year ago
what I dont get is "they" tell us they are trying to kill us then they come over and kill some of us then when they get back they lean back and call us up on the phone and tell us that was them that killed some of us but if you say anything bad about them ......? DO FUCKING WHAT ???....
pzmtuthcvpvl 1 year ago
My neice told me that an active volcano is not an ideal place to hunt for Muslim passports
I told her to shut up and get a life!
She's always got her nose crammed into those damn physics books!
Sockpuppet2012 1 year ago 6
On 9/11 1991 President George H. W. Bush made his famous New World Order speech before a joint session of congress. On 9/10, 2001 Sec. of Defense Don Rumsfeld spoke before a joint session of Congress exposing the fact that 2.7 billion dollars in defense expenditures could not be accounted for. The section of the Pentagon hit was the accounting dept. The backup records were at WTC bldg.7. This was a CIA-Military black opps. job.
bartlettohio 1 year ago
@bartlettohio Rumsfeld and many other people spoke about the $2.3 trillion long before 911.
cwlldoran 1 year ago
@bartlettohio i think it was actually 2.3 trillion
mattyarnott1 10 months ago
INSIDE JOB! if these so called 'muslims' had such success on 9-11,destroying buildings at several locations all at the same time.....why did they stop? why was it just a one-off? why haven't these 'muslims' carried on,on the back of this success.....all around the world-repeating their 9-11s,ahead of security changes? .....
VUPdingCLICK 1 year ago
I'm a rapper putting these words into my music. Please check out my page and help me push this out. My latest is Controversial Rap By Elysian Truth. Please subscribe. 9/11 is an inside job and I know WHY they did it. It involves the End Times. I'm a Christian. Please help stop.
CalisFinest101 1 year ago
By the way, which was the only country who openly declared that there were no mass destruction weapons in 2003? Which people became unwanted in the US at that time?
trilogiedelarche 1 year ago
Stellar work by Griffen. Bravo. Although many will be paid to promote the official lie. the TRUTH is self evident to ANYONE of honest intent.
StratusBlue 1 year ago
Watching 9/11 Science and Conspiracy on NatGeo TV right now. Pretty much makes "truthers" look like douche bags.
AtlasObjectivist 1 year ago
@AtlasObjectivist
It all depends on which "truth" you want to believe. Look at the gov't today and see if it doesn't control us more, & serve us less. Oh, by the way, where is the plane that crashed in Penn.? No parts in the hole, no nothing. They shot it down and won't tell us the truth along with other facts they won't tell us the truth on as well. Read the findings of nanothermite in the dust collected around the site in 4 locations. It's very telling.
vdep3 1 year ago
This corresponds with my theory that attacking in the morning left the least casualties. If they had hit at lunch they would have killed many more. Terrorist mistake or by design.???
Poor America is in a bad situation. Its being run by lunatics. Everyone who knew of the attacks before hand must be found. Get the top people, Cheney, Rumsfield, Bush, and they will give you everyone else in exchange for a deal. Then weed out everyone of the crazy bastards who knew this crime would happen.
Patrick5009 1 year ago 11
@Patrick5009 that's great! but america needs "cohones". the majority of the people already speak with fear in public. there will be an american holocaust if things continued the way they are. Why there was a civil war in america? to fix something that wasn't right... maybe is time for another, against the lunatics that are making this GREAT NATION sick. GOD BLESS AMERICA AND LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION. I wonder what hell JFK was talking about in "the speech"?,, "HR3162=CONSTITUTION KILLER",,
1madamerican2 1 year ago
@1madamerican2 history repeats itself......1937 germany = 2011 america......
VUPdingCLICK 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Patrick5009 OFF with their heads.
mit26chell 1 year ago
@Patrick5009 You falsely assume that we live in some kind of Democracy: we don't. The plutocracy & their mercenary army rule & public opinion is irrelevant. Who actually supported massive tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans? The sheep r already led abt easily enough w TV, triviality & consumerism & will believe anything that doesn't challenge their lifestyle. The elite allow certain critics like Griffin to talk out loud so as to maintain the illusion of transparency & representation.
musicalidea 1 year ago
This corresponds with my theory that attacking in the morning left the least casualties. If they had hit at lunch they would have killed many more. Terrorist mistake or by design.???
Patrick5009 1 year ago
This is real right? Some people just invaded my land and is killing my neighbors and we have proof govt is committing crimes and lying about it to cover things up?
HorrorAngel666 1 year ago
I am not making this up if you have seen jesus in paintings he also makes this finger sign that this man is making, i want to know what i tmeans?
its clearly a sign if it appears with him and paintings of jesus and maria.. he always has two fingers toghater and as to point to his sides
TheRogueMonk 1 year ago
@TheRogueMonk The sign he is making with his fingers are quotation marks. He's holding them up when he's quoting someone else's material.
riceking2008 1 year ago
oh its that guy i reconize him from family guy
TheRogueMonk 1 year ago
what is he doing with his fingers all the time lol
TheRogueMonk 1 year ago
it seems most people dont realise just how many people continuous US administrations have killed. its up there in the tens of millions- supporting genocides and wars in Indonesia, Iraq, Chile, Honduras, Panama, Afghanistan, Palestine etc etc etc
s0673451 1 year ago
The naïve individuals who make these videos are blood sucking vampires. The nature and philosophy of their argument is utterly devoid of fact, and wrought with conjecture and slander. Not one attempt is made to justify or fully explain even one theory. Instead, like a child commenting on an adult discussion, they just superficially jump from topic to topic, vandalizing logic and truth with non-contextual clips as they go. Holocaust deniers under a different name.
ostormer 1 year ago
@ostormer
Bravo! an excellent assessment of the official 911 report.
danalan666 1 year ago 3
@ostormer WHAT IS 911 WAS TO DO WITH THE HOLOCAUST...ARE YOU ANTI-SEMITE? WHY DON'T WHO RESPECT THE HOLOCAUST VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES? hOW DARE YOU BRING OUR SUFFERING IN VAIN? THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HITLER DID IN GERMANY TO GO AFTER THE JEWS. ANTI-SEMITE.
1madamerican2 1 year ago
Dr. Griffin is simply too intelligent for the "debunkers". They are afraid of 911 Truth, thus they constantly resort to straw man arguments which distort the events of that day and the claims made by Truthers.
RepublicConstitution 1 year ago
Also, if the "terrorists" wanted to kill Americans it would've been more conveniant to attack the Towers later during the day, when everyone was in. That would have killed a mere 45,000. The ones who died in the towers were "just" people who could be replaced.
Don't shoot the messenger, I read that in a book about the attack.
Gurra88 1 year ago
@Gurra88
yeah you rigt
excellent video for truth plz watch it and share it
SirSamy0400 1 year ago
This guy is bat shit crazy.
DanSVT03 1 year ago
Comment removed
meanstoaend 1 year ago
Comment removed
meanstoaend 1 year ago
@meanstoaend
*golf clap*
DanSVT03 1 year ago
Comment removed
meanstoaend 1 year ago
Comment removed
meanstoaend 1 year ago
Comment removed
meanstoaend 1 year ago
Comment removed
meanstoaend 1 year ago
Comment removed
meanstoaend 1 year ago