Galileo/Newton agree-- 9/11 was an inside job!

[Punx0r]

Chalo, it seems I missed an obvious video of the south tower collapse:

[youtube]qhyu-fZ2nRA[/youtube]

The point of collapse is shown a number of times in the first two minutes. You can see the top part of the building leaning where one edge has collapsed. Of course it can only lean so far before the extra load of the shifted mass causes further local failure. Then inertia takes over and the whole lot comes down like a well designed demolition implosion, which exploits such inherent weaknesses in the structure of a building.

eTrike, The video appears to be taken from a longer one I believe I saw earlier, but without the banging sounds. I'd need to trawl back through youtube and find the original to compare. If the sounds are real then they're probably of the floors pancaking (I believe the rapid emission of puffs of smoke/dust, seemingly floor-by-floor as the building collapses indicate the same).

 

[nutnspecial]

Wow, great vid, I'm watching muted. Seems to turn to dust as it falls.

 

[nutnspecial]

[youtube]f4IWZQS4irw[/youtube]

911- an excuse for more fed power, intrusion, and war.
I think it was also a test, for something much bigger to come. The times, they are a changin

 

[Punx0r]

@Punxor, every single numbered line from the very first post provides proof, and each of these has been proven repeatedly throughout the thread.

Excellent, it seems we're making progress. So you are happy to rest your case on any of those points? If I can show any of them to be false, your conclusion will be invalid?

Let's continue a positive process of discussion and discovery. If you can disprove your countryman Sir Isaac Newton and Galileo, then I wish you luck. Feel free to list your concerns with the stated information in its entirety.

Is this an over-sight or are you dodging the question again?

 

[Punx0r]

That detailed scientific critique of Judy Wood's theory I mentioned before:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/scientific-critique-of-judy-woods-paper-star-wars-beam-weapons-by-james-gourley.pdf

One kinda interesting thing is that journalof911studies appears to be a Truther resource I guess like religion it's important to believe in the correct version of the fiction.

 

[Hillhater]

So you still go with the rigged demolition theory ?
Presumably requiring many multiples of sequenced charges on each ( every) floor level ?
Can you estimate the time, manpower, equipment, resources, skills,explosives, wiring, etc etc required.?
.....and do all that without anyone noticing, or any mention of odd work being done ?
.....and despite the clear video evidence of the collapse starting BEFORE any of what you believe is an outward blast..is seen !

 

[nutnspecial]

You two are missing the point. The demolition method is a worthy discussion and is quite curious, quite admittedly (I'm very interested). . . but neither of you accept anything other than the official story, so isn't it obvious to you this is a transparent and weak defense?

No one knows what happened for sure, but anyone with a lick of sense realizes the official version is a whitewash, and has the balls to admit it.

Then sure, lets talk demolition- I've always found conventional fire and gravity completely ludicrous, and explosives and thermite by themselves incomplete. But imo, not a good enough excuse to keep my head in the sand.

 

[Chalo]

Chalo, it seems I missed an obvious video of the south tower collapse:

[youtube]qhyu-fZ2nRA[/youtube]

The point of collapse is shown a number of times in the first two minutes. You can see the top part of the building leaning where one edge has collapsed. Of course it can only lean so far before the extra load of the shifted mass causes further local failure. Then inertia takes over and the whole lot comes down like a well designed demolition implosion, which exploits such inherent weaknesses in the structure of a building.

Sure, there are lots of observable phenomena that are counterintuitive. I'd be tempted to accept this one, if only there were any other comparable examples anywhere. But I can't attribute three adjacent buildings unzipping and collapsing into their own socks on the same day to dumb luck, when it's never happened before or since. If one tower of the three had done that, sure. If that was a failure mode that happened sometimes in skyscraper fires, well, it would be far-fetched but not out of the question for it to happen to all three.

But this wasn't dumb luck, was it? More like stagecraft. I suspect part of the show went awry when Flight 93 didn't show up to Building 7 on cue.

 

[Hillhater]

.....and despite the clear video evidence of the collapse starting BEFORE any of what you believe is an outward blast..is seen ! ?

Personal incredulity subsides in the face of science, if you take the time. Re-read the first post for details.

I have read them all a few times....and still find the demolition theories totally implausible.
Why do you not answer specific questions ?...like..
..How could they "engineer" the collapse of T1 to be initiated at the point of initial impact ( a totally random position).. Without any sign of explosion ( ref video) ..and then have perfectly timed sequential floor explosions...from that position/time only on the floors below.??
I have seen many controlled demolitions, concrete and steel structures, and none that I can recall ever used explosives on all floors...generally only on the base or at most lower few floors of supporting structure.
Why would they use such an untried method on those buildings ?
.Why was there no evidence of demolition materials found ? ( Thermite ? ... Get serious !)
If they wanted to bring the building down, it would have been much simpler to load the aircraft with some HE in the first place !.
I honestly think some of you guys are seriously delusional !

 

[Deafcat]

I'm with Chalo on this one, a perfect three out of three, with only two planes showing up to the party, and no equivalent cases before or since is more than enough evidence to objectively convince me it was a carefully (and successfully) orchestrated show, and the structures would indeed need to be "convinced" to come down so tidily with more than just a couple airliners, no matter how much regular old commercial aviation jet fuel was in em. a few thousand gallons of kerosene with additives sounds powerful and all, if you want to burn down a ten story apartment complex or a strip mall... if you wanna go big you gotta toss in something special.

 

[swbluto]

if you wanna go big you gotta toss in something special.

Like gravitational potential energy. 100+ stories of building holds a LOT of gravitational potential energy up towards the top.

 

[Punx0r]

Wow. You are profoundly stupid and wildly ignorant. I am glad you actually, finally explained what you've been banging on about with "freefall" and "simple physics, though. It confirms my suspicions.

There's nothing wrong with being ignorant about a subject as long as you don't claim to be an authority on it. Try more book learning and less talking.

Personal incredulity subsides in the face of science, if you take the time...Why do you ignore the evidence and bounce around without addressing the questions when they are addressed

Really? Written without a hint of irony? You are literally the worst offender in this thread.

If you have any questions about the itemized information given in the first post, feel free to inquire.

I sure do!

@Punxor, every single numbered line from the very first post provides proof, and each of these has been proven repeatedly throughout the thread.

Excellent, it seems we're making progress. So you are happy to rest your case on any of those points? If I can show any of them to be false, your conclusion will be invalid?

Let's continue a positive process of discussion and discovery. If you can disprove your countryman Sir Isaac Newton and Galileo, then I wish you luck. Feel free to list your concerns with the stated information in its entirety.

Is this an over-sight or are you dodging the question again?

You show disdain for politicians but you should try being one - I think you have a real talent for evading direct questions, muddying the waters of a discussion and avoiding making commitments. You're more slippery than a greased eel.

 

[nutnspecial]

You are profoundly stupid and wildly ignorant.

Crossing the line punxor

 

[nutnspecial]

Absolutely agree Etrike.
I believe it's been one extremely long sad display of cognitive dissonance. Inner confliction not necessarily evident to one's self; most strongly punctuated by the childish show of irrationality above.

To any participants/readers that stick completely to the official version of events on 911:
a) imo it's ok if you don't see what we see, despite all the info out there and on this thread. There is no complete and perfect alternative truth, but if there's not enough evidence for you then that's ok.
b) imo we don't seek division, and don't expect to change your minds anymore than you should expect to change ours.
c) imo why not then strive to be constructive where we can, which likely is not this subject, but broader topics like freedom, government (rule of law), monetary systems, morality etc etc etc? It should be obvious this thread is all about questioning the official story and perhaps discussing further evidence, theory, and opinions- not playing around the subject like a 5 year old.

 

[Punx0r]

eTrike, nutspecial, as I have received a Board Warning in response to complaints about my posts in this thread, I wanted to let you know I will no longer be participating, so you didn't think I was ignoring any future posts. I have seen the error of my ways and must admit you two are totally super-awesome. I absolutely respect how you embrace unconventional thought processes and I was wrong to so robustly challenge your opinions. Please keep up the good fight advocating the scientific method, freedom of speech and the need to speak truth and reason even when people don't want to hear it.

*hugs*

 

[nutnspecial]

Please share with us the 'Board Warning' ? Likely (if anything) it was to act like an adult and not name call???

More irrationality that you 'cannot' participate because of a likely warning to keep it civil?

Oh well, my attitude has not changed since my last post, and do wish you well whatever the case or outcome.

 

[Rassy]

Hey Punx0r, I've been reading this thread all along, and want to thank you for holding your ground when all, or at least most, other participants are on the other side. I don't like to take part in these debates because there is usually no chance of changing anyone's mind.

One of the nice benefits of this kind of debate, it lets you see which participants are "out to lunch" and thus to be wary of any thing else they may espouse.

If anyone thinks I've tipped my hat as to which side I support, it wasn't intentional.

 

[nutnspecial]

Balls . . . . to admit what you think

Bigger balls . . . . to admit when you could be wrong

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Gregory]

Well said Rassy.

On the bright side, without Punx0r this thread can now be buried in the potters field of OTD

 

[nutnspecial]

People that are on the 'official' side are welcome to proclaim it, and definitely also offer why
- I think that takes courage, even if it's just:

They could never pull 'that' off . . . .

And

Nist said . . . .

I am kinda surprised if people are reading this entire thread and have been able to discount all the linked info contrary the official story, along with many words of reason, rationality, and logic that have been posted.

 

[Hillhater]

I'm happy to stick with the simple....." They could never pull that off" standpoint.!
.. Maybe in China, Russia, N Korea , Isreal, or similar societies where ther is total control of society, media, and the population generally.......but not in the USA
Apart form the more aware and open society and media, there is no one group or organisation in the USA , or any western nation, smart enough to pull that off without it being obvious. ,

......one of the benefits of this kind of debate, it lets you see which participants are "out to lunch" and thus to be wary of any thing else they may espouse....

+2 ^^

 

[nutnspecial]

Fair enough! I don't even look at the nations with much independance anymore. It's a world stage man.
The only ones still truly independant of control are likely the ones everyone seems to be against.

There's likely more to history . . . world wars back to the mayans and beyond.
Alot to consider before trusting in the face value of this world (so clearly?) faultering, at what appears to be a hastening pace

 

[nicobie]

Hey Punx0r, I've been reading this thread all along, and want to thank you for holding your ground when all, or at least most, other participants are on the other side. I don't like to take part in these debates because there is usually no chance of changing anyone's mind.

One of the nice benefits of this kind of debate, it lets you see which participants are "out to lunch" and thus to be wary of any thing else they may espouse.

If anyone thinks I've tipped my hat as to which side I support, it wasn't intentional.

I couldn't agree more. There a few on this thread that are borderline insane.

Thanks PunxOr.

 

[nutnspecial]

Are you so close minded that a good argument contrary your own is considered insane or worthy of childish behavior??

 

[markz]

They got an iApp for that!!!!!!