9/11

Damn good videos @Vanilla Gorilla. I would love to see the data this organization has to see how bad they have skewed it to fit their agenda.

 

LOLzzzz

 

Thank goodness we have an expert like Edward Current to explain to us what happened. OH WAIT. Who the fuck is Edward Current. I'm reading...a paid government shill who took a million dollars from Langley, Virginia.

Remember when Building 7 was engulfed in flames? Yeah, me either. Sporadic office fires. If the entire core structure had been destroyed -- it most certainly wasn't -- maybe the outer shell of the building would have simply fallen straight down. Like, if this were bizzaro world where that's how physics worked.

 

So what's the alternative? What are you proposing? What do we do about it?

 

No, according to me, if a bowling ball had been dropped from the roof of the North Tower at the same time as the collapse began, the bowling ball would have been only 40 feet ahead of the roof. And according to you, this was made possible because the core was being held up by the perimeter columns. However, when I asked how you arrived at such a conclusion, you said that you weren't going to answer unless I defended another poster's post about some other issue, which is, as we all know, your clumsily transparent way of running from the question.

So let's get back on track.

The issue that you and I were discussing is that the observed lateral ejection of concrete and steel from the get-go not only required kinetic energy from the already fire-damaged upper block to do so, but reduced the mass and kinetic energy of the upper block at the same time as well. Also, the pulverization of that concrete, steel, and building contents took yet more kinetic energy from the descending upper block.

So the question to you was:

Where did the energy to do all this, with enough left over to clear a path for the upper block to drop through the intact lower core structure at virtual freefall speed, come from?

You answered by stating that:

"There was no internal intact structure pushing upwards. The external steel columns were holding the load, once they gave way . . ."

I responded with:

". . . you've arbitrarily decided that the only thing holding up the core was the perimeter columns. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

You responded to that question by attempting to bargain with me, stating that you would answer that question only on the condition that I first answer a question concerning an issue that you are debating with another poster. But that's not how it works. So, how did you arrive at the conclusion that the only thing holding the core up was the perimeter columns. I mean, you must have some basis for believing such a thing, or you wouldn't have said it. Right? Right. So let's have it . . .

 

Well something brought that building down like that, and it wasn't because wtc 1 crashed nearby and caused sporadic office fires. Either these were the three most terribly constructed buildings ever conceived -- I don't think so -- or something is very amiss. To suggest that the entire core of the building was destroyed by the fires is patently absurd to any clear thinking person. And the creator of the video gives no explanation for how this occurred except "steel melts at 2,000 degrees." Maybe it does, but not UNIFORMLY ACROSS AN ENTIRE SKYSCRAPER, THE VAST MAJORITY OF WHICH IS NOT ON FIRE.

The obvious alternative is that it was rigged to collapse. You ask what we do about it knowing full well there's nothing we can do about it. Take the case to court? You know full well that's futile. All of our efforts are futile. That's the post-911 world. And it applies to more than just Ground Zero. Anything they want they can have, and if they want it bad enough, make no mistake, there's absolutely nothing the public can do to stop it. And it's all cool anyway, because it's not like they...would murder us or anything. Right?

 

So you propose... Nothing? Why even convince people of your viewpoint?

 

Joe Rogan's research into the issue was such that he began explaining the collapse of WTC#7 with a reference to the diesel fuel tanks. West had to tell him that the official version of events according to the NIST is that the diesel tanks had nothing to do with it. And Joe's response is: "Really?"

By all means, VG, keep'em comin'.

 

Yup

Aliens by Running Horse posted Sep 15, 2018 at 9:43 AM

 

Silly, RH. You and your fellow "geniuses", the craziest ever conspiracy theorists can't provide one piece of evidence to support your nonsense, nor can you discuss it in any rational, adult like manner.

All it is from you folks is,

"Garshuscks, I done saw dem dere planes fly inta da towers, one came from da lefty side and da udder from da righty side. Gollllleeee, just went right inta dem dere buildings."

 

Why do I have to propose anything? Is that your way of admiring the handiwork of whoever crafted this? To say that since we can't do anything about it we shouldn't even talk about it. I just talk about it because it's interesting. I know as well as I'm sure you do that the oligarchy is too powerful to be stopped. They own the police and the military. They even own all of you, the public.

I propose we do whatever we want to do. What's the point in taking it to their playing field?

Running Horse, you're making yourself look like a complete dick by the way.

 

You hit the nail on the head, Neon. So much for "Government BY the people".

 

I just don't see the point in being all emotional as some folks do (not necessarily you) about something that is ultimately beyond our control anyway. I mean it's like getting angry about death.

 

That is you, McFuddy, and your fellow conspiracy theorists. Not a shred of evidence from any of you, just nutty, crazy Running Horse type comments.

And how you all deny reality!!! It is stunning in its total capture of what defines delusional.

You see pictures of molten/vaporized steel and read [ha ha] descriptions from FEMA for said steel. You hear that NIST totally and unequivocally denied molten/vaporized steel and your "brains" can't put 2 and 2 together.

None of the nutty USGOCT conspiracy theorists has tried to convince anyone of the USGOCT. Why? Don't you all consider it a slam dunk certainty? Why are you all so chickenshit about providing evidence for YOUR USGOCT?

 

Aww shucks here I was thinkin' I was tellin' the Truth

 

The murder of all those Americans, Canadians, Australians, Japanese, ... by elements of the US government bother you not at all. The murders of three million Iraqis, Afghans, Syrians, Libyans, ... also bother you not at all. How evil is that, McFuddy?

 

Why pretend to play the dumb one? Your zero evidence, your vacuous irrational responses tells it all.

 

Act like adults. Act like the people Lincoln lied to you about - "government of the people, BY the people, ... .

 

All the USGOCT conspiracy theorists are like little children. Except that little children are actually just naive. That is an endearing feature of children. But "adults", who act like children, who tell baldfaced lies, like VG's baldfaced lie above, are obviously deeply evil/deeply amoral individuals.

You USGOCT conspiracy theorists have never provided on piece of evidence for your USGOCT. Even children would never act in such a stupid, ignorant manner.

You USGOCT conspiracy theorists have denied, mostly by your delusional avoidance schemes, all the evidence that sinks your crazy USGOCT conspiracy theory.

Here, VG outright denies Newton's Laws of Motion. On what basis? He has zero in the way of credentials, he has total nobodies, just like him, that he only rarely goes to because their science is nonexistent. And they are also total deniers of science, reality, truth, facts.

Really, Joe dumbass Rogan didn't even know that diesel fuel played no part in the collapse of WTC7; it was a controlled demolition as described by the 2.25 seconds, 105 feet, 8 storeys of free fall, which as all you USGOCT conspiracy theorists know full well, can only happen with controlled demolition.

How many of you USGOCT conspiracy theorists know that diesel fuel played no part in the collapse of WTC7? How about you, VG, are you as miserably uninformed as Joe Rogan? Yes, yes you are. Your posts, like this one scream that fact.

 

You go from the inane to the highest levels of ignorance possible, scratcho. Why would you type such a dumb thing? Are you tired of going bowling?

Consider what you are lamely trying to deny. The huge amount of structural steel, getting larger and larger as it goes down, some 83% of the total number of floors in WTC1 that had held up everything since 1973 all of a sudden had the strength of custard pudding, not even full strength custard pudding but watered down custard pudding.

And you still pretend to believe in the USGOCT. I can't think of a good word to describe people who lamely and dishonestly try to protect this kind of evil. Can you? Didn't you say you were 79?