Did anyone predict this election fiasco?

What? That there is no solution? So we all should just lay down and die? Well, if that's the case, then humans and society are more ignorant than I thought...

 

If you will not view any material I post, then as I've always said, debating you is meaningless because you're not interested in data, facts, analysis or technical drafts of the technical issues which you raise.

 

Come to your own conclusions, dear.

*floats away into the morning shroud*

 

Sorry I refuse to do it...if people are going to complain about the system, offer up viable solutions. That's how I feel about it...*shrugs*

 

Lode -- I've read all that already. It's been contested by independent researchers and many people don't buy those findings. I know I don't. So you're beating a dead horse here. You're not going to hear the truth from a government organization like the NIST, and frankly none of their conclusions add up. That's why they ignore the destruction of the buildings' 47-column steel cores. They also have no rational explanation for what caused Building 7 to fall into its own footprint. They cannot explain how the buildings fell faster than freefall speed and why so much of the buildings' contents were vaporized.

Annie -- I am going to make this quick, as I need to get to bed. No, Allison never said we shouldn't do anything. You asked for my solutions and I alluded that I am not focused on the solutions because the solutions would require enough INFORMED people coming together as individuals. You cannot talk about solutions unless you first address the problems and alert enough people to what's wrong in the first place. How can people talk about solutions when many people have not even woken up to what's going on in the first place? You see, you want me to just come out with solutions I don't really have. I don't need to have the solutions because I am only one person. Solutions depend on enough people coming together, who understand the truth. People need to become their own leaders, and that depends on enough people becoming informed.

 

pressed rat basically reads any crap "conspiracy theorists" feed him and if you ever try to discredit his buddies he will just claim your sources are government propaganda and cover his ears like a child and go blah blah blah

 

Yes! This is what has always annoyed me about Mr. Rat. I love the guy for his insight and the endless fountain of knowledge that sits in his noggin, but he loses credibility where he provides no viable alternatives to the systems he criticizes. To be honest I didn't really read the thread at all except for these last posts, but it would probably be like flogging a dead horse which is why this is my last post in this thread.

 

Earmuffs!

 

No, actually I do my own research. I don't follow "conspiracy theorists."

 

Kind of ironic calling the alternative thinker ignorant?

Maybe I'm just geeky and lovable inside. Night all.

 

But you haven't read the other reports which I posted, you didn't take the time to. Moreover, I doubt you actually read the NIST reports, you've simply taken the conclusions of others in your conspiracy gang and read breif synopsis. I posted two models of the colapse that were not related to NIST and you've also written them off because they came to the same conclusion.

Which isn't as intresting to you, so it's not important to you.

Building 7 fell for the same reason the towers fell. because of the fire.

They didn't fall faster then free fall speed, and that also never happens in implosions, it's something made up by the conspiacy theory crowd which you repeat.

You have't read anything I'm posted, and aren't intrested in a debate because you have the details of it are too technical, rather you repeat things that have long been disproven or never proven, such as the free fall thing, which again, doesn't even happen in controlled demolitions.

You just insist. You add nothing to a debate. You're a spammer for conspiracy wackjobs who sit in their basment and drink all day while preparing their am radios for the coming fall of society.

You offer nothing to political discourse. It's like hearing a deaf man describe an opera.

 

It's all the same government-funded bullshit, Lode. I don't care about the bullshit they were paid to concoct to support the government's official lie. All I need is my own two eyes, my logic, and the testimony of the people who were there, who witnessed the buildings being demolished. This includes police and firefighters.

These were not traditional controlled demolitions, either. If you actually did some RESEARCH, you would know the buildings were EXPLODED (not imploded).

Fires don't bring buildings down, Lode. Never before 9/11 has fire brought a steel-framed building down. The idea that fire weakened the steel and pulverized the concrete is absolutely moronic.

 

“[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”

--Firefighter Richard Banaciski

“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”

--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

“t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."

--Paramedic Daniel Rivera

 

You're not intrested in it if it seems mildly counterintuitive to your laymans understanding of collapse, so rather you invent an alternative that you wont explain because it would sound ludicrous and could be immediatly disproven such as thermate or fusion bombs.

Obviously there were loud noises which would sound like explosions when a building colapses and amidst the .

They were neither exploded not imploded, they collapsed. But you yourself admited earlier in this thread you didn't know how.

The statment fires don't bring down buildings must be misphrased, because I can come up with examples. Futhermore, there are lots of nuances to the collapse of the twin towers, the contruction of the buildings, the additional stress of having jumbo jets slammed into them, and the addition of jet fuel which your laymans perspective is apparently unable to wrap your mind around details which seem obvious to those professionals who you mitigate as being payed off because it's more conveient then having to read and analyze their data yourself.

 

What does the NIST have to say about this column beam which is cut at an angle (as seen in demolitions) with melted steel around the cut?

 

memories of that kind of event are very unreliable

 

Where did you take those quotes from?

 

McCann will win.

Hillary and Obama are not that different. Same story, different face. Blah blah. Whatever.

 

Many colums were cut after the cleanup began taking place to remove them.

 

People also claimed that they saw the face of the devil in the smoke. That doesn't prove that the devil was responsible for 9/11.