Short video: "I Was A Deluded 9/11 Truther"

by bohm 141 Replies latest jw friends

  • badseed
    badseed

    ballistic, there's is no good way to kill people, and when someone does it on a large scale without good cause (i don't know what good cause would be but there seems to be people who think that there is, so I allow them that argument) then you're a criminal and evil. That's why we give murderers the death penalty. It doesn't matter if you line them up, exterminate them or bomb them. Iraq was such an event so it's not that ridiculous to accuse them of being murderers also and bunch them up with Hitler.

    New Chapter, hold on a minute. First of all, I'm not the one who said explosives were used. I believed they were used but that's not what I was arguying about. What I was saying was that in Leolaia's video, which was used as evidence to prove their point, not mine, was that since the inner core had already collapsed, I thought it was improbable for the four walls to come straight down, all at the same time. Or maybe that one or more walls would fall inward by the pull of the core falling. So their explanation doesn't hold water either in my opinion. I'm not trying to prove explosives were used, they're trying to prove explosives were not used and I just stated that their evidence was insufficient, that's all.

    Can they pull it off? YES! Can they keep it a secret forever? NO!

    How long is forever? How do you know that the evidence won't come out in only a few years from now. I do believe they will be found out.

    The only evidence you have is a feeling.

    True, and so is yours, but given their track record, I'll stick to my feelings. It's not like if I'm trying to shove theories down people's throat, am I? I'm usually pretty silent about my extreme beliefs.

    But like they say, "the proof is in the pudding" (whatever that means..lol)

    That's it folks, I'm removing myself from the conversation.

  • Twitch
    Twitch

    "It is an honor to be grouped amongst liars such as leolaia and leavingwt" - LOL and it pays well too I hear...

  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard

    @badseed:

    Actually, the way it falls seems right to me. If the internals of the building are falling first, leaving the more rigid outer shell, as the video describes (and I think the video does show the middle of the building collapsing, and you can see the outer shell sway as it happens), then the falling internals would naturally blow out horizontally at the bottom. Just imagine all that material hitting ground level - where would it go? Outward horizontally... and that would knock out the bottom of the "outer shell"... and the rest (top part) of outer shell would just fall downward, straight.

    MeanMrMustard

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety

    Great vid explaining the collapse of WTC 7.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

  • james_woods
    james_woods

    I just somehow knew that we would be having another "truthers" thread this weekend - for some strange reason.

  • startingover
    startingover

    Is it really possible for a huge building to just tip over in one big piece like I think some of you are expecting. My guess (and that's all it is) is that even if you totally destroyed one side of the foundation, it would still fall pretty much in it's own footprint.

  • ProdigalSon
    ProdigalSon

    Is it really possible for a huge building to just tip over in one big piece like I think some of you are expecting. My guess (and that's all it is) is that even if you totally destroyed one side of the foundation, it would still fall pretty much in it's own footprint.

    Personally, I wouldn't expect that. But I would expect significant, recognizable resistance, not near-free fall speed. You would have to assume that EVERY BEAM WEAKENED AT THE SAME TIME. Not hard to do for Co-Incidence Theorists I imagine, but this is the real world. If this is the way buildings are made, then I don't think anyone should ever step inside a steel skyscraper again.

    These ridiculous videos made for gullible, dumbed down Americans, like the one Botch just posted after it was already posted 3 pages ago, claim that there was a "domino effect". Well Jesus christ, this isn't dominoes, this is steel cage superconstruction. These buildings are made to withstand earthquakes and hurricanes. But hey this isn't only my opinion, we've got 1500 architects and engineers who say the way it collapsed was impossible without the use of explosives.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HcliJUk0VY

  • ProdigalSon
    ProdigalSon

    http://911blogger.com/news/2007-06-26/norman-mineta-confirms-dick-cheney-was-peoc-pentagon-attack-contradicting-911-report

    Norman Mineta Confirms Dick Cheney Was in PEOC Before Pentagon Attack Contradicting 9/11 Report

    Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta answered questions from members of 9/11 Truth Seattle.org about his testimony before the 9/11 Commission report.

    Mineta says Vice President Cheney was "absolutely" already there when he arrived at approximately 9:25 a.m. in the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center) bunker on the morning of 9/11. Mineta seemed shocked to learn that the 9/11 Commission Report claimed Cheney had not arrived there until 9:58-- after the Pentagon had been hit, a report that Mineta definitively contradicted.

    Norman Mineta revealed that Lynn Cheney was also in the PEOC bunker already at the time of his arrival, along with a number of other staff.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-5PKQTUz5o

  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard

    startingover wrote:

    Is it really possible for a huge building to just tip over in one big piece like I think some of you are expecting. My guess (and that's all it is) is that even if you totally destroyed one side of the foundation, it would still fall pretty much in it's own footprint.

    ProdigalSon responded:

    Personally, I wouldn't expect that. But I would expect significant, recognizable resistance, not near-free fall speed. You would have to assume that EVERY BEAM WEAKENED AT THE SAME TIME. Not hard to do for Co-Incidence Theorists I imagine, but this is the real world. If this is the way buildings are made, then I don't think anyone should ever step inside a steel skyscraper again.

    @ProdigalSon:

    Which building are you thinking of? If you are talking about the towers themselves, doesn't this look like "significant, recognizable resistance"?

    The towers, when the collapse started, were "mushrooming" over as the top collapsed the floors below. This picture was taken from the ae911truth.org website that JamesThomas posted earlier.

    If you are talking about WTC7, then why would every beam have to be weakened at the same time? Did you watch the videos? The models show the internals of the building coming down first, leaving the outside waving and swaying, but intact (as in the footage), then the outside coming down. It wouldn't require the entire structure to weaken at the same time.

    People can go into steel skyscrapers without fear - just don't go into burning steel skyscrapers....

    MeanMrMustard

  • bohm
    bohm

    startingover: You are absolutely right. First off i think it is intuitively clear (and otherwise i can show you papers which demonstrate it) that one cannot compress a load-carrying I-beam between two stories more than a few percent before it will buckle and (very quickly!) loose the majority of its ability to carry weight.

    In the south-tower disaster, the load-carrying and stabilizing beams weakened due to thermal effects (expansion). This caused some parts of the facade to be pulled inwards. This initiated the collapse and the building did begin to topple over, however per geometric constraint the building can only topple over if other parts of its load-carrying elements are compressed, and since they was allready near their maximal load they quickly gave away before they could offer enough torque. When the collbapse was allready underway, there was not enough time nor resistance for the toppling-effect to continue and the building fell down close to its own footprint.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit