Humour Video : 9/11 conspiracy theories ridiculous. Al qaeda says.

I didn't say free fall speed. You may want to start reading peoples posts instead of reading what you want to see.

 

Read my post again. It may help if you take your own advise.

 

All the advise in the world can't stop some people from looking foolish.

 

I'm sure if you wish to defend the undefendable, you can blather on endlessly in a cycle of generalities and ambiguous falsehoods.

Can you answer ONE of the questions I have about 9/11? Even one of what, 20? 30? How many unanswered questions create a conspiracy?

That would require the building to free fall into it's own footprint?

Want to buy some oceanfront property in Wyoming?

---

Btw, you didn't address your appetite for genocide and murder. Who did you like killing more? The Vietnamese or the Iraqis?

Also, I'm wondering how you choose which young girls die. In order to keep Iraq from descending into chaos, have you allocated a specific number that should be killed to justify staying in Iraq? If so, how many kids are you willing to kill to prevent sectarian violence? Will you kill more Iraqi children than you will send American soldiers to their deaths?

And lastly, do you feel you got a good return on the hundreds of thousands of kids you killed in the 90s, or is the recent decade's annihilation of Iraqi civilians a sign of your re-commitment to destruction and genocide?

When it comes to mass murder, you're really a class act. The only difference between you and Bush is that he has to be front and center to make these decisions. You can avoid being popularized and held accountable for your complicity.

 

So I see Guerilla has reached the natural end-game here. I guess in order to get laid at Ron Paul rallies; you have to accept certain things as reality. Man, I'm upset I missed the trip. Sounds like it was fun!

 

Welcome back lorien! Still trashing Ron Paul on your blog?

I have got to dig up some of your old posts about how Ron would make out.

That Hot Air from Michelle Malkin's blog is contagious!

 

temper temper, Guerilla. blathering on about me being responsable for all the deaths in the middle east isn't a sign of sanity.

As mentioned before....building 7 was constructed with an unusual and probably unprecedented support structure. It was 47 stories tall, built over a foundation that was established to handle a 25 story building. The foundation was artificially constructed over an abandoned Con Ed factility.

Imagine the unusual and difficult construction elements in supporting a building which was actually 3 times as large and heavy as the original foundation was expected to support. (total square footage was 1.8 million square feet versus an orinal planned size of 600,000 square feet)

Some information about the building and suport structure for your reading pleasure.....

In so far as the building was constructed with thoroughly unusual support to accomodate a structure 3 times as heavy as originally planned and was hit by debris, faced fires that couldn't be put out, and had a structural core that was less secure than that later built in 2002-2006 it is conceivable to see how the building collapsed.

Now here is the key Guerilla. You should try and read this to learn something.

All planned demolition of buildings tries to undermine and explode the support of a structure to effect a collapse wherein the building collapses within its own footprint. It is always done to undermine the structural support of the building.

If the buildings structural support was similarly weakened because of the destruction of the other two buildings, if debris and fire had weakened the structural support of this building, then it also would collapse in a similar manner as the others and other buildings wherein the structrural support is attacked.

Why wouldn't the building collapse into its own footprint?

Actually I would question the development of a building with 3 times the weight in the mid 1980's using a very unusual and relatively new column support system.

Again, I would expect that there are a handful of construction or construction/engineering design experts that could really address this unique stituation with a level of expertise that the situation merits.


As far as the rest of your comments, Guerilla, you are now accusing me of complicity in murder throughout the middle east.

Frankly your rant reminds me of terrorists that will walk around and kill any innocent for the good of his/her "theory and fundamental beliefs".

Chill, lad. You are probably near the breaking point.

---

 

Besides, the government is way too busy spreading AIDS to black people, making crack and promoting gangsta rap to do this. There is only so many conspiracies it can do at one time!

Why bother? For 9/11 truthers, all it is is about narcissism. They all have questions. Questions and more questions that they demand answered. They don't even bother to look anything up on their own. Just answer my questions and do it now. Not that they'd read or attempt to understand what's written. Doesn't matter. There are questions!

The iron age is still stunned - and I mean stunned! - at the concept that fire cannot melt steel. Thousands of years of metallurgical knowledge instantly erased. It's really quite amazing when you think about it.

 

I recommend you check out Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. It's more sophisticated than you imagine.

The pictures and first hand accounts back up melted steel. The government claims the steel did not melt.

Hence, pursuit of the truth. Which was it? How did a low burning fuel melt steel? And if it was not melted, what are we looking at in the cleanup photos and 1st hand expert reports?

The truth doesn't fear investigation. There's absolutely no reason to invest so much venom and energy trying to discredit people, when you (supposedly) believe the "truth" discredits them. Right?

 

There is no reason to waste time and money to placate them either.

Every crackpot who questions some aspect of the government is not entitled to force others to prove him wrong.

 

It's not blather Earl. You want to avoid discussing meat and potatoes, get into personal attacks with me, I will call you as you are. Because you have and continue to endorse the (sic) war in Iraq, you have the blood of the innocent on your hands. Or are you saying it is only on the soldier's hands? Or only on the politician's hands? I don't support the war. Never have. I don't have blood on my hands, and millions of Americans have better judgment than you have shown, by endorsing the state and it's strategy of murder.

You sir, are a murderer by definition if not by direct action.

Waste of time Earl.

You can find lots of 9/11 information and questions from the experts in the field, right here. Take them on.

I'm not accusing you of anything. You are complicit and it's obvious for anyone to see. You cry about rape in Texas, but have no problem decapitating Iraqi children. To you, the Iraqi deaths are acceptable. Collateral damage perhaps?

Except unlike you, I don't endorse murder. I don't have all of the blood that you have soaked yourself in, anywhere near me.

Besides, this is the typical attempt to conflate my views with those of a terrorist. It's a sign of desperation.

Not at all at the breaking point. I'm actually quite relieved that you have made personal posts towards or about me, because in self-defense, I can point out where they come from. A man who sanctions the murder of young children by his permission or lack of participation.

 

so you're saying you can debunk all of the 9/11 claims and questions?

I'm not quite sure where you are coming from, if you believe any portion of the 9/11 account that is inaccurate or uncounted for is a good thing for the American people.

How about the people from the Commission themselves, who now claim that the 9/11 investigation was compromised by the CIA?

 

Here's some light reading.

http://www.debunking911.com/

Enjoy. If you have any further questions. Let everyone know. It's all oh-so-boring and you are late to a sad party. I know it's rough getting laid at an RP rally but you shouldn't have had to stoop this low.

The iron age weeps as it apparently never existed

 

I am just saying that not every demand for an answer deserves one.

 

That site is old hat.

What happened to the flight recorders?

What happened to the jet fuel from the plane that crashed in PA?

What happened to the wreckage in PA?

Why was building 7 not investigated during the 9/11 Commission?

Why did a government employee testify that his wife called him on a seatback phone, with a detailed conversation, and yet those planes were not equipped with seatback phones?

How did the hijackers get on the planes if their names were not on the passenger manifests?

Are these the Truthers you are looking for?

 

As far as I am concerned, and I challenge everyone reading this to contradict me if you disagree,

If any information is missing, incomplete or inaccurate in the 9/11 account, it is a matter of national security, to investigate and correct such an issue as quickly and completely as possible.​

Any takers on disputing this?

 

I disagree. You are leaving out the key word. Is anything "material" missing or incomplete, etc.

I don't care if a report mistakenly says somebody was wearing white shoes if they were really tan or any other such inaccuracies. I care about the substance.

 

Have you thought about the iron age yet? It's a very important point, really.

I'm curious why you want to believe in the government conspiracy angle?

And furthermore, do you believe that Bush had time to plan it all right after he came into office, or was this a multi-administration deal with collusion across the administrations?

Quick dismissal. This is typical of someone who doesn't actually care to learn anything. And just needs to feed a narcistic need for attention.

Life isn't a cartoon.

Not reality:

Some of the planes did have airphones. Some passengers also had cell phones as well.

Definitely not on there!

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_11_manifest.html

but I'm more interested in the first 2 points, guerilla. I've played the narcissism game with truthers before and it's old. I know its a desperate plea for attention.

 

And how would you differentiate between what is and is not material?

And if I understand you correctly, are you saying that if the report has known inconsistencies or errors, even small ones, you feel they should not be corrected?

 

Common sense.

I am saying that "inconsistencies or errors" that deal with insignificant issues or non-immaterial facts should not be investigated as nauseum just to satisfy people like you - who I believe would never be satisfied regardless of the amount of investigation.