9/11

do you need me to explain where i gave my answer?

 

I'd like to see your answer, morrow, can you repost or direct me to your reply?

 

Do you understand the problem with believing that the core structure below the impact zone offered virtually no resistance to the upper block? Physics dictates that when a body collides with another body of the same composition, two things happen. The moving body is slowed, and the stationary body is moved. Is it your contention that in the case of the WTC, the stationary body is moved, but the moving body is NOT slowed?

 

She did answer it in an indirect way. So now she's going to answer the next question concerning what the laws of physics dictates, and what that will mean about her first answer.

 

so every one should go with your theory? which is so ridiculous that governments would sacrifice so many of their OWN people

im sorry, but no.. i go with the scientific facts.. because it makes more sense..

 

Not my theory. You're arguing with physics, not me.

Physics dictates that when a body collides with another body of the same composition, two things happen. The moving body is slowed, and the stationary body is moved. Is it your contention that in the case of the WTC, the stationary body is moved, but the moving body is NOT slowed? How is it that you would consider that reasonable, especially when you claim that you "go with scientific facts"?

 

i dont pretend to be a scientist or anything near.. but i do believe the planes damaged the structure, and the weight of the damage caused the collapse of the WTC, i believe the terrorists planned the entire thing, that they knew exactly where to hit where it would cause the most damage.. and the attack on the political building was a smack in the face which went wrong.
you only have to look at other terrorist attacks around the world.. training of these monsters is better than any armed force, its why they are still going at it.
thats my theory and im entitled to it, as you are yours.

 

Fair enough, but don't fault me for going with scientific fact. Physics is not a "sometimes" thing; it's pretty consistent.

 

And you only believe this because your lying government told you this fable, morrow. There is no evidence to support it and there is voluminous evidence against it. Notice you have no evidence.

How could this be when there is no evidence for any terrorist hijackers and so much evidence against their existence? You only believe this because your lying government told you this fable, morrow.

You are entitled to an opinion but you are not entitled to your own set of facts or science.

You can't consider yourself free as a bird when you are willing to accept this gigantic set of lies from your own government. Lies are the antithesis of freedom.

 

storch i dont fault you, or anyone.. every one is entitled to their say, i had mine.. some are over passionate about it.. i love you dearly my man, you know that x

 

do you think the people that recieved calls from loved ones on those planes were also part of your story?
i think not.. governments are crap.. but really? they allowed people to call?

 

really? my government told me this? lmfao

 

1. One doesn't need to be a scientist to grasp that a US government/US military explosive, nanothermite, which was found in large volumes in WTC dust had no legal or legitimate reason to be there within the confines of the USGOCT.

2. One doesn't need to be a scientist to grasp that the US government/US military explosive, nanothermite, was the only thing that was capable of melting/vaporizing the WTC structural steel that was found in the rubble melted and vaporized.

3. One doesn't need to be a scientist to grasp that alleged hijackers couldn't melt or vaporize WTC steel with the fuels available to them, jet fuel and WTC office furnishings. So how did it get at WTC? See 2.

 

Absolutely, morrow. It was on TV, in the press, ..., it was relentless, it was exactly how propaganda needs to be done. I can tell from yours and other posts because they repeat the same things they heard.

Jonathan Cole - 9/11 Theories: Expert vs. Expert

 

So do you believe 9/11/2001, the US government murdered 2996 americans?? that 2996 figure includes 19 hijackers, 5 of which crashed into the south tower, includes all the paasengers and crew of united 93, includes some that werent americans.

Some of the heroes of united 93 fought back against the attackers stopping the plane from hitting its target, do you believe the US government murdered them and the the hijackers of united 93?

 

Again, morrow, you believe this because your government told you a carefully crafted story/fable that only included the top propaganda highlights.

Read some actual realities:

1. According to Jefferson [GTE operator that talked to "Todd Beamer"], the phone of the man [Todd Beamer] to whom she was speaking remained connected long after UA 93 crashed. Reporting that he had left the phone after saying “Let’s roll,” she wrote that the line “just went silent.” Although she held on for “probably 15 minutes” (the early evidence had indicated it was 13 minutes), she “never heard a crash.” She added: “I can’t explain it. We didn’t lose a connection because there’s a different sound that you use. It’s a squealing sound when you lose a connection. I never lost connection, but it just went silent.” [21]
   
   
2. On September 29, 2001, the FBI received detailed records from Verizon’s wireless subscriber office in Bedminster, NJ, that Todd Beamer’s cell phone made 19 outgoing calls after the alleged 10:03 AM crash time of Flight UA 93. [22] This fact, along with the sixth one, indicates either that the man self-identified as Todd Beamer was not on UA 93, or Tod Beamer’s cell phone was not on the flight, or this flight did not crash.
   
   
3. Todd Beamer was celebrated for having said: “Are you guys ready? Let’s roll!” But this expression was not contained in the FBI’s summary of its interview with Lisa Jeffersonon the day of the phone call. Instead, according to the FBI summary: “At approximately 9:00 AM Central time, Beamer said the passengers were about to attack the hijackers. … [H]e asked Jefferson to call [redacted] to tell them that he loved them. … Next, Jefferson heard another passenger give the go-ahead to make their move. After that point, she heard nothing.” [23]
   

READ ON AT,

Point PC-1: The Alleged Calls of Todd Beamer, Flight UA 93 | Consensus 911

 

Whenever I mention and explain the physically impossible collapse scenario to anyone, they ask questions that have nothing to do with it. For instance, some ask me why our government would do such a thing, or about the phone calls from the planes. They think that if I don't know who was involved and why they did it, that that will somehow cancel out the point about the physically impossible collapse. What they're really doing is searching for a way to disregard the point I'm making because it alters their world view. But an impossible collapse scenario is not going to suddenly be meaningless just because I can't tell you who was involved, why they did it, and how they did it. The fact is that the collapse of the North Tower defies the laws of physics. And so far, no one has stepped forward to explain how physics doesn't count concerning this issue.

 

I know that the story of the Arab hijackers is totally impossible for myriad, totally indisputable proven facts, supported by science and reality. You know this too.

I know that NO ONE, none of you conspiracy theorists for the USGOCT has ever provided any evidence to substantiate anything about the USGOCT.

What heroes? Like Todd Beamer. Read some reality instead of just swallowing propaganda. See my post to morrow just a few posts back. You likely have already seen it.

 

Here's a video of Davin Coburn, senior editor and fact checker for Popular Mechanics' debunking articles, getting ripped up by radio host Charles Goyette.



The 15:10 mark is interesting.

 

Excellent Article Morrow.....I Hope Every Poster Here Took The Time To Read It......



Cheers Glen.