Replying to 9/11
Topic Summary
Dopamino
Posted 14 September 2009 - 01:51 PM
We all knew that Cheney was running the show from the beginning though. Bush was just the idiot puppet that the Evangelical and Bubba voters could identify with. Bush needed his staff or his wife 24/7.
Regardless, I can't believe that they agreed with those bastards' terms.
Regardless, I can't believe that they agreed with those bastards' terms.
Punk Rock Geek
Posted 14 September 2009 - 11:51 AM
I used to be really big into the WTC truth movement, but it became impossible for me to keep up with it. All I can tell you is that a lot of the evidence that is being presented within this topic by both sides is outdated.
Anyways, there is really only one piece of evidence that you need to be a truther, and it happens to be unrefutable. Both Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath, asked that they be able to testify together, and requested that their transcript not be recorded in any way. If that's not grounds for a new investigation, then I'm not sure what is.
Anyways, there is really only one piece of evidence that you need to be a truther, and it happens to be unrefutable. Both Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath, asked that they be able to testify together, and requested that their transcript not be recorded in any way. If that's not grounds for a new investigation, then I'm not sure what is.
The Vegan Anarchist
Posted 13 September 2009 - 05:25 PM
Actually, the buildings didn't fall at under 10 seconds, which is recorded free-fall speed. That was clear bogus information that was given by Loose Change. Here's a video showing the true timing of the building's collapse.
Then there is building 7. Yes, if you look when the building falls completely, you'll find a free-fall speed time, but the problem is that those videos that time free-fall in their calculations lack to include the early collapse of one of building 7's sections, which would be included with the time of collapse & would knock...
Then there is building 7. Yes, if you look when the building falls completely, you'll find a free-fall speed time, but the problem is that those videos that time free-fall in their calculations lack to include the early collapse of one of building 7's sections, which would be included with the time of collapse & would knock...
Gibby
Posted 13 September 2009 - 04:55 PM
tiredoflies, on 13 September 2009 - 12:03 PM, said:
I didn't mean mathematically, I meant it as "make sense"
The buildings fell in under 10 seconds. A fire cant make a steel building fall in ten seconds.
The buildings fell in under 10 seconds. A fire cant make a steel building fall in ten seconds.
Steve
Posted 13 September 2009 - 01:34 PM
Dopamino
Posted 13 September 2009 - 12:46 PM
The buildings were standing for hours after the planes hit. "They fell in 10 seconds" means that it took ten seconds for the to go from standing to in rubble on the ground. If the major support beams were weakened, it's logical that it could take that short of time to fall.
tiredoflies
Posted 13 September 2009 - 12:03 PM
Fightin_da_Man, on 13 September 2009 - 11:54 AM, said:
Could you show me the calculations you did which show that the jet fuel theory doesn't add up? I'd like to see how you came to that conclusion.
I didn't mean mathematically, I meant it as "make sense"
The buildings fell in under 10 seconds. A fire cant make a steel building fall in ten seconds.
Fightin_da_Man
Posted 13 September 2009 - 11:54 AM
tiredoflies, on 13 September 2009 - 10:26 AM, said:
40 reasons to doubt the official story
http://www.911truth....041221155307646
The government claimed that jet fuel melted the Twin Towers' steel girders, they fell in ten seconds, there is no possible way that adds up.
http://www.911truth....041221155307646
The government claimed that jet fuel melted the Twin Towers' steel girders, they fell in ten seconds, there is no possible way that adds up.
Could you show me the calculations you did which show that the jet fuel theory doesn't add up? I'd like to see how you came to that conclusion.
tiredoflies
Posted 13 September 2009 - 11:50 AM
JohnWayneWasANazi, on 13 September 2009 - 11:38 AM, said:
Maybe I'm trying to bring change differently than being batshit insane.
I'm batshit insane? I see, thanks for being open-minded.
And how are you bringing change? You don't care about what happened or how it happened even though it could bring 2 people we both (probably) dislike to court, not only would they get tried for 9/11 but after that they would get tried for war crimes as well. Granted it's too late to stop them, because Bush/Cheney are out of office but I'd like to see them exposed for all the lives they caused to be lost.
(I'm pretty sure I got some grammar wron...
JohnWayneWasANazi
Posted 13 September 2009 - 11:38 AM
tiredoflies, on 13 September 2009 - 11:30 AM, said:
1) that's what I (and others) are trying to prove, it wasnt a terrorist organization
2) So you don't care if justice ever prevails? You've given up because it will just never happen?
It seems that Rotten Future is your theme song of course you'll bring no change when you sit home on your couch
2) So you don't care if justice ever prevails? You've given up because it will just never happen?
It seems that Rotten Future is your theme song of course you'll bring no change when you sit home on your couch



