what... huh?
Active Member
I have shown that it happens in 20. You just don't "like" my evidence.
*please see last post. This one kicked over a new page. Thanks.
Oh Goodie! ... More on 911 (inside job) :)
- Thread starter GrowRebel
- Start date
- Status
*please see last post. This one kicked over a new page. Thanks.
GrowRebel
Well-Known Member
Lets have some fun today folks ... how about we look at all the bogus talking points of the deniers shall we?
that are not design like the WTC ... he is completely unable to show any other skyscraper like the WTC towers to collapse in their own foot print at free fall speed. Why you ask? Because he can't. There aren't any and that's the point.
Notice folks how the denier continues to side step the issues? There are certain specification for certain types of buildings, but in this instance he pretends they are all the same. An if you compare the photo he provided with the photo of the steel of the WTC you will see there is no comparison ... yet he expects you to believe it is. This is a perfect example of how deniers will grab at straws and actually believe they have made a valid point.
There doesn't have to be ... the McCormick building didn't have tons of structural steel like the WTC ... notice the denier only show examples of buildings and bridges
that are not design like the WTC ... he is completely unable to show any other skyscraper like the WTC towers to collapse in their own foot print at free fall speed. Why you ask? Because he can't. There aren't any and that's the point.Once again he try to pretend that those examples he presented are designed like the WTC but of course we all know they are not. Yet he continues to say it is evidence hoping that if he says it enough you will accept it as fact.
Since he can't refute the argument he changes it to suit him ... the real argument is a normal fire doesn't make a fireproofed structural steel skyscraper free fall into it's own footprint after burning less than 2 hours ... not without serious help ... that's the argument ... and notice folks at home ... the deniers can not produce a similar building like the WTC that collapse in their own foot print free fall style after burning less than 2 hours ... why you asks? Because it doesn't happen.
Once again the denier tries to side step the real issue. He believe by doing this it will distract from the facts ... well at least in his mind it will ...
As No noted ... the deniers present a lot of evidence that supports 911 was an inside job ... you folks did see the pictures right? Yep ... nothing like the WTC ... yet they believe it supports their argument ... that's how delusional they can be.
Another excellent example of how the denier will take information that has been thoroughly debunk because it's not a skyscraper and there was nothing unusual that happen with that fire ... yet he continues to present it as though it were valid evidence, in the hope that if he keeps doing it you will accept it as fact. He can't produce another skyscraper that collapsed in it's own footprint at free fall speed so he hopes you will believe the bridge is the same thing. Pretty sad really.
Here again he tries to change the argument to suit his purpose ... the argument is a skyscraper does not collapse into its own foot print at free fall speed from a normal fire ... but he can't work from that angle so he make whether or not steel get hot enough to fail the issue ... when clearly it is not.
See folks ... the denier makes another desperate attempt to side track the issue. So he tries to knit pick his way around the facts. See how he works to change the argument? Which is that a skyscraper can not collapse at free fall speed in its own foot print due to fire. Case close.
Notice here folk how he once again changes the argument to suit him ... then claims that he debunked the evidence? See how their minds work?
Here another trait of the deniers ... they take their own short comings and project them to their opponents ... when in fact he is the only one doing the clinging.
Argument changed ... but not the real issue. Normal fires DO NOT cause skyscrapers to fall free fall style into their own foot print due to fire ... never have never will ... and the denier has yet to produce a skyscraper that has. Why do you ask? Because he can't. There never has been a skyscraper that has. Before or after 911. Case close.
Notice how delusional a denier is about winning an argument?
Once again he note a structure that isn't a skyscraper and expect us to accept it as the same thing. Why do you asked? Because he can't produce a skyscraper that collapsed free fall style into its own foot print from a normal fire that's why.
Oh so now the building are "unique" while before it was alright to use any kind of steel structure to prove his bogus arguments. Here once again is an excellent example of the denier projecting his own short coming on to his opponents. It was alright to change the argument to suit him ... They actually believe that you will fall for their bullshit.
Says the guy who never work a day of construction in his life ... folks I'm sure most of you already know I have the manager of the WTC project stating that those buildings could not have collapse due to what happen. Yet this denier would have us believe that he know more about the buildings design than the people that actually build it. Yeah .... right...
Here again he claims he has proven he's right with a bogus argument ... knowing he can only give a different example because what happen couldn't have without help.
Here he demonstrates that it is he that has nothing to debate, but hope you all don't see that ... too bad for him we do.
Once again he repeats his delusions about the bridge ... desperate to get you to accept it ... to bad we don't.
Let keep repeating things like the denier shall we? Normal fires do not cause skyscrapers to collapse free fall style into their own foot print ... it just doesn't happen ... and that's what the fuss is all about.
Folk he didn't address that because he was far too busy making up other bogus bullshit hoping you will buy it ... too bad it's not working.
See how he goes back to side stepping the issue folks?
Gasoline was no where in the fire so why is he bringing it up? That's right ... side stepping again.
What makes him think steel is normal fire proof and what does this have to do with a skyscraper collapsing into its own foot print at free fall speed? That's right ... nothing.
Been there done that ... it's not our fault that he want to wallow in his own denial ... that's his decision and problem not ours. Later boy.
what... huh?
Active Member
Again I will say, if anyone wishes to use anything grow has to offer, you will have to restate it for me. I do not read his posts... I see when I am scrolling through the miles of post to get to a new relevant one, my name is bold and repeated again and again and again... so I can see he is addressing me. I gave him every opportunity to be rational in his debates, he simply isn't... and will not accept when he is wrong. So again... if he asks something you find pertinent... please restate it... do not quote it. I will address any question to the best of my ability... and will do so with honesty. If I post something erronious, rest assured it is unintended. I do not argue for sake of it, and I hate eating them... so typically I have fact checked what I propose.
I have no agenda. I want the truth too. I know things you can't, so I may come across as holding some sort of dogma of faith in government. I do not, I am just privy to a small part in all of this you cannot be, which precludes a lot of the assumptions about that day. I know for a fact that 4 of the named hijackers made their connections in Boston... more than once. I can't give you that. I am not capable of the credibility required to even TRY to convince you. I would never disclose enough about myself to try and become so. I only tell you so you understand my position. It doesn't mean I am unwilling to listen, or be convinced of any OTHER fact.
I have no agenda. I want the truth too. I know things you can't, so I may come across as holding some sort of dogma of faith in government. I do not, I am just privy to a small part in all of this you cannot be, which precludes a lot of the assumptions about that day. I know for a fact that 4 of the named hijackers made their connections in Boston... more than once. I can't give you that. I am not capable of the credibility required to even TRY to convince you. I would never disclose enough about myself to try and become so. I only tell you so you understand my position. It doesn't mean I am unwilling to listen, or be convinced of any OTHER fact.
Operation 420
Well-Known Member
You can't win your argument with Grow, so you ignore him, classic.
And now you are "privy" to information that we're not. LMAO, dude you're too funny.
Translation: I can't prove my point, so I'll just say I have inside information that I can't give you proof of. You're too much bro.
what... huh?
Active Member
Grow will not stick to an argument, and when cornered, makes a joke, and continues to rant. It isn't that I "cant win my argument" with grow... I can't HAVE an argument with grow. It is a monologue.
I explained that what I know is not in any way verifiable, and as such not capable of introduction... and how that might affect my demeanor. I was pretty clear... you do not need to re-interpret anything.
I told you, if you have an argument of grows that you think bares merit, present it. He argues with me regardless of my not reading it... restate any rebuttals and I will address them with you.
I can win any argument. That doesn't make me right... and the whole diatribe was to give you (pl) assurance that I am not engaging in any "tactics" in order to "win". Funny that you call THAT a tactic.
So, other than wanting desperately to give Grow a blumpkin... did you have anything to contribute? An argument? A question? A rebuttal?
Anything?
jfgordon1
Well-Known Member
i have something... I have to find it. You and grow know more about this stuff than i ever will. (even though you're on opposite sides of the debate). So maybe you can explain this to me.
let me try to find a pic real quick.
TreesOfLife
Well-Known Member
Lets have some fun today folks ... how about we look at all the bogus talking points of the deniers shall we?
Notice folks how the denier continues to side step the issues? There are certain specification for certain types of buildings, but in this instance he pretends they are all the same. An if you compare the photo he provided with the photo of the steel of the WTC you will see there is no comparison ... yet he expects you to believe it is. This is a perfect example of how deniers will grab at straws and actually believe they have made a valid point.
There doesn't have to be ... the McCormick building didn't have tons of structural steel like the WTC ... notice the denier only show examples of buildings and bridges
Once again he try to pretend that those examples he presented are designed like the WTC but of course we all know they are not. Yet he continues to say it is evidence hoping that if he says it enough you will accept it as fact.
Since he can't refute the argument he changes it to suit him ... the real argument is a normal fire doesn't make a fireproofed structural steel skyscraper free fall into it's own footprint after burning less than 2 hours ... not without serious help ... that's the argument ... and notice folks at home ... the deniers can not produce a similar building like the WTC that collapse in their own foot print free fall style after burning less than 2 hours ... why you asks? Because it doesn't happen.
Once again the denier tries to side step the real issue. He believe by doing this it will distract from the facts ... well at least in his mind it will ...
As No noted ... the deniers present a lot of evidence that supports 911 was an inside job ... you folks did see the pictures right? Yep ... nothing like the WTC ... yet they believe it supports their argument ... that's how delusional they can be.
Another excellent example of how the denier will take information that has been thoroughly debunk because it's not a skyscraper and there was nothing unusual that happen with that fire ... yet he continues to present it as though it were valid evidence, in the hope that if he keeps doing it you will accept it as fact. He can't produce another skyscraper that collapsed in it's own footprint at free fall speed so he hopes you will believe the bridge is the same thing. Pretty sad really.
Here again he tries to change the argument to suit his purpose ... the argument is a skyscraper does not collapse into its own foot print at free fall speed from a normal fire ... but he can't work from that angle so he make whether or not steel get hot enough to fail the issue ... when clearly it is not.
See folks ... the denier makes another desperate attempt to side track the issue. So he tries to knit pick his way around the facts. See how he works to change the argument? Which is that a skyscraper can not collapse at free fall speed in its own foot print due to fire. Case close.
Notice here folk how he once again changes the argument to suit him ... then claims that he debunked the evidence? See how their minds work?
Here another trait of the deniers ... they take their own short comings and project them to their opponents ... when in fact he is the only one doing the clinging.
Argument changed ... but not the real issue. Normal fires DO NOT cause skyscrapers to fall free fall style into their own foot print due to fire ... never have never will ... and the denier has yet to produce a skyscraper that has. Why do you ask? Because he can't. There never has been a skyscraper that has. Before or after 911. Case close.
Notice how delusional a denier is about winning an argument?
Once again he note a structure that isn't a skyscraper and expect us to accept it as the same thing. Why do you asked? Because he can't produce a skyscraper that collapsed free fall style into its own foot print from a normal fire that's why.
Oh so now the building are "unique" while before it was alright to use any kind of steel structure to prove his bogus arguments. Here once again is an excellent example of the denier projecting his own short coming on to his opponents. It was alright to change the argument to suit him ... They actually believe that you will fall for their bullshit.
Says the guy who never work a day of construction in his life ... folks I'm sure most of you already know I have the manager of the WTC project stating that those buildings could not have collapse due to what happen. Yet this denier would have us believe that he know more about the buildings design than the people that actually build it. Yeah .... right...
Here again he claims he has proven he's right with a bogus argument ... knowing he can only give a different example because what happen couldn't have without help.
Here he demonstrates that it is he that has nothing to debate, but hope you all don't see that ... too bad for him we do.
Once again he repeats his delusions about the bridge ... desperate to get you to accept it ... to bad we don't.
Let keep repeating things like the denier shall we? Normal fires do not cause skyscrapers to collapse free fall style into their own foot print ... it just doesn't happen ... and that's what the fuss is all about.
Folk he didn't address that because he was far too busy making up other bogus bullshit hoping you will buy it ... too bad it's not working.
See how he goes back to side stepping the issue folks?
Gasoline was no where in the fire so why is he bringing it up? That's right ... side stepping again.
What makes him think steel is normal fire proof and what does this have to do with a skyscraper collapsing into its own foot print at free fall speed? That's right ... nothing.
Been there done that ... it's not our fault that he want to wallow in his own denial ... that's his decision and problem not ours. Later boy.
You are a lost cause.
Operation 420
Well-Known Member
I just find it funny that you think we're the crazy people, yet you come on here saying you have inside information that you can't disclose.
what... huh?
Active Member
I am totally willing to believe that tape is a forgery.
what... huh?
Active Member
I have disclosed it. I cannot prove it and be anonymous.
My wife at the time was a pilot. She greeted them as they boarded several times... including on 9/11.
Again... none of that has any relevance to the things we are discussing. My ex-wifes flight routes have fuck all to do with the temperature of steels structural failure. It is again, anecdotal, second hand, and utterly inadmissible as evidence. I was trying to give only a small insight into why I might seem "fanatical" in my belief... and that it has nothing to do with government, kool-aid, or sheep. I know four made their connecting flights. That is it. That is all I know, that I can't prove... and for the umpteenth time... am not trying to. It is mentioned only as to better define what I am, and why I bother doing this.
K
Keenly
Guest
basically, even after all the information we have posted, his mind is still in a box
he keeps talking about stuff thats unrelated to WTC
answer this smart guy
on 9/11 WHY did it take over an hour for any jets to be scrambled by northcom?
why did northcom stand down?
why did the government create Operation Northwoods?
Operation northwoods was a document created in 1952 (date could be wrong)
around the Cuban Missile Crisis
The document (found at the national archives)
details plans to hijack commercial airliners (via remote control)
crash them into high profile buildings, blame the attack on cuba, so the population would rally around an invasion of cuba
gee... what does that sound like? something familiar?
look man, if you want to keep your head in a box, thats fine.
but you really should give up trying to refute all of this evidence
there is WAY too much evidence to deny...
what about bin laden being treated at an american hospital in cairo?
what about the entire bin laden family being escorted out of the U.S. after 9/11
Do you really think there has not been another "terrorist" attack because our homeland security is so good? yeah right..
what about the patriot act? the single biggest slaughter of the constitution since...well...ever
1. false flag attack
2. blame an enemy
3. take away liberties
"he who trades liberty for security deserves neither"
and one more question for you...
Why, in the U.S. Army Sergeant Field manual, is there a section titled
"how to stage terror attacks"
?
K
Keenly
Guest
The critical temperature for steel starts at 900°C for pure iron, then, as more carbon is added, the temperature falls to a minimum 724°C for eutectic steel (steel with only .83% by weight of carbon in it). As 2.1 % carbon (by mass) is approached, the critical temperature climbs back up, to 1130°C.
Jet fuel burns...
Open air burning temperatures: 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)
that is not even close to the failing point..
If the building collapsed due to fire, (which is impossible, but ill ignore that)
it would have fallen over, not came crashing down on top of itself
Why did larry silverstien give the order to "pull it" and then the building came down?
Why, on the news...did walter kronkite say
"we now go live to one of the building collapsing"
*tv shows WTC*
5 or 6 seconds go by
THEN it collapses
how did he know it was going to collapse?
Jet fuel burns...
Open air burning temperatures: 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)
that is not even close to the failing point..
If the building collapsed due to fire, (which is impossible, but ill ignore that)
it would have fallen over, not came crashing down on top of itself
Why did larry silverstien give the order to "pull it" and then the building came down?
Why, on the news...did walter kronkite say
"we now go live to one of the building collapsing"
*tv shows WTC*
5 or 6 seconds go by
THEN it collapses
how did he know it was going to collapse?
what... huh?
Active Member
You should start at about page 30.
I am not going to have the same arguments which have been conceded over and over again.
I am not going to have the same arguments which have been conceded over and over again.
K
Keenly
Guest
so basically what your saying is, you cant explain operation northwoods, you cant explain why northcom stood down for over an hour
you cant explain why several prominent political officials were warned not to fly on 9/11
you cant explain the HUGE difference between steels compromising temperature and jet fuels burning temperature
hmmmmmm
what... huh?
Active Member
I also go one thing at a time. You should start with your best... I am very meticulous.
If you are too lazy to read the arguments already hashed, and so desire an answer to your first question, you can google ATC SOP on NORDO.
(standard operating procedure when a plane goes no-radio)
If you are too lazy to read the arguments already hashed, and so desire an answer to your first question, you can google ATC SOP on NORDO.
(standard operating procedure when a plane goes no-radio)
what... huh?
Active Member
What I am saying is that I am battling many people, alone.
This one thread eats up so many hours of my week it is insane... I am not re-researching the proofs to questions I have already answered. If you can't put the time in, I sure as hell can't.
I have a wife and two year old who would like that attention. I have a business to run. Each point, rebuttal, or theory I put here takes hours to prepare. Hours.
K
Keenly
Guest
so your refusing to even acknowledge my points, a sign of a lost cause
i read your document.... no where in there does it say
"when commercial airliners are hijacked and U.S. citizens lives are in danger, wait 1 hour before scrambling jets"
He can't explain anything! thats the whole point, most of his evidence only furthers the truth movements claims. He just MUST believe that it was those guys his ex saw that did it. To do otherwise would be to admit he is wrong and has been for 8 years. he MUST cling to the "official" story or he will be seen by others as a "tin foil hat wearer" and ostracized by his fellow sheep.
Hey WH if you take a piece of steel lets say its 1/64" in diameter, you can get it to fail very easily with a regular household match. In fact it will glow white hot and gravity will cause it to fold over on itself. Does that prove that "regular" fire can cause steel to fail?
Hey WH if you take a piece of steel lets say its 1/64" in diameter, you can get it to fail very easily with a regular household match. In fact it will glow white hot and gravity will cause it to fold over on itself. Does that prove that "regular" fire can cause steel to fail?
jfgordon1
Well-Known Member
That does make a huge difference. Not going to lie there. I've been on other forums stating my case that 9/11 was an inside job and i was out number 15 to 1. To make a fair debate sides should be even. However, us out numbering you is a good thing in the scheme of things. People aren't trusting the government. and thats a GOOD thing !
- Status