Jesse Ventura

[volsforever27]

The irony is that as criticize people for being sheep, you yourself are producing as much wool as anyone else as you buy into every half cocked conspiracy notion out there.

It's much easier to work backwards from a preconceived reality than it is to accept the one that actually exists. Your "truth" is no more valid than the next guy's.

That what I don't get by conspiracy theorists... they are so worried about being lied to that they believe an outrageous lie because the truth is just too simple...

 

[hndog609]

A good and fairly meticulous de-bunking.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

Just bear in mind however it is IMPOSSIBLE to completely debunk any true conspiracy theory. All any good CS needs is enough grey area to insert what they "believe", however outragous, that cannot and will likely never be incontravertibly refuted. Evidence otherwise is lying or manufactured. Most CS are somewhat ego driven. You are one of the "enlightened", risen above those closed minded or simply gullible types who will not see your truth.

Recipe for creamed 9/11 CS:
Put into blender powered by Occam's Razor, frappe

 

[Volunteer_Kirby]

You do understand that a 4 ton steel girder is quite small, right? Especially compared to a 110 story building and a 10 ton jet...

Also, can you provide evidence that proves the girder was not ejected upon impact?

View the video of the collapse, then the video of the airplane hitting the building. The answer is really obvious. You shouldn't try and make it seem like a small thing either... There was plenty more than 1 4-ton steel girder... Dozens upon dozens up these massive steel girders were launched over 400ft. What makes you think gravity and wind is capable of launching something that weighs 4-tons 600yds? While you're at it explain to me why you think explosions or a demolition would likely only launch it 50 yards?

 

[Volunteer_Kirby]

Still waiting for you to answer two misleading and pointless hypothetical questions...

Fixed

 

[Volunteer_Kirby]

The irony is that as criticize people for being sheep, you yourself are producing as much wool as anyone else as you buy into every half cocked conspiracy notion out there.

It's much easier to work backwards from a preconceived reality than it is to accept the one that actually exists. Your "truth" is no more valid than the next guy's.

The reality is that WTC7 & the Twin Towers were "imploded".

 

[Volunteer_Kirby]

That what I don't get by conspiracy theorists... they are so worried about being lied to that they believe an outrageous lie because the truth is just too simple...

The only thing "simple" about believing the official account is blindly accepting authority's word for what happened that day, rather than making your own conclusions...

No steel-framed building has ever completely collapsed from fire and minor damage in the history of construction. The only three buildings to ever do so in the history of mankind were the three buildings owned by Larry Silverstein at the WTC complex, and they all collapsed on the same day, one of them in textbook controlled demolition style. It's very "simple" to you because you have wool over your eyes.

 

[Volunteer_Kirby]

Minor structural damage of WTC7:

ETA: NIST states that the damage to the SW corner of WTC7 was from the 8th to 18th floors.

A bit of common sense shows that this amount of damage would not have any measurable effect on the integrity of the structure. However we don't need to rely on just common sense. As with all modern buildings on the entire planet Earth, WTC7 was designed with excessive structural redundancy. I'll post a portion of the NYC Building Code for you to view...

 

[KB5252]

The reality is that WTC7 & the Twin Towers were "imploded".

It is my understanding that WTC7 did burn and fall because of an explosion. Might have something to do with those two huge diesel tanks that powered the back up generators. Serious question....... Demolition experts have looked at the footage and concluded there was nothing to make them believe any detonated explosives were used. Not to mention the logistics time and manpower it would take to rig the building and prep it. With these experts in agreement why would you chose to believe otherwise?

 

[KB5252]

The only thing "simple" about believing the official account is blindly accepting authority's word for what happened that day, rather than making your own conclusions...

No steel-framed building has ever completely collapsed from fire and minor damage in the history of construction. The only three buildings to ever do so in the history of mankind were the three buildings owned by Larry Silverstein at the WTC complex, and they all collapsed on the same day, one of them in textbook controlled demolition style. It's very "simple" to you because you have wool over your eyes.

And you believe a jet would only cause "minor" damage to a building?

 

[Volunteer_Kirby]

A good and fairly meticulous de-bunking.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

Just bear in mind however it is IMPOSSIBLE to completely debunk any true conspiracy theory. All any good CS needs is enough grey area to insert what they "believe", however outragous, that cannot and will likely never be incontravertibly refuted. Evidence otherwise is lying or manufactured. Most CS are somewhat ego driven. You are one of the "enlightened", risen above those closed minded or simply gullible types who will not see your truth.

Recipe for creamed 9/11 CS:
Put into blender powered by Occam's Razor, frappe

Yes... the newest PM crew. There was 0 talk of "debunking" when old crew was still employed. I've seen that link dozens of times... So I have already seen it all.

 

[VolzRChamps]

It is my understanding that WTC7 did burn and fall because of an explosion. Might have something to do with those two huge diesel tanks that powered the back up generators. Serious question....... Demolition experts have looked at the footage and concluded there was nothing to make them believe any detonated explosives were used. Not to mention the logistics time and manpower it would take to rig the building and prep it. With these experts in agreement why would you chose to believe otherwise?

A-G-E-N-D-A

"America is a vast conspiracy to make you happy." --John Updike

 

[KB5252]

Minor structural damage of WTC7:

ETA: NIST states that the damage to the SW corner of WTC7 was from the 8th to 18th floors.

A bit of common sense shows that this amount of damage would not have any measurable effect on the integrity of the structure. However we don't need to rely on just common sense. As with all modern buildings on the entire planet Earth, WTC7 was designed with excessive structural redundancy. I'll post a portion of the NYC Building Code for you to view...

Yes, but the resulting fires are what caused the diesel to ignite and explode.

 

[Volunteer_Kirby]

It is my understanding that WTC7 did burn and fall because of an explosion. Might have something to do with those two huge diesel tanks that powered the back up generators. Serious question....... Demolition experts have looked at the footage and concluded there was nothing to make them believe any detonated explosives were used. Not to mention the logistics time and manpower it would take to rig the building and prep it. With these experts in agreement why would you chose to believe otherwise?

Controlled Demolition Expert and WTC7 (original subtitles)

Two diesel would stand no chance of making a building that large fall at near free-fall speed into it's own footprint. If there was security access, lacing the building with explosives could be done efficiently. I choose to believe otherwise because evidence shows it was imploded. Everything from a crink, to the speed, to the pyroclastic flow, to the symmetrical collapse - The collapse of WTC7 bears a striking resemblance to classic controlled demolitions. In a controlled demo the near-simultaneous, catastrophic failure of all support columns is what leads a gravitational collapse. Buildings are demolished in this manner to ensure that the structure implodes inwards into its footprint. The pic below is a simplified representation of the classic controlled demolition sequence:

In action it looks like this:

Observe 3 things

1) Initial collapse is marked by a "kink" in the middle of the building as the central columns are destroyed.
2) Outer wall falls last and lies down on top of the building.
3) Collapses into it's own footprint, in a symmetrical fashion.

Now WTC7:

1) The initial collapse shows a "kink" in the building.

2) The outermost walls fall last and lie down on top of it's footprint.

3) Symmetrical collapse, building falls into it's own footprint.

 

[hndog609]

Yes... the newest PM crew. There was 0 talk of "debunking" when old crew was still employed. I've seen that link dozens of times... So I have already seen it all.

A CS layered into another CS. PM could only de-bunk 9/11 after getting replacing everyone. You'd hold my interest a lot better if you'd quit worrying about ad hominem attacks on PM and address the critiques they have for your pet CS.

 

[Volunteer_Kirby]

Just so you are aware of how big WTC7 was, before 9/11 it was the biggest building in 33 states. It doesn't look very big because it's in Manhattan. You find that building of that size anywhere else and it is monstrous.

 

[KB5252]

Kirby the building in question had very little structural support in the center so it would be natural for it to fall inward. And your experts account of how easy it would be to carry miles of wire and a vast amount of other equipment inside without raising anyones eyebrow is laughable at best. Not too mention the very loud equip. needed to drill and weaken beams, remove concrete from support points and so on.

 

[KB5252]

The most compelling case against your theory is the sheer number of people that would have to have been involved, thousands of people. After seeing what happened on 911 don't you think they would be coming out in droves? There is no way to keep anything secret when that many people would know about it.

 

[Volunteer_Kirby]

A CS layered into another CS. PM could only de-bunk 9/11 after getting replacing everyone. You'd hold my interest a lot better if you'd quit worrying about ad hominem attacks on PM and address the critiques they have for your pet CS.

I have no need to address all 16 of the claims. PM provided the classic triad thesis, antithesis, synthesis. I didn't sling an ad hominem at PM either, I stated a fact. In the months leading up to the "debunking" article in PM, a dramatic change occurred at PM.

[SIZE=+1]In September 2004, Joe Oldham, the magazines former editor-in-chief was replaced by James B. Meigs, who came to PM with a deputy, Jerry Beilinson, from National Geographic Adventure. In October, a new creative director replaced PMs 21-year veteran who was given ninety minutes to clear out of his office.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]A former senior editor at PM, who is forbidden from openly discussing the coup at PM, told AFP that the former creative director was abruptly told to leave and given severance pay of two weeks wages for every year spent at PM. Three or four people have been similarly dismissed every month since, he said. He said he was astounded that the coup at PM had not been reported in the mainstream media.[/SIZE]

 

[Volunteer_Kirby]

Kirby the building in question had very little structural support in the center so it would be natural for it to fall inward. And your experts account of how easy it would be to carry miles of wire and a vast amount of other equipment inside without raising anyones eyebrow is laughable at best. Not too mention the very loud equip. needed to drill and weaken beams, remove concrete from support points and so on.

The most compelling case against your theory is the sheer number of people that would have to have been involved, thousands of people. After seeing what happened on 911 don't you think they would be coming out in droves? There is no way to keep anything secret when that many people would know about it.

Well obviously it's too hard to believe. Despite how damning the evidence is, it's just not possible. Our government would ever intentionally harm innocent civilians... Would never even dream of concocting a false-flag terror attack. Would never lie. Would never fabricate evidence or even purposely stifle dissent. You've heard the phrase: where there's a will, there's a way. If the resources are available (money, security access) then it's entirely possible. I assume it wouldn't take much more than access to the basement, plus an elevator shaft. Or perhaps the building was "laced" during construction - as Paul Loffoley's (worked on WTC site as an architect) account suggest. They wouldn't be coming out in doves either. If workers laced the buildings, don't you think tight tabs would be kept on them?

9/11 was pulled off, just like 7/7 & the Madrid bombing (3/11). 7/7 was another false-flag terror attack and if you can't connect the dots with that one, then you have cognitive dissonance. Try looking for the facts on that one. I insist you see how absurd... How obvious the planning was.

ETA: regarding security access... Search and find out where GWB's brother worked before 9/11.

 

[hndog609]

I have no need to address all 16 of the claims. PM provided the classic triad thesis, antithesis, synthesis. I didn't sling an ad hominem at PM either, I stated a fact. In the months leading up to the "debunking" article in PM, a dramatic change occurred at PM.

Any reference to "who" at PM (or anyone/anywhere else for that matter) makes it an ad hominem attack. I don't care if they cleared out the whole office and brought in martians. Moreover, when one brings out a CS the onus is on YOU. So addressing the issues brought up by these people (and any others) is the only way you'll get any play to my audience.

 

[KB5252]

You have bought hook line and sinker what the various conspiracy sites have fed you. I, along with most others in America, watched in horror. Then the theories came out and I entertained the idea. But after looking at everything and all the evidence pro and con I had to come to the conclusion that there was no vast conspiracy and 911 was a terrorist act, just as in Spain and the UK. It seems we will have to agree to disagree. I just don't see how such a story with so many holes in it can hold water. For some it is easier to believe that Bush is a demon. I happen to think that we were attacked by Al Qaida as they have so many times taken responsibility for that day among others.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Well obviously it's too hard to believe. Despite how damning the evidence is, it's just not possible. Our government would ever intentionally harm innocent civilians... Would never even dream of concocting a false-flag terror attack. Would never lie. Would never fabricate evidence or even purposely stifle dissent. You've heard the phrase: where there's a will, there's a way. If the resources are available (money, security access) then it's entirely possible. I assume it wouldn't take much more than access to the basement, plus an elevator shaft. Or perhaps the building was "laced" during construction - as Paul Loffoley's (worked on WTC site as an architect) account suggest. They wouldn't be coming out in doves either. If workers laced the buildings, don't you think tight tabs would be kept on them?

9/11 was pulled off, just like 7/7 & the Madrid bombing (3/11). 7/7 was another false-flag terror attack and if you can't connect the dots with that one, then you have cognitive dissonance. Try looking for the facts on that one. I insist you see how absurd... How obvious the planning was.

ETA: regarding security access... Search and find out where GWB's brother worked before 9/11.

So if 9/11 was government sponsored, it would have been planned and carried out by the Clinton Administration correct?

 

[KB5252]

So if 9/11 was government sponsored, it would have been planned and carried out by the Clinton Administration correct?

Don't you know better than to bring logic to this argument? Besides we all know that Bush1 masterminded this plan to have his son carry it out!

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Don't you know better than to bring logic to this argument? Besides we all know that Bush1 masterminded this plan to have his son carry it out!

I blame Jimmy Carter!

 

[KB5252]

I blame Jimmy Carter!

Nixon