Enough with the dishonest behaviour Truthers - I'm calling you out.

Originally posted by Nucleardoom

9. The Pentagon had a missile defense system - NOT TRUE

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

 

Ok, think about that for a moment. Your claiming that the headquarters for the Department of Defense lacks any missile defense system. This is arguably the most secure building in the world. To think this building wouldn't have this protection when other less important sites have a defense system is being unrealistic. Good god man, open up your eyes and look past the end of your nose.

They have a missle defence system, but that the pentagon has one built into it, THATS absurd.
and also what would they do? "OMG THERES A AIRPLANE SHOOT IT DOWN!!!!!!!!!" *Pew pew pew* Oh... oops sorry, didn't mean to.. oh my... blood and guts everywhere.... * Looks up* OMFG ANOTHER ONE?

Lol its not like the plane said "Ima blow you up " on it...
and wouldn't launching a missle at a plane just make a bigger mess? Lol

reply to post by spw184


you are free to ignore all the facts.

Enjoy your freedom.

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

 

Whoa whoa whoa! Are you saying NYC buildings & the WTC arent/werent designed to take damage from a planes impact? Ouch, you'd be dead wrong.

Nothing to see here folks. This is a trolls thread that will get many posts & unfortantly will make the Newest Posts page.

Trolls thread.

I was leaning more to HBGary's social media software for steering opinion. maybe a beta version, as i suspect that default usernames generated by it are usually 6 chars: eg; abcDEF, or abc123.

oops, isee an spw184 is here to back the OP.

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by spw184

 

I am not sure the point your trying to make on the issue of co-ordinates and the use of video analysis to study the way the structure is behaving but i am sure it is not helping the OP to make their point on this issue...

I will not get into some sort of name calling slinging match with you or use patranizing remarks in the way you have just done as it would show ignorance upon my part ....the OP showed a video in which he was basing his reasons for calling people dishonest....but i think it was immediately put to rest and was shown quite esily why the video does not represent what occur on that day ten years ago.

but i do appreciate your coments and hope that the line will come off my screen when i wipe it.

Should I just start judging peoples posts by spellcheck before I put any thought into them?

Its not the same if they are all like Omaigawd or yhu, meh, teh.... Than your TRYING to make a joke, but when you use words that put a serious message out, spell them right! Or use another word! The english vocabulary is like over 9000 words....
^^ MEMEZ ^^

Originally posted by hmdphantom
reply to post by spw184

 

you are free to ignore all the facts.

Enjoy your freedom.

What FACTS. There are no FACTS, only theories and inferences and assumptions.

If you can give me ONE HARDCORE FACT, I might think about considering this $*%&

reply to post by spw184


already corrected M8....so nice try and if you base all things on typos while trying to address someone whom is being nothing more than antagonistic and derogatory to others it will be understood by the masses at large....

sorry folks...nothing to see here move on.

reply to post by spw184

They have a missle defence system, but the pentagon does not have one built into it, THATS absurd.

there is no record of a missile defense system at the pentagon. there are no videos, images, diagrams, blueprints, cellphone pictures, or satellite images of a missile defense system at the pentagon.

That said, I really doubt they would place a missile defense system at the pentagon for a few reasons. Mainly, this is the heart of the Unite States defense, no enemy would ever get within striking distance right? (chortle)

But I would also find it hard to believe that they would broadcast the missile defense system, and allow it to be seen a photographed as that's the first step of evading the defense, figuring out what it is.

This is a straw man round about used to waste time on a meaningless aspect of a huge world changing event.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by spw184

 

They have a missle defence system, but the pentagon does not have one built into it, THATS absurd.

there is no record of a missile defense system at the pentagon. there are no videos, images, diagrams, blueprints, cellphone pictures, or satellite images of a missile defense system at the pentagon.

That said, I really doubt they would place a missile defense system at the pentagon for a few reasons. Mainly, this is the heart of the Unite States defense, no enemy would ever get within striking distance right? (chortle)

But I would also find it hard to believe that they would broadcast the missile defense system, and allow it to be seen a photographed as that's the first step of evading the defense, figuring out what it is.

This is a straw man round about used to waste time on a meaningless aspect of a huge world changing event.

Oops.. I made a typo xD
I wanted to say "They have a missle defence system, but that the pentagon has one built into it, THATS absurd."

Note: Its 5:32am now in my state, and I haven't been to bed all night because I had a major party to get ready for.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


A thread only worthy of the rant forum and certainly doesn't warrant an actual response..

Nothing that hasn't already been addressed in countless threads..

reply to post by backinblack


Your not going to find ANYTHING Original in the 9/11 fourms hun..

reply to post by plube


Well fire goes upwards...
So you would think that the floors above would get destroyed first.

Originally posted by spw184
Also.. How would the goverment keep all the firefighters, Police, FBI, CIA, Congress, Demolitionists,ect ect ect quiet? yeah...

Man this is my favorite argument used by Osers. Ben Franklin is quoted as saying "Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead." Well quote me as saying that "3,000 people can keep a conspiracy secret if 2,990 of them have no idea whats going on." For anyone to think that all who participated in 9/11 had knowledge of it is ridiculous. Common sense my friend. We all posses it i suggest you try using it.

If I sound harsh whatever. One of the main reason I came to ATS was because of my interest in 9/11. However it is so impossibly hard to have any kind of rational discussion in these section of the board that probably less than 20 of my 800+ posts have been in here.

Like I mentioned before my friend if you think that everyone who was a player in 9/11 that day, Big brother, The alphabet boys, Police, EMTs, fire departments etc was aware of what was happening then please by all means come talk to me because I have a bridge, building, private island and country I would like to sell you.

Also there is an "n" in government if you stand by them so wholeheartedly learn how to spell their name. I usually don't spell nazi on here, but practice what you preach my friend.

Trowa

P.S I originally deleted this post however someone starred it so I rewrote it to the best of my ability. I'm going back to the sidelines and letting the more skilled fighters handle this.

reply to post by spw184


Here's a fact:

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse

Examples

Lets elaborate before captain half-fact steps in.

The first tower to collapse. If you need to load up a video. Watch how the top of that building, above the impact zone, tilts and twists as it starts to come down. This is what you would expect from a building built to withstand a direct impact by a jet liner. The top half tilts towards the damaged section and basically slides off.

That is where the normal reaction stops. What should have happened next is the top of that building crashed down into the street, causing a lot of damage, but leaving the core and lower sections of the tower standing.

Instead, we had total collapse of bother towers, the second not even burning as long as the first, and the second is a better example, there is no tilting towards the damaged section, it comes straight down into itself offering very little resistance.

Then we move onto building 7. No plane hit this 47 story building, just debris and light office fires. This building also collapses straight down into it's basement falling at free fall speed for several seconds.

Now, lets say the jetfuel didn't burn up immediately like it did. Lets say, some how, the hollow aluminum place which disintegrated on impact actually tore out the center core columns, which it didn't. Lets also say that office fires, which burn unevenly and at low temperatures, burned evenly over the entire floors and hot enough to melt steel (meaning they burned at least 1000 degrees hotter than possible).

So what happens? Well what should happen is the top half collapses leaving the undamaged lower floors standing. Some would indeed be damaged but the top section only has gravity as a factor, and with each floor it encounters it SHOULD meet resistance, slowing the collapse and eventually the debris takes the path of least resistance, instead of going through steel and concrete it falls over the edges and takes the nice easy empty air path instead.

None of this happened. Just some small buildings have collapsed due to extreme fires. No steel framed sky scraper has. Plenty have suffered more severe and prolonged fires an didn't collapse. the collapses we witnessed on 911 simply do not fit with physics and you have to imagine, and pretend and assume.

The top half of a building can not travel through the lower half at the same speed it would through air, it's physically impossible. The only solution to that is removing the resistance below, once you damage the core of the building so it offers little resistance, you can use a gravity fueled collapse to do the job.

Without damage to the core structure, the floors would collapse above the damage point and nothing more, no more weight as it should come sliding down the sides.

None of the answers provided by popular mechanics or the NIST report fit with physics and the structure of the buildings themselves.

sure, you can say no other building was hit by a plane. you'd be wrong, it has happened, and in New York, and is the reason the WTC was constructed as it was.

You can say no other building had it's core columns damaged (but the popular mechanics animations clearly show the plane being shredded by those very core columns as it's mostly aluminum.) but you'd be assuming the core columns were damaged by, for all intents and purposes, a baked potato wrapped in tinfoil.

you can say no other building had it's fireproofing stripped away.

Fine, you can have that one. But my friend, what about building 7? What is to be done with this pesky building 7 ?

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


Thank you, I starred this because unlike most 9/11sheeple, you provided me with a solution to my question, and backed up your point of view. I still disagree, thank you for not being all like "Dhur dhur youtube dhur dhur college kid dhur dhur"

Hi OP!

Sadly, if this were a court of law, your defense team would NOT be opening up the bottle of Angel Champagne.

But you're still entitled.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Hi OP!

Sadly, if this were a court of law, your defense team would NOT be opening up the bottle of Angel Champagne.

But you're still entitled.

Hi dgtempe!

Sadly, if this were a court of law, YOUR defense team would NOT be opening up the bottle of Angel Champagne, because im almost positive that after a couple of your far fetched ideas passed through, they might start selling tickets to get in. I can see it now "9/11 Trial.. On ice."

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by BigBruddah

 

Sorry, but if you wanna disprove me use google. You can't though, but go on and try.

You asking others to use google but you couldn't use google in your OP to show any type of evidence at all to what you claim? Personally I do not think debating with you is worth the effort, after all you couldn't put much effort into your own OP.

Good Luck.

reply to post by Noviz


Well there in lays the conumdrum now doesn't it...because if that is the case...because according to Bazant Zhou...in order for crush down to complete the collapse process the upper block is absolutely required to stay intact to complete the crush down phase.....As was shown in the example....and as one could see in all the demolitions of a top down collapse.

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by BigBruddah

 

Sorry, but if you wanna disprove me use google. You can't though, but go on and try.

You asking others to use google but you couldn't use google in your OP to show any type of evidence at all to what you claim? Personally I do not think debating with you is worth the effort, after all you couldn't put much effort into your own OP.

Good Luck.

And personally, I think that your picking at details here, also, so what if he says that? Its not like he's saying " #4 Cats have 3 heads - I dont have a link but look on google, you'll find it." Hes not being lazy at all, he's just saying that there is no evidence on the internet to debunk his debunking.

The film 9/11: Blueprint for Truth and THIS thread, completely destroy all claims made by the OP as fact. I would have done it myself but someone already did the hard work. I'd also like to ask to those people who believe the Official Story.. Were you there?