I used to like Penn and Teller until I saw this video

Hooper if you really believe the "official story" of 9/11 then I feel sorry for you. My heart go out to those that cannot fathom they're own government being complicit in a false flag terror operation. We have a track record of false flags, we do it, its history's record now, we can't deny that. who pays you to write such things. I guess you are just ill-informed, and that's not unreasonably, actually for someone who visits ats it is. if you can't see the forest through the trees I'm not going to argue with you about it.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by randomname

 

And here we have another example of someone that has missed out on some important details. WTC 7 was heavily damaged when WTC 1 collapsed.

Do you understand the laws of physics?

The damage to building 7 was on one side of the building at its base.
ONE SIDE.
But yet the building collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint.

The completely bogus lie of an official storyline for towers 1 and 2 list the fact that it was the weight of the tops of buildings 1 and 2 collapsing into the space left by the plane crash that created the momentum necessary for the "pancake theory" to begin escalation.
(It's all a crock and violates about every known law of physics, but just for delusional spits and giggles, let's assume that it actually happened this way)

Well if the collapse of the tops of the towers into space created the momentum necessary for the pancake that happened in 1 and 2, but yet no plane hit 7, then why did 7 pancake in the same way as 1 and 2?????

Hmmmmmm... I don't know. Let's see what the NIST has to say about it.

According to the NIST, despite 1 and 2 violating the laws of physics, so did 7.

Apparently "critical column 79" collapsed from thermal expansion and caused a cascading series of progressive failures from floor 13.
What exactly caused this thermal expansion... fires.

So you are trying to tell me that ONLY fires caused the collapse of WTC7?
No, that is what the NIST is trying to tell you.

Okay. It's a bunch of technical words, so it must be true.

WRONG.
You guys ever heard of the Cardington fire tests in England or the Broadgate fires?

On the 23rd June 1990 a fire developed in the partly completed fourteen storey building in the Broadgate development.

The fire lasted 4.5 hours including 2 hours where the fire exceeded 1000°C. The direct fire loss was in excess of (? million) however, only a fraction of the cost (? million) represented structural frame and floor damage.

The major damage was to the building fabric as a result of smoke. Moreover, the structural repairs after the fire took only 30 days. The structure of the building was a steel frame with composite steel deck concrete floors and was only partially protected at this stage of construction.

During and after the fire, despite large deflections in the elements exposed to fire, the structure behaved well and there was no collapse of any of the columns, beams or floors.

link to source

Did we step through a time warp or something on 9/11 because just about every known law of physics was violated and building 7, a steel structure with asbestos fire retardant on the steel beams, burned out of control and collapsed but yet numerous other steel structured buildings WITHOUT fire protection have burned out of control and NOT collapsed.
As a matter of fact, 9/11 is the only time in the history of our planet when steel structured buildings have collapsed in the manner that they did, unless of course we count controlled demolitions, but I am NOT saying that is what happened.
I don't know what happened, but I do know the official storyline is a load of bull.

The Cardington Fire Tests

In order to obtain a direct comparison with the standard fire test, the first test was carried out on a single unprotected beam and surrounding area of slab. The results indicated that a failure deflection would have occurred at a temperature over 1000°C, far greater than the temperature of 700°C at which it would have failed if tested in isolation.

Further tests were carried out in compartments varying in size from 50m2 to 340m2 with fire loadings provided by gas, wooden cribs and standard office furniture. Columns were protected but beams were not. Despite atmosphere temperatures of over 1200°C and temperatures on the unprotected steel beams of 1100°C in the worst case, no structural collapse took place.

link to source

The official storyline on building 7 is a lie.
I don't know what really happened, but I can tell you FOR SURE that what the NIST says happened DID NOT HAPPEN.

And Penn and Teller are complete dooshes.

Cheers Wanderer2012.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


Oh, but that was due to the highly inefficient and damped kerosene fire that only burned for about an hour in a building designed to withstand 10 hours of extreme chemical fire.

/sarcasm

Don't you know, all that expensive, months-long planning for controlled demolitions is not necessary. You can bring down skyscrapers just as easily and uniformly with some kerosene and copier paper. The black boxes are also made entirely out of the wrong material, because even with homing beacons they didn't survive the collapse and fire, but the paper passports and cheap boxcutters did. They need to make the steel girders out of that boxcutter material, and the black boxes out of the stuff that is on the covers of passports.

Originally posted by Monger
Brilliant. Kudos to Penn and Teller. Your response to the video is typical of somebody who just can't handle hearing an opinion different than your own - I used to like _____ until they said _____.

If their opinion was legitimate and worthwhile, they would not have to use such dirty tactics to make their point.

Meanwhile the other side of the argument is stringent on just relaying facts.

penn&teller are full of what the name of their show was.
i can't believe it lasted for 8 seasons.




they shoveled so much of i bet their eyes are brown.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


8 seasons? WOW!

I only saw about 3 episodes, and I thought I was seeing the first season at the time?

reply to post by getreadyalready


i tried to watch some of them, just couldn't stand the out right twisting they use to try and pull. and expect you to believe the b.s. they were shoveling.

and some of the people they would put on. i swear they had to be paid actors, cause there can't be that many people ate up with the dumb ass that they showed.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


Yep. The only reason I saw three of them, is they happened to be at a timeslot when there was absolutely no other choice, LOL!

reply to post by Wonderer2012


I actually agree about the Truthers, but I often disagree with Penn and Teller. They are entertainers though so it matters very little. They are no more important than Bill Maher is on his sad excuse for comedy that some without any sense view as news.

Let them have your opinion and you have yours. Free Speech is really cool when it applies to us all and some of the things here are as nutty as they say.

Our Conspiracy community here is very diverse. Some I think are very valid and others are in fact the product of lies, propagandists and yes, even nut jobs. My best friend on this planet is as nuts as anyone I've ever met and we scream for hours debating things. He likely thinks I'm nuts also. Still we are like Brothers. I enjoy even the most insane idea's I read here and don't think badly of anyone, no matter how nutty the idea. I will debate them though

reply to post by Blaine91555

I enjoy even the most insane idea's I read here and don't think badly of anyone, no matter how nutty the idea. I will debate them though

Yet you agree with the violent rhetoric against "truthers" as per P&T. May want to tell your friend he is in danger of being thrown down the stairs.

CJ

Originally posted by detachedindividual
I wouldn't bother, the facts and suspicious events surrounding 9/11 are well known, and those who cannot question their government would rather believe that pigs can fly. People will bend every law of physics, probability and nature, they'll ignore evidence, and create evidence where none exists, all to avoid thinking about what REALLY happened.

It's best to just leave these people in a room with American Idol on the TV and a never ending supply of burgers. They'll refuse all forms of critical thinking and prefer their vegetative state of complete compliance.

Your problem is you've lost all touch with reality.

The facts say virtually the opposite. The government did not directly cause 9/11, but our policy in the middle east probably helped bring it about. Mainly, our relationship with Israel. Israel isn't evil. But they're not saints, either. Arguably, the arab groups and nations that're trying to dismantle the state of Israel aren't much worse. Historically, much of this mess is rooted in the formation of Israel by the UN in 1948 and very powerful interests that preceded it. But to be perfectly honest, the broader reasons are buried deeply in past centuries and the motivations are intense and rugged.

So how is it that you get it so wrong? Honestly, if I were you, I'd look in the mirror.

Penn and Teller are professional comedians, not scientists or research experts. I wouldn't expect any show they make to reflect well on reality. But they try. I respect their efforts. Funny guys.

Anyway this is just another thread to preach more gospel to the 9/11 truth movement. So I really think I'm wasting my time. I'll leave the thread with this excellent video:

reply to post by Wonderer2012


They refuted most 9-11 claims quite well. What are you upset about? If you are so sure you're right why are you so upset with others challenging you?

There was a document on Rense.com shortly after 911 that was supposedly found in a desk of an old news media lady who died shortly after 911. It had the ring of absolute truth to it and detailed what actually happened. It was only online for a short time and vanished off the net completely. I have looked for it many times and found nothing.

It said that there was another hijacker who had been with them from the beginning who was a Mossad agent. This agent was directly involved in the planning of 911. He was in contact with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

The guy who had just bought the WTC had been looking into demolishing the towers because of galvanic corrosion. He had found it was going to cost him 40 billion to tear them down. He was made aware of the plans of the terrorists beforehand and promptly fired the men he had been paying to research tearing down the towers.

The owner and Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld met and he allowed men to install large amounts of thermite on the center beams of the two towers and possibly WTC 7. In one final meeting with BCR the Mossad agent told Rumsfeld where the plane was going to hit the Pentagon. Rumsfeld told the Mossad agent to have them aim for the part of the Pentagon that had just been refurbished and was nearly empty. The original plan would have decapitated our military.

So everything was in place. If the planes had not hit the buildings the thermite would never has burned through the columns and they would not have fell. So it was not a lie to say they were taken down by a terrorist act. The owner got paid 9 billion to have his buildings torn down instead of paying 40 billion. The government got it's wish for the Patriot act and war. And the Mossad got it's free hand to deal with the Palestinians as it wanted.

Everyone "won" in that scenario. It read like the truth and was completely believable. It is the story I believe. I saw the molten metal pouring down an out of the gutters after a thousand foot fall. No metal heated to 1,000 degrees will still be molten after falling that far on a cool fall day. Not unless it is liquid thermite. Thermite burns at 6,000 degrees.

It was the perfect crime. And the evidence (the document I described) was the smoking gun. Had it been circulated widely it would have been unimpeachable. But it was wiped off the net a day or two after being uploaded.

Originally posted by JDmOKI
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

They refuted most 9-11 claims quite well. What are you upset about? If you are so sure you're right why are you so upset with others challenging you?

Yeah, and Charlie Sheen gave a good list as to why it was an inside job.

CJ

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

I enjoy even the most insane idea's I read here and don't think badly of anyone, no matter how nutty the idea. I will debate them though

Yet you agree with the violent rhetoric against "truthers" as per P&T. May want to tell your friend he is in danger of being thrown down the stairs.

CJ

These are entertainers.

reply to post by Blaine91555


I know, I know, I just had to say it due to what P&T said. Frankly although I don't agree with some of the things you say, you usually do it in a level headed manner. More than I can say for myself. And also wanted to say I love having screaming matches with my friends over whatever subject. Irish catholic family upbringing taught me the louder you yell, the more important your words! Need to rethink that one a little.

Back on point, I think the buildings were hit by planes and then blown up with bombs.

CJ

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by Ookie
Everyone "won" in that scenario. It read like the truth and was completely believable. It is the story I believe. I saw the molten metal pouring down an out of the gutters after a thousand foot fall. No metal heated to 1,000 degrees will still be molten after falling that far on a cool fall day. Not unless it is liquid thermite. Thermite burns at 6,000 degrees.

I'm not going to get into a big argument over things, but I have to point something out. I've actually seen and dealt with thermite. It doesn't behave the way you say it does. It does not melt metal and make it drip down. It burns very quickly and brightly, after which it promptly goes out. Thermitic reactions are highly energetic and violent. In my opinion, it would only serve to make metal red hot, not melt it. The only way it might cut beams is if shaped into a cutter charge, which makes the traditional bang that demolitions make.

The biggest problem that truthers on this site and elsewhere seem to share is that they believe in made-up laws of physics. In reference to another poster here, it is not a law of physics that a building cannot fall from being damaged on one side. That's a false statement. If a buildings interior supports are damaged from damage on one side, it doesn't matter if the other side is damaged. The entire structure is weakened and more susceptible to fire.

haha. oh, censorship.

penn and teller are paid entertainers, who get paid by big time entertainment companies...like the ones that own all major media....

they are not "hip". they are old, outdated, and not scientists...entertainers.