Eddie believes in 911 inside job?

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

the government doesn;t have the balls or the competence to pull off something so needlessly complex.

Motive isn't guilt.

nobody

MrSmith wrote:

the government doesn;t have the balls or the competence to pull off something so needlessly complex.

Motive isn't guilt.

nice summary:)
(just one more thing: if they tear down the building anyway...why fly those planes in? terrorists can also plant bombs, no?)

m.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

nobody wrote:

you just know everything, don't you...
I think this thread alone shows pretty clearly that no normal productive debate is possible with you...

did you hear Chomsky: diverting people from serious issues!!! real problems!!! like you know...solving actual crisis without always blaming the man for it...

but why do I post even...the insults from you will be inevitable...
and I'm not involved in politics, so I don't play any card

m.

I don;t know everything b ut I do know common sense.

He has his reputation at stake like everyone else involved.

obviously.

nobody

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I don;t know everything b ut I do know common sense.

He has his reputation at stake like everyone else involved.

obviously.

did you hear that he said he was pretty much alone on the ("far") left with his opinion...
isn't that where his reputation should be strongest?
just a thought...

m.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Steel buildings don't collapse like a deck of cards.

never has happened before. Never will happen again unless it is demolished.

Nobody from the official story can explain the collapse unless they make the simulations ridiculous, or factor in eliminating the vertical support columns all at the same time, and everywhere on each floor.

Here's a simple example for the people still stuck on the house of cards all fall down ideology:

Take a school bus. Stand it on it's end up in the air. Now take slice of say a 5 foot section of bus. Hover it directly over the entire school bus by say 20 feet and drop it.

It isn't going to continually plow down through the entire bus all the way to the ground. Not even close. Pls understand that. It's the same thing with the buildings.

No deck of cards....no jenga.phenomenon..no pancake or accordion style collapse. That's all official story fabrication to screw with your heads...

The official story has no real idea how th buildings collapsed.

but it happened three times in a row!

unbelievable.

yes it is.,

RolandTD20Kdrummer

nobody wrote:

did you hear that he said he was pretty much alone on the ("far") left with his opinion...
isn't that where his reputation should be strongest?
just a thought...

m.

Anyone that comes out on 9/11 is ridiculed forever as a crazy person (according to a half baked investigation....and I hesitate to actually call it an investigation).

He doesn't want to put himself through it.

It's a very reasonable explanation.....and for a lot of people...old and young alike the world around.

dg1979us

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Anyone that comes out on 9/11 is ridiculed forever as a crazy person (according to a half baked investigation....and I hesitate to actually call it an investigation).

He doesn't want to put himself through it.

It's a very reasonable explanation.....and for a lot of people...old and young alike the world around.

So he is a liar?

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Anyone that comes out on 9/11 is ridiculed forever as a crazy person (according to a half baked investigation....and I hesitate to actually call it an investigation).

He doesn't want to put himself through it.

It's a very reasonable explanation.....and for a lot of people...old and young alike the world around.

are you kidding? i dont think Chomsky has ever shyed (shied?) away from ridicule or being called a crazy person.

nobody

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Steel buildings don't collapse like a deck of cards.

never has happened before. Never will happen again unless it is demolished.

Nobody from the official story can explain the collapse unless they make the simulations ridiculous, or factor in eliminating the vertical support columns all at the same time, and everywhere on each floor.

Here's a simple example for the people still stuck on the house of cards all fall down ideology:

Take a school bus. Stand it on it's end up in the air. Now take slice of say a 5 foot section of bus. Hover it directly over the entire school bus by say 20 feet and drop it.

It isn't going to continually plow down through the entire bus all the way to the ground. Not even close. Pls understand that. It's the same thing with the buildings.

No deck of cards....no jenga.phenomenon..no pancake or accordion style collapse. That's all official story fabrication to screw with your heads...

The official story has no real idea how th buildings collapsed.

but it happened three times in a row!

unbelievable.

yes it is.,

first: it also has never happened before that a passenger plane flew into one of the biggest skyscrapers in the world...

I am okay with what you say...I just want to point to one thing that came to my mind when reading your bus analogy...
a bus is "hollow" while the WTC had solid and heavy floors inside...so when the first (i don't know how many) floors start falling down they crash on the next floors with an immense power...and everytime a new floor is hit it gets heavier, while the foundation becomes smaller...thus a huge dynamic is started that can tear a building down in that fashion...

m.

dg1979us

MrSmith wrote:

are you kidding? i dont think Chomsky has ever shyed (shied?) away from ridicule or being called a crazy person.

Exactly. Like Chomsky has ever bit his tongue or held back his opinions of the US government, no matter how controversial or disliked his opinions may be.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

nobody wrote:

first: it also has never happened before that a passenger plane flew into one of the biggest skyscrapers in the world...

m.

forget it. he's an architecture expert who knows exactly how buildings will fall down. and with the large pool of data concerning gigantic skyscrapers being hit by large planes, how could you disagree with him?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

nobody wrote:

first: it also has never happened before that a passenger plane flew into one of the biggest skyscrapers in the world...

I am okay with what you say...I just want to point to one thing that came to my mind when reading your bus analogy...
a bus is "hollow" while the WTC had solid and heavy floors inside...so when the first (i don't know how many) floors start falling down they crash on the next floors with an immense power...and everytime a new floor is hit it gets heavier, while the foundation becomes smaller...thus a huge dynamic is started that can tear a building down in that fashion...

m.

The bus also does not have immense vertical steel support columns running up it's center everywhere like steel skyscrapers do. This would make the bus even stronger.

The steel columns increase in size and strength as you go down the buildings. There's no picking up of momentum. it would all slow down and come to stop. The tops of these buildings should have either moved for a bit then stopped altogether or fell off the tops of the buildings.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MrSmith wrote:

forget it. he's an architecture expert who knows exactly how buildings will fall down. and with the large pool of data concerning gigantic skyscrapers being hit by large planes, how could you disagree with him?

The entire building wasn't hit by a plane. The damage was isolated.

lot of good strong building you're forgetting about.

It's like saying if you jump off a picnic table your head will plow through your entire body if you have a weak vertebrae...

g under p

lgt wrote:

Doubts about WMDs were already voiced in the lead-up towards the war.

France, for instance, Hans Blix, not to mention David Kelly in Britain.

Indeed I'd even say that the WMDs claim was disbelieved CREDIBLY during those days by several people.

Of course, this does not imply you should take for granted everything a government says. Questioning and skepticism are very healthy.

It does make one think - or at least me! - why would a government resort to organise such a complex covert operation against his own people (innocent civilians) when an unfounded claim about WMDs proved quite enough to start a war.

Anyway, just wanted to point out that it was factually inaccurate to say that the truth, or rather the lie about WMDs came only years later. It was there already.

Yes I know it was there already I was one of them that believed none was there, what i meant was the administration admitted it publicly years later.

Peace

RolandTD20Kdrummer

dg1979us wrote:

Exactly. Like Chomsky has ever bit his tongue or held back his opinions of the US government, no matter how controversial or disliked his opinions may be.

Chomsky clearly avoids 9/11 discussion like the plague. To the point he almost gets out of character.

Yet you would take his word over say...an architect?

dg1979us

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

The entire building wasn't hit by a plane. The damage was isolated.

lot of good strong building you're forgetting about.

It's like saying if you jump off a picnic table your head will plow through your entire body if you have a weak vertebrae...

Jumping off a picnic table isnt going to have the force or momentum of a large plane hitting a large building. Your are way over simplifing this.

nobody

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Chomsky clearly avoids 9/11 discussion like the plague. To the point he almost gets out of character.

Yet you would take his word over say...an architect?

so how MANY architects support the arguments of this one architect?

I give you that they could also try and be political...

m.

dg1979us

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Chomsky clearly avoids 9/11 discussion like the plague. To the point he almost gets out of character.

Yet you would take his word over say...an architect?

Of course not. Most architects and people qualified to know this stuff, dont agree with you though. And Chomsky avoids it because he doesnt believe it was an inside job.

nobody

this article gives some information on other buildings collapsing in (not exactly) similiar fashion:

http://web.archive.org/web/200407191802 ... +paper.pdf

m.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

dg1979us wrote:

Jumping off a picnic table isnt going to have the force or momentum of a large plane hitting a large building. Your are way over simplifing this.

The bottoms of the buildings had nothing to do with an airplane. They were designed to sway in hurricane type forces. They didn't even budge on 9/11 from the impacts.

The downward momentum and forces involved to keep plowing continuously through massive vertical steel support columns over and over again *at/extremely near free fall speed* all the way to the ground.....it's just no there..

In a hollywood FX movie maybe.