Warrior General Games

Originally posted by baumusc


AE911Truth.infoo_O
http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/



Conveniently left this part out

“[AIA] can’t ignore the evidence of what we’re saying,” he said. “They can’t just say ‘it’s those guys out there.’ Now ‘they’re’ in ‘our’ house.”

When I asked him directly, Gage acknowledged that this was not an official AIA event but a rented space open to all members of the public, adding that he feels he hasn’t been given his proper due by the organization in the past.

But he is hopeful that one day he will be invited to officially address this boardroom.

“We need to be here with the board members of the American Institute of Architects so that they cannot ignore this evidence any longer,” Gage said.

Originally posted by baumusc
I'm not sure what pictures you were looking at but it is pretty obvious that all three WTC buildings were brought down from damage to the structure combined with uncontrolled burning fires. But yes, once again ignore structural engineers and go with your own made up conclusions. Ignore the fact that firefighters were reporting that the WTC 7 was starting to show signs of collapse 3 hours before it came down.


http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf


We do not know exactly how or why WTC 7 fell when it did, and we decline to
hypothesize here. All we can offer is that, from a demolition and structural failure
standpoint, available data does not rule out the possibility of the building collapsing as a
direct result of the structural conditions detailed above.

Originally posted by wormser1971
CIA 9-11 whistleblower http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQjTYmDKPaI Came forward this year. She gives information about what the government knew before the attack. In april 2001 she had information that the WTC would be attacked... planes would be hijacked.

That should satisfy the "someone would have spoke" dialogue.

Ah see, I can believe that the US government didn't act properly to deter 9/11 from happening. She says that she warned that the US was going to be a target of Airline hijackings and a strike on the WTC. That is stuff that is already out in the open, the fact that warnings were not followed up on properly. That is a failure of government and secret service agencies. She shows no evidence of what you claim which is that the US government carried out the 9/11 attacks using demolition charges to destroy the WTC buildings. Actually she doesn't make that claim at all. The most she claims is that the US government let the attacks happen and ignored warnings to get the US involved in a war. Personally I think it was more of a failure in understanding exactly how the attacks on the WTC's would be carried out.
In the end I'm not sure how much you can trust everything that she claims simply because she is trying to sell a book. Everyone has an agenda it seems, whether it is trying to sell a book, trying to sell ad time on a website, etc, etc. I mean she must have been really high up to be able to dissect exactly what information intelligence agencies had and exactly what they did with that information. Personally I doubt how important she claims to have been.

Originally posted by wormser1971
We do not know exactly how or why WTC 7 fell when it did, and we decline to
hypothesize here. All we can offer is that, from a demolition and structural failure
standpoint, available data does not rule out the possibility of the building collapsing as a
direct result of the structural conditions detailed above.



Show one quote and you better show them all.

"With all due respect to distinguished scholars and others alike, it matters little whether
Alex Jones is drawing parallels to building implosions, Steven Jones is drawing
conclusions from hot metal or Chuck Jones is drawing dynamite in the hands of Wile E.
Coyote; for assertions to be credible they must eventually comply with the scientific
principles of explosive initiation and of structural failure, realistic judgments of probability,
and indisputable visual evidence.
Thus far, every assertion we have investigated scores a resounding 0 for 3."

"The fact is, many steel structures have collapsed due to fire. And as with those failures,
the collapse of all three buildings on 9/11 involved specific structural conditions. Each
failure displayed characteristics dissimilar to the other two, and in no case have we
come across evidence of explosives being present or affecting any of those conditions."

"Finally, we have not discovered or
been presented with any physical evidence
indicating explosives were used to fell the structure."

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00pm on 9/11, and these
individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.
We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive
demolition, and all reported hearing or seeing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation
precipitating the collapse. As one eyewitness told us, “We were all standing around
helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta
remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn’t know if another plane was
coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to
that building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited,
and a little later it went.”

Boom goes the dynamite. Excuse the pun.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/studies-conspiracy-theorists-sane-government-dupes-crazy-hostile/

Inb4 that source sucks

Originally posted by taurran
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/studies-conspiracy-theorists-sane-government-dupes-crazy-hostile/

Inb4 that source sucks

The title of the article is "New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile". That however isn't what the study found. The study simply found that the majority of those that posted on news websites were coded as 'conspiracists'. That simply means that people who believe in CT's are more likely to post their feelings on news sites. That makes sense since people that don't believe in CT's tend to not bother to post their feelings. Much like in this forum if someone simply looked at this post they would view me as a minority since I am basically the only one debating three people that think demolition explosives were used to take down the WTC buildings. Others who think like me have either chosen not to post at all because they think the entire thing is stupid or they simply post that they can't believe this is still going on.

Originally posted by baumusc
...... Others who think like me have either chosen not to post at all because they think the entire thing is stupid or they simply post that they can't believe this is still going on.

"Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience."

----v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v----

Originally posted by baumusc
or they simply post that they can't believe this is still going on.

page seventy-two

Originally posted by Gart888
page seventy-two


I see 100 pages in this thread's future. We should hold a pot-luck dinner to commemorate it.

Originally posted by baumusc
The title of the article is "New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile". That however isn't what the study found. The study simply found that the majority of those that posted on news websites were coded as 'conspiracists'. That simply means that people who believe in CT's are more likely to post their feelings on news sites. That makes sense since people that don't believe in CT's tend to not bother to post their feelings. Much like in this forum if someone simply looked at this post they would view me as a minority since I am basically the only one debating three people that think demolition explosives were used to take down the WTC buildings. Others who think like me have either chosen not to post at all because they think the entire thing is stupid or they simply post that they can't believe this is still going on.

You don't realize how many don't post from the other side... We already know every word you will say, and every source you will use. Whether or not you believe in santa clause or fire dropping buildings, people would rather not get involved in your mindless attempts to debunk physics. "structural engineers rewrote physics" is not a valid argument.

Originally posted by wormser1971
We already know every word you will say, and every source you will use. Whether or not you believe in santa clause or fire dropping buildings, people would rather not get involved in your mindless attempts to debunk physics. "structural engineers rewrote physics" is not a valid argument.

right back at ya, crackpot.

Originally posted by seths99
right back at ya, crackpot.

This.

Answer these

1) Why was there no loss of momentum during any of the three collapses?


2)How did the fires weaken steel that was the thickness of the WTC beams in less than 1 hour, even though using thermodynamics it is shown that it would require 4 hours ?


3)What part of the buildings was damaged due to plane impacts and how? (this is because you claim that the plane damaged the entire building, which is extremely vague)


4) When the collapse began, because of the steel weakening at the impact zones (allegedly), why did the rest of the building provide no resistance to the collapsing top portion of the building?


5)Why did this happen in both towers, even though the damage pattern, fire, amount of damaged steel, fireproofing destroyed were all completely different?


6)what damage was done to the structure of building 7 that would have aided the collapse?


7) Why was the collapse of building 7 at free fall speed (include what happened internally in your answer)?


8)What parts of all three buildings were damaged on impact from planes/debris?


9)Why was conservation of energy and conservation of momentum ignored by NIST and you?


10)why did newton's 2nd law get ignored by the top portion of the building as it was crashing on the rest of the building?

An Act of War: CIA Leak Gives “Incontrovertible Evidence” That 9/11 Was State Sponsored
http://tinyurl.com/kue56av

Originally posted by wormser1971
Answer these

1) Why was there no loss of momentum during any of the three collapses?


2)How did the fires weaken steel that was the thickness of the WTC beams in less than 1 hour, even though using thermodynamics it is shown that it would require 4 hours ?


3)What part of the buildings was damaged due to plane impacts and how? (this is because you claim that the plane damaged the entire building, which is extremely vague)


4) When the collapse began, because of the steel weakening at the impact zones (allegedly), why did the rest of the building provide no resistance to the collapsing top portion of the building?


5)Why did this happen in both towers, even though the damage pattern, fire, amount of damaged steel, fireproofing destroyed were all completely different?


6)what damage was done to the structure of building 7 that would have aided the collapse?


7) Why was the collapse of building 7 at free fall speed (include what happened internally in your answer)?


8)What parts of all three buildings were damaged on impact from planes/debris?


9)Why was conservation of energy and conservation of momentum ignored by NIST and you?


10)why did newton's 2nd law get ignored by the top portion of the building as it was crashing on the rest of the building?



Can I just write in "The JOOOOOOOOOOOOOS" to all of the above and get a passing grade on your test?