9/11 Truth for Dummies: Wrap Your Head Around One Thing

[ManFromUncle]

Where is the strawman? Do you know what a strawman is? That would mean someone is saying that someone made an argument that they didn't, just to knock it down. So what part of Galileo is a strawman?

 

[Vylo]

LOL it is exactly the opposite. In this case you cannot dispute the physics proven by Galileo which indicates that the official story is impossible. It is the official story which maintains the equivalent of "the Earth is flat." Ironically, that was still being disputed at around the time of Galileo.

You aren't using physics proven by galileo. Some of us actually work with things like jet engines and jet fuel, and also have a basic understanding of how gravity, air resistance, and terminal velocities work.

Planes took down the WTC towers. Deal with it. If you want to speculate about who was behind those planes hitting the towers, I could entertain that, it could actually be a coverup/false flag, whatever you want to call it, but harping on with physics/denying nonsense is not helping your case at all. It is just making you look silly.

 

[ManFromUncle]

You aren't using physics proven by galileo. Some of us actually work with things like jet engines and jet fuel, and also have a basic understanding of how gravity, air resistance, and terminal velocities work.

Planes took down the WTC towers. Deal with it. If you want to speculate about who was behind those planes hitting the towers, I could entertain that, it could actually be a coverup/false flag, whatever you want to call it, but harping on with physics/denying nonsense is not helping your case at all. It is just making you look silly.

What is silly is anonymous internet posters expecting anyone to believe they have credentials like working with "things like jet engines and jet fuel" and what and all, sure you have a PhD in nuclear physics too. Then you go right on ignoring the simple question: how does a mass fall at free-fall acceleration through a medium much denser than air, a steel framed building? It is painfully obvious you have no answer, and can only keep repeating the official nonsense "planes took down the the towers."

You are making my case better than I could. Funniest of all you don't think anyone can see it.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

What is silly is anonymous internet posters expecting anyone to believe they have credentials like working with "things like jet engines and jet fuel" and what and all, sure you have a PhD in nuclear physics too. Then you go right on ignoring the simple question: how does a mass fall at free-fall acceleration through a medium much denser than air, a steel framed building?

So, you'll be answering Btodd's question then?

So if I understand correctly, then the columns and debris cloud, BOTH of which are falling faster than the collapse...are falling at FASTER than free fall speed? Did they have little rockets attached to them, pushing them toward the ground faster than gravity...

...or are you making strawman arguments about free fall again?

And it was the video YOU posted BTW - no wriggling out now....

 

[Zanting]

What is silly is anonymous internet posters expecting anyone to believe they have credentials like working with "things like jet engines and jet fuel" and what and all, sure you have a PhD in nuclear physics too. Then you go right on ignoring the simple question: how does a mass fall at free-fall acceleration through a medium much denser than air, a steel framed building? It is painfully obvious you have no answer, and can only keep repeating the official nonsense "planes took down the the towers."

You are making my case better than I could. Funniest of all you don't think anyone can see it.

I can see it...

...been here before...with these same guys/gals??? and they are still repeating the same things and keep claiming there is nothing new here...you can't tell them anything because they know everything already. There is no point arguing with them...maybe you can have some fun with them.

I'm just curious why they wanted to resurrect this thread from the cobwebs...

 

[Drumfan84]

How does the whole conspiracy rest on WTC7? If it were a demolition, what did that 'do' for the conspiracy? What purpose would there have been in demolishing an empty building, hours after the Twin Towers had already collapsed?

Not to mention a host of other problems (it was magically silent, the firefighters had already said the building would collapse, meaning they would have to be 'in on it', etc.)


Btodd

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcNOHtkfeos

 

[Btodd]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcNOHtkfeos

That didn't address the question I asked at all. Aside from the problems with this being a supposed 'smoking gun' regarding WTC7, my question still remains...why was it necessary to blow up an empty building, hours after the Twin Towers had collapsed...in order to pull off the Inside Job? What did that 'do'?


Btodd

 

[Zanting]

That didn't address the question I asked at all. Aside from the problems with this being a supposed 'smoking gun' regarding WTC7, my question still remains...why was it necessary to blow up an empty building, hours after the Twin Towers had collapsed...in order to pull off the Inside Job? What did that 'do'?


Btodd

There are a whole lot...indeed an insurmountable number of problems with the official story that just keep getting swept under the rug, ignored, or otherwise passed over...because of course...the only experts of any reputation or knowledge are/were involved in the official story...everyone else...well...they are just making things up...according to the few that still hold on to the belief that planes did the job.

Now one truly has to wonder why so many millions of people (experts, or not) world wide do/did not believe the official story...and indeed look upon those who do as completely unable or unwilling to know a demolition job when they see one. Especially since there is so much counter evidence now from all the research, studies and tests that have been done over the years...that of course is denied, ignored, doesn't exist or the most favorite of course is the ridiculous attempts to discredit the researchers as a bunch of know nothings.

After so many years have passed...there is no point anymore in arguing with the few who still need to believe it was all just the planes. The evidence they choose to ignore or dismiss is conclusive and does not support their view in the least.

And if those who believe the alternative are so scornfully referred to as "truthers" I guess that makes the others "liars".

 

[Btodd]

There are a whole lot...indeed an insurmountable number of problems with the official story that just keep getting swept under the rug, ignored, or otherwise passed over...because of course...the only experts of any reputation or knowledge are/were involved in the official story...everyone else...well...they are just making things up...according to the few that still hold on to the belief that planes did the job.

Now one truly has to wonder why so many millions of people (experts, or not) world wide do/did not believe the official story...and indeed look upon those who do as completely unable or unwilling to know a demolition job when they see one. Especially since there is so much counter evidence now from all the research, studies and tests that have been done over the years...that of course is denied, ignored, doesn't exist or the most favorite of course is the ridiculous attempts to discredit the researchers as a bunch of know nothings.

After so many years have passed...there is no point anymore in arguing with the few who still need to believe it was all just the planes. The evidence they choose to ignore or dismiss is conclusive and does not support their view in the least.

And if those who believe the alternative are so scornfully referred to as "truthers" I guess that makes the others "liars".

That's now the second time I've been quoted asking a legitimate question about WTC7 and how it relates to some Inside Job. Both times, the question was ignored.

If you have no interest in answering the question, then why quote it? I'm merely asking how demolishing WTC7, hours after the Twin Towers had collapsed and it had been evacuated of all life...makes ANY sense regarding an Inside Job. What did that 'do'? Why was it necessary to take such a huge risk in order to perform this final step in the plan?

I didn't even address how poor the evidence for such a scenario is (and it IS), I merely asked for a plausible explanation for why this was a necessary step in the supposed Inside Job.


Thanks,
Btodd

 

[Zanting]

That's now the second time I've been quoted asking a legitimate question about WTC7 and how it relates to some Inside Job. Both times, the question was ignored.

If you have no interest in answering the question, then why quote it? I'm merely asking how demolishing WTC7, hours after the Twin Towers had collapsed and it had been evacuated of all life...makes ANY sense regarding an Inside Job. What did that 'do'? Why was it necessary to take such a huge risk in order to perform this final step in the plan?

I didn't even address how poor the evidence for such a scenario is (and it IS), I merely asked for a plausible explanation for why this was a necessary step in the supposed Inside Job.


Thanks,
Btodd

Oh please...these "questions" and more have been answered over and over again...and you and a few others here have responded the same over and over again with your added sarcasm and ridicule. And of course with the only experts. Everyone else...well they are just being silly and ridiculous and making things up. There is no point in repeating what has already been asked and answered many times over...review this thread and others on the subject...and copy and paste to your hearts content. It's already all there. Including yours and others responses to this same answered question, and so many more.

What is silly is going through such nonsense all over again.

 

[Btodd]

Oh please...these "questions" and more have been answered over and over again...and you and a few others here have responded the same over and over again with your added sarcasm and ridicule. And of course with the only experts. Everyone else...well they are just being silly and ridiculous and making things up. There is no point in repeating what has already been asked and answered many times over...review this thread and others on the subject...and copy and paste to your hearts content. It's already all there. Including yours and others responses to this same answered question, and so many more.

What is silly is going through such nonsense all over again.

I merely asked a question about why WTC7 was a necessary component of the supposed conspiracy. I've been quoted twice, and not answered either time.

I have never heard a plausible answer to the question.


Btodd

 

[Zanting]

I merely asked a question about why WTC7 was a necessary component of the supposed conspiracy. I've been quoted twice, and not answered either time.

I have never heard a plausible answer to the question.


Btodd

Well first of all...911 was a conspiracy (maintaining several theories) no matter who or how it was accomplished...as to WTC7...from your responses elsewhere...you are well versed on all the theories regarding it's demolition as well. And like all answers that come to you (and a few others here) that do not conform to the official report...they are simply unacceptable, not "plausible", ignored, too complicated, impossible to pull off, not experts, not science, etc and etc. that it is a complete waste of anyone's time to tell you anything different. You already know it all and have all the answers.

I noted you highlighted the sarcasm and ridicule part of my response...take a moment to review how you (and the few others on here), have responded to people who don't agree with you/them regarding 911. If you read through this thread (and others on this topic) from beginning to end...the MO is as plain as the nose on one's face...bait, goad, put others on the defensive, throw in some sarcasm, belittling, name calling and then accuse the opposite party of doing so. And quite frankly, for those who believe 911 was an inside job, it is very understandable why they get fed up and a bit hot under the collar to turn around and do the same in return.

There is plenty of evidence that doesn't agree with the official report...real, hard evidence, accumulated since that fateful day, that to ignore it, or claim it isn't "real" only makes those who do so look desperate now. There just is no point arguing about it anymore.

 

[Btodd]

Well first of all...911 was a conspiracy (maintaining several theories) no matter who or how it was accomplished...as to WTC7...from your responses elsewhere...you are well versed on all the theories regarding it's demolition as well. And like all answers that come to you (and a few others here) that do not conform to the official report...they are simply unacceptable, not "plausible", ignored, too complicated, impossible to pull off, not experts, not science, etc and etc. that it is a complete waste of anyone's time to tell you anything different. You already know it all and have all the answers.

I noted you highlighted the sarcasm and ridicule part of my response...take a moment to review how you (and the few others on here), have responded to people who don't agree with you/them regarding 911. If you read through this thread (and others on this topic) from beginning to end...the MO is as plain as the nose on one's face...bait, goad, put others on the defensive, throw in some sarcasm, belittling, name calling and then accuse the opposite party of doing so. And quite frankly, for those who believe 911 was an inside job, it is very understandable why they get fed up and a bit hot under the collar to turn around and do the same in return.

There is plenty of evidence that doesn't agree with the official report...real, hard evidence, accumulated since that fateful day, that to ignore it, or claim it isn't "real" only makes those who do so look desperate now. There just is no point arguing about it anymore.

While you're busy getting offended about sarcasm and ridicule (neither of which were present in my question about WTC7), you MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT THE TITLE OF THE THREAD.

So, yeah. You're not offended by sarcasm and ridicule in general, you're offended when either of them are directed at Truthers. It's a one-way street.

And if your point is that there's no use in discussing this stuff, what are you doing here replying? Let someone else dodge the question!

/hypocrisy overload


Btodd

 

[Vylo]

What is silly is anonymous internet posters expecting anyone to believe they have credentials like working with "things like jet engines and jet fuel" and what and all, sure you have a PhD in nuclear physics too. Then you go right on ignoring the simple question: how does a mass fall at free-fall acceleration through a medium much denser than air, a steel framed building? It is painfully obvious you have no answer, and can only keep repeating the official nonsense "planes took down the the towers."

You are making my case better than I could. Funniest of all you don't think anyone can see it.

No PHD, I have a Bachelor's in Sociology with a minor in theology, I'm a licensed stationary engineer which is what I have done for work for the last 10 years. I've burned jet fuel in jet engines (I have one running about 6 feet from me as I am writing this). If you can look through the posts on this site, you could probably find posts from me as far back as 2005 talking about my job.

The towers didn't fall at free-fall acceleration. Even a demo'd building wouldn't do that as some of the structure would resist it. But the towers did fall fast, and for good reason. As each floor gave way it added mass to the falling portion, this made it easier for it to overcome any resistance beneath it and begin accelerating. By time you got near the bottom, you had well over half a tower's mass crashing down with tremendous force, not much is going to stop that from accelerating towards the ground.

 

[Zanting]

While you're busy getting offended about sarcasm and ridicule (neither of which were present in my question about WTC7), you MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT THE TITLE OF THE THREAD.

So, yeah. You're not offended by sarcasm and ridicule in general, you're offended when either of them are directed at Truthers. It's a one-way street.

And if your point is that there's no use in discussing this stuff, what are you doing here replying? Let someone else dodge the question!

/hypocrisy overload


Btodd

I've been through that "discussion" with you already...on this very thread...you know...the whole retaliation thing...no need to go there again...and you are mistaken that I'm offended...I've seen this pattern several times here and am far beyond being offended...as to why I'm responding...it lets others know that their efforts aren't going to change your (and a few others) belief about 911. As I said before...you guys already know it all. It will just open the door for more of what's already stated above. It's just a heads up.


Apparently you have a problem with that...?

 

[Vylo]

If you have no interest in answering the question, then why quote it? I'm merely asking how demolishing WTC7, hours after the Twin Towers had collapsed and it had been evacuated of all life...makes ANY sense regarding an Inside Job. What did that 'do'? Why was it necessary to take such a huge risk in order to perform this final step in the plan?

A lot of the conspiracy theories make no sense when it comes to risk and you know, physics.

If they wanted a false flag attack all they had to do was get people to fly planes into the buildings. No bizarre hard to coordinate and cover up demo work, no missiles. Just a few guys with weapons flying planes into national buildings. Even if the buildings didn't go down the attack would have caused a massive death count and resulted in similar military actions.

 

[Btodd]

I've been through that "discussion" with you already...on this very thread...you know...the whole retaliation thing...no need to go there again...and you are mistaken that I'm offended...I've seen this pattern several times here and am far beyond being offended...as to why I'm responding...it lets others know that their efforts aren't going to change your (and a few others) belief about 911. As I said before...you guys already know it all. It will just open the door for more of what's already stated above. It's just a heads up.


Apparently you have a problem with that...?

You are a master at projection. For every complaint you make about people who don't believe in the Inside Job™, you give the Truthers a pass for the same behavior.

I certainly don't claim to 'know it all', but I DO know when someone makes a clearly erroneous argument (free-fall of the Twin Towers) and dodges very straightforward questions about it. It's OK to call things nonsense...particularly when they ARE nonsense. I'm not into relativism.


Btodd

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Now one truly has to wonder why so many millions of people (experts, or not) world wide do/did not believe the official story...and indeed look upon those who do as completely unable or unwilling to know a demolition job when they see one.
......
After so many years have passed...there is no point anymore in arguing with the few who still need to believe it was all just the planes.

Not only is this a classic ad populum argument, it's also blatantly incorrect, unless you have some survey of the percentage of the population who believe in the conspiracy.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

I merely asked a question about why WTC7 was a necessary component of the supposed conspiracy. I've been quoted twice, and not answered either time.

I have never heard a plausible answer to the question.

Btodd

I still want to know where the planes went?

I have never gotten an answer to that question, and no - truther literature is very careful to skip over it, because it blows the whole conspiracy apart.

 

[Zanting]

You are a master at projection. For every complaint you make about people who don't believe in the Inside Job™, you give the Truthers a pass for the same behavior.

I certainly don't claim to 'know it all', but I DO know when someone makes a clearly erroneous argument (free-fall of the Twin Towers) and dodges very straightforward questions about it. It's OK to call things nonsense...particularly when they ARE nonsense. I'm not into relativism.


Btodd

neither am I...I'm into realism...