Willie Nelson: Twin Towers Were Imploded On 9/11

[icedtea]

When the shape-shifters come for you, you won't be laughing at David Icke will you?

 

[Billnew]

I'll never smoke weed with willie again...
One parting puff, and Grim Creaper set in,

I hope we all can see, If Willie says it happened,
it happened.

In the fetal position, with drool on my chin,
I messed up,
And smoked weed with Wille again.

Toby KEith, bus songs

 

[WayWord]

Davin Coburn from Popular Mechanics caught lying about WTC7.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLx5GATh_z0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb49MfDrwOo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0uVwS544Rg

 

[WayWord]

Isn't that swell?

 

[Btodd]

Isn't that swell?

Isn't what swell?

First, tell me what the 'lie' is, and then what it would mean if indeed he did tell a lie. I'm not watching three videos to find your point, so please tell me what it is.


Btodd

 

[joebudda]

I personally think we should have a through investigation. This would put many questions to rest.

From what I understand we spent more money investigating Bill Clinton's BJ then we did on 9/11. If this is true then where are our priorities really?

 

[Btodd]

I personally think we should have a through investigation. This would put many questions to rest.

From what I understand we spent more money investigating Bill Clinton's BJ then we did on 9/11. If this is true then where are our priorities really?

What questions, Joe?


Btodd

 

[joebudda]

What questions, Joe?


Btodd

I don't know. Maybe something like where are the flight recorders from any of the four planes?

 

[Btodd]

I don't know. Maybe something like where are the flight recorders from any of the four planes?

I think only two were found, being the Pentagon and Shanksville crashes, respectively. I can understand why the Twin Towers boxes weren't found. What would a new investigation do to recover more black boxes, and why is that vital?


Btodd

 

[joebudda]

I think only two were found, being the Pentagon and Shanksville crashes, respectively. I can understand why the Twin Towers boxes weren't found. What would a new investigation do to recover more black boxes, and why is that vital?


Btodd

I am no expert. All I know is people have questions.

Here is a site of Architects and Engineers that have questions.
http://www.ae911truth.org/

I am no architect nor engineer, but I do assume they would know better then I do. And if they have questions I don't see what the big deal would be to getting some answers to them.

 

[Btodd]

I am no expert. All I know is people have questions.

Here is a site of Architects and Engineers that have questions.
http://www.ae911truth.org/

I am no architect nor engineer, but I do assume they would know better then I do. And if they have questions I don't see what the big deal would be to getting some answers to them.

For a large percentage of the Truth Movement, there are no answers, short of 'it was an inside job'. There are no unanswered questions regarding any of the physical science parts of the story, just a refusal to accept them in place of more exciting conspiracy notions that many ears are dying to hear.

As for that site, please go back and note how many structural engineers are listed, in comparison with the many irrelevant engineering degrees they post to give you the impression that there's really a controversy in the field over 9/11. Electrical engineers? Please.

You should recognize that 'list of people who support my idea' approach if you have spent any time debating Creationists. How many times have you seen, "list of scientists who disbelieve Evolution', only to read it and find out that the 'scientists' are from fields completely unrelated to Biology or anything that is relevant to the subject of Evolution (or not scientists at all).

9/11 Truth and Creationism share many argumentative traits.....mostly that they expect support for their position simply by framing the debate as an 'either / or', and then spending their entire time arguing against the other position, and expecting to win by being the default.

But under no circumstances will you ever see actual positive support for their position. It is not even an option.


Btodd

 

[joebudda]

For a large percentage of the Truth Movement, there are no answers, short of 'it was an inside job'. There are no unanswered questions regarding any of the physical science parts of the story, just a refusal to accept them in place of more exciting conspiracy notions that many ears are dying to hear.

As for that site, please go back and note how many structural engineers are listed, in comparison with the many irrelevant engineering degrees they post to give you the impression that there's really a controversy in the field over 9/11. Electrical engineers? Please.

You should recognize that 'list of people who support my idea' approach if you have spent any time debating Creationists. How many times have you seen, "list of scientists who disbelieve Evolution', only to read it and find out that the 'scientists' are from fields completely unrelated to Biology or anything that is relevant to the subject of Evolution (or not scientists at all).

9/11 Truth and Creationism share many argumentative traits.....mostly that they expect support for their position simply by framing the debate as an 'either / or', and then spending their entire time arguing against the other position, and expecting to win by being the default.

But under no circumstances will you ever see actual positive support for their position. It is not even an option.


Btodd

According to this poll 79% of the people are under the opinion that the "official report" isn't telling the truth.

I am not using this as a appeal to numbers. I think it shows that there is a considerable segment of the population that has questions. This alone should warrant some kind of investigation.

All I am aware of is the 9/11 commission report. And I have heard that Building 7 isn't even mentioned in it.

But we all know that Bill got a BJ.

 

[JohnElias]

All I have to say about #7.

As for the towers.

 

[Btodd]

According to this poll 79% of the people are under the opinion that the "official report" isn't telling the truth.

Isn't telling the truth to what degree, Joe? I have no doubts that they've tried to cover their incompetence, but that's not what you're talking about when you reference how the buildings fell. That's conspiracy talk, so let's be honest here. Your poll isn't reflective of conspiracy, but of doubt about being told the truth about incompetence as well. Big difference.

Also, after 44 years, something like 75% of people believe Kennedy was killed by a variety of sources other than Oswald. So what? Where's the evidence for another scenario? Lots of people believe in special creation over evolution, too. Do you support teaching Intelligent Design in the schools, or do you recognize the point I'm making?

I am not using this as a appeal to numbers. I think it shows that there is a considerable segment of the population that has questions. This alone should warrant some kind of investigation.

You are appealing to authority (and numbers), only the authorities cited are almost never relevant to the subject matter. It's a smokescreen, and it's undeniable mimicry of creationism-style arguments should give you serious pause. If those non-structural engineers have an alternative scenario on how they fell, have they submitted papers on them? Why aren't structural engineers coming out of the woodwork if the collapses were so implausible? For the same reason that Biologists aren't up in arms about Evolution being false.

All I am aware of is the 9/11 commission report. And I have heard that Building 7 isn't even mentioned in it.

But we all know that Bill got a BJ.

You 'heard' it wasn't mentioned, or you read the report to find out what it says, and were surprised that building 7 wasn't in there? No offense, but most likely, you never read it and are merely repeating what you've heard from conspiracy sources. Incidentally, it isn't in there. Why is it important to the 9/11 Commission?

What does building 7 falling mean, Joe? I don't mind answering questions about the fall itself, but what does it mean if you don't accept the natural explanation for it? That they blew up a building after evacuating all it's people and announcing it would fall?

It doesn't make any sense in the first place, despite having no evidence to support it.


Btodd

 

[CCGirl]

Ahhhhhhhhh.........popular mechanics is owned by Hearst.


[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]........he is actually saying that DNA of the hijackers was pulled from the rubble ("all over the place"), and where was the original DNA from that they compared it to??!


And he claims that the term "pull it" has never been used in terms of demolition.

 

[joebudda]

Isn't telling the truth to what degree, Joe?

I don't know, I am no expert.

I have no doubts that they've tried to cover their incompetence, but that's not what you're talking about when you reference how the buildings fell.

I have made no reference to how any building fell. And my point is there is "some number" of people that are not satisfied with the explanation so far. I think questioning is always good.

That's conspiracy talk, so let's be honest here.

I do believe that conspiracies do occur.

Your poll isn't reflective of conspiracy, but of doubt about being told the truth about incompetence as well. Big difference.

I agree. I only meant it to represent a group of people.

Also, after 44 years, something like 75% of people believe Kennedy was killed by a variety of sources other than Oswald. So what? Where's the evidence for another scenario?

I don't know. But apparently there are people do believe it.

Lots of people believe in special creation over evolution, too.

Yep, people do.

Do you support teaching Intelligent Design in the schools, or do you recognize the point I'm making?

I think that schools should be private and not under control of the government. So I think people should send their children to any school they believe to be best.

But being this isn't the case I think the constitution is clear.

But I don't see how this relates to a group of people that are not satisfied with the explanation they have gotten.

You are appealing to authority (and numbers), only the authorities cited are almost never relevant to the subject matter. It's a smokescreen, and it's undeniable mimicry of creationism-style arguments should give you serious pause.

Okay.

If those non-structural engineers have an alternative scenario on how they fell, have they submitted papers on them? Why aren't structural engineers coming out of the woodwork if the collapses were so implausible?

I don't know if the collapses is plausible or implausible. I am no expert.

For the same reason that Biologists aren't up in arms about Evolution being false.

Okay, people who have questions regarding 9/11 equate to Creationism.

You 'heard' it wasn't mentioned, or you read the report to find out what it says, and were surprised that building 7 wasn't in there? No offense, but most likely, you never read it and are merely repeating what you've heard from conspiracy sources.

Correct, I never read it. But I do have a couple of friends who have.

Incidentally, it isn't in there. Why is it important to the 9/11 Commission?

I don't know, remember, I am not expert.

What does building 7 falling mean, Joe?

It means the building fell?

I don't mind answering questions about the fall itself, but what does it mean if you don't accept the natural explanation for it?

I guess it would mean I didn't accept the natural explanation.

That they blew up a building after evacuating all it's people and announcing it would fall?

Are you inventing arguments for me?

It doesn't make any sense in the first place, despite having no evidence to support it.

Okay.

 

[Btodd]

I have made no reference to how any building fell. And my point is there is "some number" of people that are not satisfied with the explanation so far. I think questioning is always good.

If you bring up WTC7, it's only relevant if you think there's a conspiracy. Otherwise, it would make no difference that it's not in the 9/11 Commission report, as you were pointing out. The implication is that they're purposely avoiding a smoking gun of some sort, is it not?

I do believe that conspiracies do occur.

Me too. But we still need evidence to support them, not general suspicion. There is a mountain of evidence for the 19 hijackers scenario, and nothing to the contrary to explain the events of that day.

I think that schools should be private and not under control of the government. So I think people should send their children to any school they believe to be best.

But being this isn't the case I think the constitution is clear.

The point is that public opinion is (thankfully) not used to decide topics that require intensive education and expertise to understand. Just like the general public shouldn't decide on evolutionary science, they also shouldn't be doubting structural engineers, either. On what basis do we get to say, 'Yeah, but a structural engineer doesn't know any more about buildings than I do"?

I don't know if the collapses is plausible or implausible. I am no expert.

Then what was the problem? If you're not in a position to judge them, then why would we overturn expert opinions on the matter in favor of a new investigation? There have to be enough material facts for another scenario that warrant new inquiry. So far, nobody has produced anything but personal doubt about expert opinions.

It means the building fell?

And we need a new investigation to tell us that?

I guess it would mean I didn't accept the natural explanation.

Are you inventing arguments for me?

I'm trying to see what your argument is. So far, it seems to be that since an unspecified amount of people don't believe the 9/11 story, we should launch a new investigation. My position is that we need enough evidence of another plausible explanation for what happened in order to warrant such a thing, just like we expect for many other things in which the general public wants investigations for, like UFO's.

For many of the people who want a new investigation, I seriously doubt that they would accept any findings that agree with the current ones. This isn't so much a call for a new investigation, but a call for a new verdict.

Just my not-so-humble opinion.


Btodd

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

9E proved to be far far far more beneficial to the bush admin versus all the terrorists in the world combined. Offical theory supporters never address this indisputable fact and instead claim incompetence.

 

[Btodd]

9E proved to be far far far more beneficial to the bush admin versus all the terrorists in the world combined. Offical theory supporters never address this indisputable fact and instead claim incompetence.

They will go down as the worst administration in history, and are widely regarded as such already.

It also might have made a bit more sense if we could have found (or planted, since we entertain conspiratorial motives) WMD's, instead of looking like world idiots. So any devious plan that is suspected as being used to get us over there sure lacked that most important final detail, and makes all the difference in the perception of that war.

Further, if any conspiracy plot to get us to Iraq were the case, it would have made much more sense to actually connect it to Iraq, not Al Qaeda. As it stands, the Iraq war is a giant non-sequitur, and any conspiracy to get us there hardly needed to be the elaborate series of events that 9/11 was. In fact, to go to such unpredictable and ridiculously overdone lengths would have been the height of idiocy. It simply wouldn't be necessary, and would invite so many ways of being discovered that are unnecessary.

Even if the motive you're exploring made more sense, motive is not evidence. Ever. It is a prerequisite for a crime (or conspiracy, if you like), but it only supports real evidence, nothing more.


Btodd

 

[Madcoil]

It's pretty obvious that Willie Nelson's brain imploded.

'Twas gravity that pulled it down, fool! With that kind of superstructure, the huge mass coupled with structural damage to the inner core caused gravity to pull it down, in a manner that may seem like implosion to the untrained celebrity-brain eye, but which to a trained lobal engineer or psychodemolitionist is completely compatible with the laws of physics.