Overly presumptive at a minimum. "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country." ~ President John Fitzgerald Kennedy You have no idea what I have already done for my country.
The questions within and throughout this thread that I have rendered unto you have plenty of credibility and zero answers from anyone on this board, any board on the planet or from anyone in the official storytelling camp in the government. Why not directly address those glaring questions, contradictions and illogical conclusions of so-called "facts" that cannot possibly be true after direct analysis in the light of day? Address what's being proclaimed in this thread - directly and forthrightly. If you have taken the time to read the thread instead of trolling it, then you know full well what the unanswered questions are, as well as the contradictions in the official story. I have outlined them in this thread. I have gone through detailed exposition of those contradictions. I have used the government's own source of information and proven the contradictions exist. I have asked numerous times for those with differing opinions and or rational and logical conclusions to present them in summary fashion and yet no one has done that inside this thread to date. And, the real coup d'etat came after one of your generals on this board, a proclaimed expert on 911 who had done years of his own research, mistakenly introduced himself into this thread as the all knowing individual who had all the answers and then found himself debating with someone who actually holds a Boeing 757 Type Rating (I was a 75 Check Pilot. First Officers flew with me before they flew passengers.) and who actually flew the F-15 Eagle. He then realized how deep he had fallen into the hole which was the official story, that he decided to bow out, but not after admitting to the entire world on this board that he does not use the 911 Commission Report as a valid source of information in his research and that he assembles unofficial sources to make his final conclusions. So, you official types can keep on railing against common sense and better judgement if you like, but it sure won't add to your lack of credibility on this subject and it sure won't heal the self-inflicted wounds found within the 911 Omission Report.
I could care less. If you perceive a crime has been committed, even to the point of claiming you have evidence to said crime and you do nothing but sit on your hands and whine, then you are complicit. It's the same as your claim against Boeing.
I consider that at least part of what got us out of Viet Nam was a ground swell of public opinion in opposition to the war. Similar to that, AMERICA needs for the people to weigh in on this in order to actually get something done. This is truly a battle for hearts & minds and its very important, unfortunately there are still too many people who are victims of the propaganda machine, and are still in denial. There is an old George Bush Sr. Quote " if the American public knew what really goes on, there would be a mob with pitch forks & torches on the White House lawn."
Let me ask you exactly how much of your personal energy are you using to promote the story of hijacked airliners used as weapons?
So at present, YOU are perfectly happy with the state of affairs, that is know lies & fraud from NIST, + the fact that 9/11 was a very poorly documented disaster + the fact that three skyscrapers "collapsed" in a highly suspicious manner, and YOU don't see anything wrong - or do you? just to explain the obvious, I could have said that I allocate half of my disposable income to the cause, and the obvious come-back to that would be WHY NOT ALL OF IT, so without going off onto that tangent I have decided to simply not specify what I'm doing, that is MY business as what YOU are doing is your business. The topic at hand is about - OFFICIAL STORY TELLERS ....
On the contrary: had you said you donate half your income to these snake-oil salesmen I would have called you foolish. But you do nothing except bleat their talking points on obscure message boards. Okay, good luck with your 'groundswell'.
How you define me, or what I do, isn't relevant to this discussion. what is relevant is the fact that there is something very wrong with the official fairy tale about 19 radical Arabs ...... etc .....
You keep saying so, yet you fail to present evidence for your theory or to act on your convictions. How can anyone take you seriously?
Somehow, a certain slice of the population accepts things like the crash of the alleged "FLT175" as being a real airliner ... & bits like the total "collapse" of three skyscrapers, as being completely normal consequence of an attack by 19 radical Arabs. oh my ..... its a crazy world!
Once again AA11,UA175,AA77,and UA93 were REAL planes that REALLLY crashed,3 of them finding their marks.. To claim otherwise is Mod edit,,flounder,and spits in the face of the dead and their families
This is the classic "well then, what did happen?" as if I somehow magically have all the answers ( or am expected to have all the answers ) no, what I have is an iron clad certainty that the official story is WRONG. skyscrapers simply do NOT "collapse" in the manner observed, unless there is some organized effort to make them "collapse" in exactly that way.
So explain to me how explosives were used to cause the towers to collapse at 64% of g. You made the claim, now support it with evidence.
This one is super simple to understand, the engineering of the controlled demolition can do very nearly anything that the engineers want, in the case of WTC7 the mode of controlled demolition called for free fall acceleration of the building so as to attain sufficient KE to destroy the whole thing, in the case of the towers, the explosives were of such a size & placement that the bit descending from the top, could only attain 64% the acceleration of gravity and that was sufficient to do the job in the case of the towers. I can't tell you exactly what sort of explosives were used, or the exact placement of said explosives, however it is clear by the nature of the "collapse" event that the towers had to have been destroyed by some additional source of energy that was NOT the potential energy stored in the structure. There is this little matter of FOCUS, if the energy is not focused, it will not be effective.
How can you make these two statements together in the same post and keep a straight face? You claim that they can do anything they want, yet have no idea how they can do anything they want.
This is getting better and better. So you are admitting that 2.25 seconds of free fall of the upper 34 floors created enough KE to completely destroy those intact 34 floors?
What you are trying to assert ( I believe .... ) is that the building didn't need explosives, in order to "collapse" as it did. The goal of a controlled demolition is to demolish the building and so the 2.25 sec of free fall gave the upper mass sufficient velocity to smash the whole thing. Your hypothesis about how the building could have achieved free fall without explosives, depends on a LOT of "it could happen like that" but then again... it could have happened much differently and really the odds are against having the out-come as recorded be the result of unfocused fires & damage from the towers trowing rubble.
And the descending upper section of either tower DIDN'T have enough KE to smash the lower section to pieces?! You're painting yourself into a corner n0spam.
In the case of the towers, the demolition was different than in the case of WTC7, and yes, without the aid of explosives the upper mass in the case of the towers, did not have sufficient mass to guarantee the destruction of the structure below, therefore it had to involve the addition of energy either from explosives, or somekinda weaponized particle beam .... or?
