Anti-Neocons

hey phys maybe the building fell because of quatum tunneling random new math chaos theory hocupocusology.

It was a god damn demolition. 47 stories tall and gone in 6 seconds. That does not happen without bombs (or a black hole). and it was not a black hole.

I dont get the dense opposition to this. Just address that one line. You ignored it before and kept responding to other people's lessor arguments.

You're not being open minded or skeptical you're just being dense on this. If you dont have a (real) physical explination for HOW a building that size disapears so fast and leave molten steel in the basment 6 weeks later. Then you can not continue to claim it fell from fire.

Reminds me of the Edwards thing. I said straight up he was Zionist and wanted War with Iran too and it was like talking to a wall until about a month went by of everyone jumping on you about it. But to your credit you did change your mind.

_________________
This site is against war, Zionism, (or any other form of racism), profiteering, and all forms of government corruption, mass media deception, and cover ups. This is not a site to flail on about space aliens-illuminati-masonic-deathcult-jewish-catholic-lizard-lucifarian-jesuit-queen-barvarian-etc bull hockey. Take that junk somewhere else.
My Twitter
"It doesn't matter who we are underneath. It is what we do that defines us." Batman

Google version of War by Deception (Magic Bunnies)
Pass HR 1207 and S604 audit the Fed



ry ryan dawson author politics political antineocon anti-neocon antineocons anti-neocons raising the volume of peace - news the media is paid not to tell you how they blep you

For fucks sake did anyone play with blocks as a child?!?!?!? I don't know about your's, but my blocks never fell over symmetrically.

Im sorry that this offends you so much. My background can be verified online, but I really dont have to prove that to my true friends and folks on myspace can see it but they already know. Most scientist and skeptic's dont buy that it was a control demo either. About me being dense well I feel the same way, when I present the evidence and it is dismissed. So I dont what else to do? Ry you also said this: Gravity is not waves it's the very fabric of space itself. Which wasnt correct and many other science claims that you have made arent correct. You also dont understand the law of conservation of energy. Go ask your science "nerds" in Japan since you dont believe me. Although, I do have one year left on my Phd.

A few questions for you:

1) Will I be harassed about this until I conform to what you believe?

2) I thought you dont allow character attacks? The title of this tread is directed to me and several things with in it where attacks.

3) If you would like me to leave, I will. Im certainly not trying to steal anyones thunder. I like the way this site links 9/11 to Israel.

yeah, lay off the attacks. save them for the tossers who eventually show up.

"Most scientist and skeptic's dont buy that it was a control demo either"

yes, but some do. Have you seen Richard Gage´s presentation? He runs Architects & Engineers for truth (or something). Prof Jones is also from the psysics perspective. He´s pretty solid.

no one understands gravity. We know the equations and its effect, but the nature of gravity still eludes the finest quantum physicists.

But it's all conjectural, isn't it? I mean, there's really nothing in the way of solid proof, since most (if not all) the physical evidence was so quickly disposed of.

I have some questions about WTC 7:

If the "severe damage" was so "severe" that it led to the collapse, then why exactly is it not visible on all sides of the building?

If the damage wasn't evenly spread throughout the building, then why did it collapse so evenly, into its footprint?

Also, when looking at footage of actual controlled demolitions, why does it look so identical to the WTC 7 collapse (without the official story (spin), you'd swear it was the same)?

The pancake theory:

How can you have pancaking of the floors AND pulverization of all of them?

Why was the WTC 1 and 2 complete rubble, with no pancaked floors whatsoever?

A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory

The truss theory:

The "Truss Theory" is Implausible?

WTC 1 & 2:

If there was a "raging inferno", why weren't the windows blowing out because of it?

If the heat wasn't strong enough to blow out the windows, how is it then strong enough to weaken steel in approximately 2 hours?

Why wasn't the WTC lit up like a candle, if there was a "raging inferno"?

Why didn't the 1975 WTC fire start to collapse the building, when it raged for 3 hours?

How would the airliners have helped, when they only damaged one part of a few floors?

If the damage from the jet airliners was so great, then why didn't the area above collapse or fall off immediately?

Why were the cores still solid, and the impacted floors still partially intact, after the impact?

Why was there a pyroclastic flow, when the towers were pulverized to the ground?

Go to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. There are numerous articles by reputable engineers and scientists that promote the controlled demolition theory.

_________________

Nobody wants you to leave. What people here want from you, is for you to sufficiently address the points/counter-arguments that are raised against your arguments. In other words, a constructive diologue.

If you aren't going to address points and counter-arguments, it gives the impression that you aren't really interested in any meaningful discussion about the subject, and are just ranting.

Arguably, with so many people responding to you, I'm sure it gets a bit convoluted trying to respond to everyone. I'm guessing you are probably addressing the easier points first, and saving the harder points for last? The solution to this, is to not try and debate such a broad topic, as 9/11 in one discussion. Why? Because you have so many subtopics, secondary subtopics, etc. Narrowly focusing on one at a time, makes the discussion flow a lot more smoothly and progressively.

Also, visuals do help to illustrate points better.

Intl man of mystery

You are very kind. The things is I never brought up this rant. I do try and have tried to go point to point here. It just got ugly real fast. Also, I have to try to address 8 people at one time and it doesn’t flow right as well as taxing. Other people here who feel like I do just don’t want to get into. I guess. Don’t you recall when we tried to do this? I have given people my email address and myspace or even pm would be fine, to talk about each point individually. As far as throwing my 2 cents out there on topics that come up, we all do that mine just happens to be different then the majority on this topic.