War on Terror my.... - Page 6

wjv · 10-05-2012, 15:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rabbi

Of course, I have been trying to give you fair warning.

I am about to turn off the ATMs for you.... I can do that you know.

I heard all about the secret 3 weeks of "special" training that all cops are required to take when attending the academy.

The 3 weeks when you are sent to Langley for special-ops training, and you're replaced at the academy by doppelgangers, so that no one will know what is really happening.

oldgraywolf · 10-05-2012, 15:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by wjv

And when he writes it all in one, remarkably long, run-on sentence.

He claims to be an aspiring author. He does away with spelling, grammar, and construction via poetic license. Maybe it's the lunacy that he hopes to sell....

***Peace Warrior*** · 10-05-2012, 16:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

Was the Navy Seal, who was recruited by the CIA, to kill an US naval officer, the one who turned you onto the 9/11 coverup?

Its about the only way any of your "evidence" makes sense.

No, but I believed his story. You believe what you want.

***Peace Warrior*** · 10-05-2012, 16:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

...Lots/a large majority of structure fires I've seen, involved a structure collapse at some point. ...

maybe so, but you've never seen an IBC Type IA rated building collapse due to fire. With the noted caveat you've only watched it happen three times on 09-11 if you believe the cover up story, but never before or since that day.

Gunhaver · 10-05-2012, 17:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

maybe so, but you've never seen an IBC Type IA rated building collapse due to fire. With the noted caveat you've only watched it happen three times on 09-11 if you believe the cover up story, but never before or since that day.

How many times before or since has one of those buildings been crashed into by a 747 and filled with burning jet fuel?

***Peace Warrior*** · 10-05-2012, 17:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

How many times before or since has one of those buildings been crashed into by a 747 and filled with burning jet fuel?

None that I know of, but if it did happen, and the impacted building was built, similar to both 1 & 2 WTC, which is to say built to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707 traveling at 600 MPH, then due to its design, the building contents would burn at and above the floors of impact, but the building itself would remain standing.

bobtheelf · 10-05-2012, 17:13

Controlled demolitions start from the bottom and go up. The towers collapsed from the top down.

Why is this hard to understand for conspiracy nuts?

***Peace Warrior*** · 10-05-2012, 17:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobtheelf

Controlled demolitions start from the bottom and go up. The towers collapsed from the top down.

Why is this hard to understand for conspiracy nuts?

Because we also watched 7WTC implode. Like you said, from "bottom up."

ETA: 7WTC is the smoking gun. Without it making me look deeper, I don't know if I'd believe in the conspiracy.

oldgraywolf · 10-05-2012, 17:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobtheelf

Controlled demolitions start from the bottom and go up. The towers collapsed from the top down.

Why is this hard to understand for conspiracy nuts?

He has a conspiracy theory for just about any event you can name and despite being handed his ass countless times by those with functional, logical brains, keeps on spewing the same old same old. If word count is proof, he wins. Otherwise, not so much.

bobtheelf · 10-05-2012, 17:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Because we also watched 7WTC implode. Like you said, from "bottom up."

So you accept that WTC 1 and 2 were NOT controlled demolitions then, yes?

***Peace Warrior*** · 10-05-2012, 17:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldgraywolf

He claims to be an aspiring author. He does away with spelling, grammar, and construction via poetic license. Maybe it's the lunacy that he hopes to sell....

Wrong again. You people and your attempt at ad hominems so as to avoid the topic are amazing. I am an aspiring journalist, I am already a writer, and already a PUBLISHED author as far as technical writings or handbooks. I also do ghost writing for others.

But nice try at obfuscating my posts about 09-11.

***Peace Warrior*** · 10-05-2012, 17:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobtheelf

So you accept that WTC 1 and 2 were NOT controlled demolitions then, yes?

No, 1 & 2 WTC were imploded too.

Heck, 70 ton pieces of a skyscraper do not travel LATERALLY, between 60 and 100 mph, away from a building that's simply collapsing due to structural damage caused by heat from a fire.

Glocksanity · 10-05-2012, 17:32

Most people in America suffer from normalcy bias. Co. Jessup was correct. Most people can't handle the truth.

9/11 was an inside job. Only an idiot would deny that.

bobtheelf · 10-05-2012, 17:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

No, 1 & 2 WTC were imploded too.

Heck, 70 ton pieces of a skyscraper do not travel LATERALLY, between 60 and 100, away from a building that's simply collapsing due to structural damage caused by heat from a fire.

So then you saw 1 and 2 fall from the bottom up, yes?

We'll ignore the air pressures generated when thousands of tons of steel and concrete fall for now. Let's stick to WTC 1 and WTC 2 imploding (or not) from the bottom up.

Gunhaver · 10-05-2012, 17:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

None that I know of, but if it did happen, and the impacted building was built, similar to both 1 & 2 WTC, which is to say built to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707 traveling at 600 MPH, then due to its design, the building contents would burn at and above the floors of impact, but the building itself would remain standing.

Do you really think they built the building to withstand that impact? Why would they ever think that was something that needed to be engineered for? They build buildings to withstand probable things like high winds or earthquakes. Do you have a link to something reliable that says they specifically planned the buildings to withstand that type of impact?

You're thinking of the rating of the structural steel with it's fire coating intact, put there because the steel's strength weakens as the temp increases. The idea was that a fire in that type of building would start slowly and the coating would give time for the firefighters to put it out.

It wasn't designed to stand up to having that coating blasted off by a jet liner worth of debris exploding through 5 of it's floors and igniting tons of jet fuel and burning magnesium and titanium all at once.

Plus you're forgetting something else,

oldgraywolf · 10-05-2012, 17:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

Wrong again. You people and your attempt at ad hominems so as to avoid the topic are amazing. I am an aspiring journalist, I am already a writer, and already a PUBLISHED author as far as technical writings or handbooks. I also do ghost writing for others.

No matter, either of my kids could write better than you when they were in eighth grade.

Besides that, your theories are still totally whacked, no matter how many words you use to promulgate them. Frankly, people like you scare the hell out of me.

***Peace Warrior*** · 10-05-2012, 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldgraywolf

He has a conspiracy theory for just about any event you can name and despite being handed his ass countless times by those with functional, logical brains, keeps on spewing the same old same old. If word count is proof, he wins. Otherwise, not so much.

When handed my *ss, as you put it, on any claim I make, I typically defer and usually make note of said acquiescence on the thread; however, NOT EVEN ONCE has anyone on here come REMOTELY close to proving the government's cover up story without calling down the power of imagination or being crippled by their own cognitive dissonance as the end all for judgement, so to speak.

Other than that, if I'm right, which I believe I am on this topic, I'm certainly not going to oblige the seventh grade, school yard rhetoric of a bunch of insecure, butt sore folks who happen to have internet connections and the love for being willingly ignorant.

***Peace Warrior*** · 10-05-2012, 17:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldgraywolf

No matter, either of my kids could write better than you when they were in eighth grade.

Besides that, your theories are still totally whacked, no matter how many words you use to promulgate them. Frankly, people like you scare the hell out of me.

More insults.

As far as the facts concerning 09-11, you're wholly avoiding them. I understand, denial is a cognition that is one of humanities most primitive and pervasive when contemplating such a thing as 09-11 being an event planned by those who are supposed to protect us.

No hard feelings. In fact, the insults about my writing are kind of funny to me. If you knew me personally you'd know why. Anyway, have a nice day.

***Peace Warrior*** · 10-05-2012, 17:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

Do you really think they built the building to withstand that impact? ...

It matters not what you or I believe, it matters what the facts are. Right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

... Why would they ever think that was something that needed to be engineered for? ...

It matters not what you or I think, it matters what they actually did. Right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

... They build buildings to withstand probable things like high winds or earthquakes. Do you have a link to something reliable that says they specifically planned the buildings to withstand that type of impact? ...

I agree to not be verbose if you won't. Deal?

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publi...?pub_id=101012

Please see: NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation, Page 302, paragraph number 3.

Shinytop · 10-05-2012, 17:50

What is really hard to believe it that there are still people believing our government did it. But then there are people who do not believe we landed on the moon.

oldgraywolf · 10-05-2012, 17:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

As far as the facts concerning 09-11, you're wholly avoiding them.

Actually, no. I read the entire 9-11 thread, read all the various arguments, and still don't think your theories hold even a drop of water. As delusional as I think you are, I support your right to expound to your heart's content free from fear of our government. I don't trust the institution much either, but a conspiracy of that magnitude simply isn't workable, given human nature.

***Peace Warrior*** · 10-05-2012, 17:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldgraywolf

Actually, no. I read the entire 9-11 thread, read all the various arguments, and still don't think your theories hold even a drop of water. As delusional as I think you are, I support your right to expound to your heart's content free from fear of our government. I don't trust the institution much either, but a conspiracy of that magnitude simply isn't workable, given human nature.

Fair enough, no hard feelings on my end. Believe as you will.

***Peace Warrior*** · 10-05-2012, 18:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glocksanity

Most people in America suffer from normalcy bias. Co. Jessup was correct. Most people can't handle the truth.

9/11 was an inside job. Only an idiot would deny that.

I don't refer to them as idiots, but rather ANTI-conspiracy kooks, or nuts, or flakes etcetera.

Ragnar · 10-05-2012, 18:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

None that I know of, but if it did happen, and the impacted building was built, similar to both 1 & 2 WTC, which is to say built to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707 traveling at 600 MPH, then due to its design, the building contents would burn at and above the floors of impact, but the building itself would remain standing.

And your credibility - what little you had left - is gone.

WTC 1 & 2 were NOT designed to take the impact of a fully loaded 707 at 600mph.

"The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires."

- Leslie Robertson, Lead Structural Engineer on the WTC

http://www.nae.edu/Publications/TheB...adeCenter.aspx

I have 2,000 hours on military 707's. For takeoff, rotation at about 140-142 kts, gear up around 170. For landing (flaps down) approach was a little over 150.

So, no, the 707 was not planned for 600 mph.

Ragnar · 10-05-2012, 18:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peace Warrior

No, 1 & 2 WTC were imploded too.

Heck, 70 ton pieces of a skyscraper do not travel LATERALLY, between 60 and 100 mph, away from a building that's simply collapsing due to structural damage caused by heat from a fire.

And your technical qualifications to make that call are?