Bush Responsible for 9-11

[bbyrd009]

Well, I did not say
"believe the conspiracy,"
but "reject the official story."

Don't know Alex Jones, but I do know
exactly how truth is discredited, and it is
just like this. A few "credible" people--who
have some "position" to protect, usually--
denying an unpopular truth so as not to,
God forbid, be put into a position where
some other humans might disagree with them.

Like I said before, personally, I could care less
what happened to some Babylonian tower--
yikes, shades of Ronald Reagan, all over again--
I could give a flip about any conspiracy;
I just know what I don't know here,
and your observation that only 2 people
you know openly disagree does not alter
the FACT that MOST PEOPLE disbelieve
the official story here. Over 50%. A majority.

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

A new book out today and an op ed piece in the nyt details still classified presidential daily briefings that were warning of an "imminent attack" beginning in may of 2001, 4 months before 9-11.

Bush wanted an attack to pursue his war mongering ways. the proof is out today.

full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/op...me&ref=general

Mitt Romney has the same foreign policy team as george w. more neocon, unilateral war mongering in store for america.

I would have an easier time believing you if you sourced YOURSELF rather than the NY Times. Sorry, but this paper is best reserved for the floor of the birdcage than any objective new reporting.

Methinks you are politically biased, a truther about 9-11 or believe America is the reason for 3,000 deaths.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

Ok, you just wrap that around you
like a warm blanket. Ignore the detonations
on the audio, and the towers coming down
in free fall. We're all whackos--you just
keep watching Fox.

Know that you are in the minority here, however,
at least if what I read is right.

Not from a news perspective, but from an engineer's perspective, steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F, and at 1800°F it is probably less than 10 percent. The temperatures inside the towers were estimated to have reached approximately 1832°F..... even the lowest end of the temperatures inside the fire were way hotter than the hottest temperatures at which the steel trusses could have maintained integrity. So, maybe the steel didn't melt, per se, but it definitely degraded to a point where it lost it's structural integrity, and the millions of pounds of concrete dropped right to the ground.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Not from a news perspective, but from an engineer's perspective, steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F, and at 1800°F it is probably less than 10 percent. The temperatures inside the towers were estimated to have reached approximately 1832°F..... even the lowest end of the temperatures inside the fire were way hotter than the hottest temperatures at which the steel trusses could have maintained integrity. So, maybe the steel didn't melt, per se, but it definitely degraded to a point where it lost it's structural integrity, and the millions of pounds of concrete dropped right to the ground.

[bbyrd009]

Ok. From jet fuel. Which is diesel.
Causing complete free fall, no snags.
We can't help what we believe--
I, and most other Americans
(nevermind the rest of the world,
they will laugh in your face)
do not believe this.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

Ok. From jet fuel. Which is diesel.
Causing complete free fall, no snags.
We can't help what we believe--
I, and most other Americans
(nevermind the rest of the world,
they will laugh in your face)
do not believe this.

I admire your stance, you refuse to be confused by the facts. Carry on.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

Again with the "credible news source."
Look, I'm not an idiot, I know what it takes
to cause a 100 story tower
to fall to the ground in free-fall time,
which is lots faster than concrete falling
onto lower supported sections, and causing
a complete collapse, which we have no extant examples of.
and please understand that I'm not trying to
change your mind at this point.

Please elaborate us on your knowledge. Are you a physicist? Where did you get your PHd?

Do you know how much tonnage of concrete and steal were falling and hit the first level?

Remember the Towers did not collapse from the top floor down as if every level was rigged with charges.

Rather the levels collapsed right about where the planes HIT the towers and weakened the support structure and had burning fuel for long enough to weaking the metal more. All that concrete and steal from where the planes HIT the towers on up to the top floor is what slammed into the rest of the building on down. Why isn't that enough energy to slam down hard enough to cause the towers to just fall like they did?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

And then you woke up.
I also note, wadr, that you ignore discussions with me
in which truth might be quickly illuminated,
"one need not fear evil spirits," etc., and wallow in
...yack. Complete tripe.

Yes, terrorists hijacked your
passenger airliners, and successfully targeted 3 of
your most heavily defended targets, on a day when the whole
Eastern seaboard was supposedly involved in Air Force
maneuvers/training, only there wasn't a single bird
in the air, and all the witnesses are now dead. Can we move on?

No I watched it. I researched it. The percussion sound waves heard were each floor collapsing under the enormous tonnage of concrete and steal falling down on top of it

Ive never ignored anything with you nor said "One need not fear evil spirits".

The Two towers were not heavily defended targets. LOL

Second they were passenger airlines full of citizens. One does not lightly blow out of the sky an American passenger plane.

Third THIS never happened before so we has no clue they were doing suicide runs and the hijackers turned off their transponders.

Where do you get your facts? Prove them don't spray them good grief

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

And what do you suppose might happen to that "credible" news source, DB? How do you suppose that a source becomes "credible?" Hmm? Rupert Murdock is "credible," mmmkay?

And "truther.com" is credible? "I googled it so it just be true"??? ROFL

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

You forgot Alex Jones and his infowars nutcases. They too believe 9/11 was an inside job.

As to the majority of the public believing the conspiracy...really? I know maybe 2 out of the hundreds I work, church, fellowship or am family with.

People like Jones are dangerous, not because they are revealing the truth but because they'll believe ANYTHING someone tells them that is salacious about our government. The dangerous part is they mix enough truth and facts with fallacies and fantasies to fool those that can't think critically