Fingers are good for typing to.

In reply to this comment by JAPR:
BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

In reply to this comment by Fade:
Okay moron there's no need to be a dick head. I'm not arguing for or against this. I just thought it was curious. If you want to be an asshole and call me names then go fuck your self you faggot!

In reply to this comment by JAPR:
No, but we do live in a real world where morons who put four time-lapsed pictures together can fool other idiots such as yourself. Don't be thick.

In reply to this comment by Fade:
If what you are saying is true then you should be able to see the structure in the fourth picture too. We don't live in a cartoon world where objects leave shadows of themselves in dust.

In reply to this comment by JAPR:
I see four pictures from a piece of a structure collapsing. In the second picture, it has begun to fall down, and there is absolutely not steel missing from it. The third picture obviously has a greater time lapse than the break between the first two, but is still continuing the progression downwards and slightly outwards. Now, I'm no physicist, but it seems pretty obvious to me that just as when you drop something into water, it causes a splash, when a huge object drops at a decent speed through a huge cloud of dust and debris, some of it will get pushed upwards along it.

You should also note that in the third picture, there is still no disintegration of the steel. That tall projecting piece is the same size and thickness it was in the first picture. What the hell are YOU talking about? I'm tired of absolutely RETARDED 9/11 theories. Call me when something with actual scientific evidence pops up. Oh wait. It won't. Because people have gone over all sorts of bullshit for it and tried every scientifically possible concept they could think up to try to make some government conspiracy theory, and they were easily shot down by real scientists. I guess it's about time they start turning to fairy tales.

In reply to this comment by Fade:
What the hell are you talking about? I see steel turning into dust. What does falling though the dust have to do with it?

In reply to this comment by JAPR:
>> Fade:
I'm particularly fascinated by this one http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image42.jpg

OH GOD WHEN A HUGE HEAVY OBJECT IS FALLING THROUGH A DUSTCLOUD IT FALLS FASTER THAN DUST OH HEAVEN DEAR GOD HALP PSYOPS

BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

In reply to this comment by Fade:
Okay moron there's no need to be a dick head. I'm not arguing for or against this. I just thought it was curious. If you want to be an asshole and call me names then go fuck your self you faggot!

In reply to this comment by JAPR:
No, but we do live in a real world where morons who put four time-lapsed pictures together can fool other idiots such as yourself. Don't be thick.

In reply to this comment by Fade:
If what you are saying is true then you should be able to see the structure in the fourth picture too. We don't live in a cartoon world where objects leave shadows of themselves in dust.

In reply to this comment by JAPR:
I see four pictures from a piece of a structure collapsing. In the second picture, it has begun to fall down, and there is absolutely not steel missing from it. The third picture obviously has a greater time lapse than the break between the first two, but is still continuing the progression downwards and slightly outwards. Now, I'm no physicist, but it seems pretty obvious to me that just as when you drop something into water, it causes a splash, when a huge object drops at a decent speed through a huge cloud of dust and debris, some of it will get pushed upwards along it.

You should also note that in the third picture, there is still no disintegration of the steel. That tall projecting piece is the same size and thickness it was in the first picture. What the hell are YOU talking about? I'm tired of absolutely RETARDED 9/11 theories. Call me when something with actual scientific evidence pops up. Oh wait. It won't. Because people have gone over all sorts of bullshit for it and tried every scientifically possible concept they could think up to try to make some government conspiracy theory, and they were easily shot down by real scientists. I guess it's about time they start turning to fairy tales.

In reply to this comment by Fade:
What the hell are you talking about? I see steel turning into dust. What does falling though the dust have to do with it?

In reply to this comment by JAPR:
>> Fade:
I'm particularly fascinated by this one http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image42.jpg

OH GOD WHEN A HUGE HEAVY OBJECT IS FALLING THROUGH A DUSTCLOUD IT FALLS FASTER THAN DUST OH HEAVEN DEAR GOD HALP PSYOPS

Okay moron there's no need to be a dick head. I'm not arguing for or against this. I just thought it was curious. If you want to be an asshole and call me names then go fuck your self you faggot!

In reply to this comment by JAPR:
No, but we do live in a real world where morons who put four time-lapsed pictures together can fool other idiots such as yourself. Don't be thick.

In reply to this comment by Fade:
If what you are saying is true then you should be able to see the structure in the fourth picture too. We don't live in a cartoon world where objects leave shadows of themselves in dust.

In reply to this comment by JAPR:
I see four pictures from a piece of a structure collapsing. In the second picture, it has begun to fall down, and there is absolutely not steel missing from it. The third picture obviously has a greater time lapse than the break between the first two, but is still continuing the progression downwards and slightly outwards. Now, I'm no physicist, but it seems pretty obvious to me that just as when you drop something into water, it causes a splash, when a huge object drops at a decent speed through a huge cloud of dust and debris, some of it will get pushed upwards along it.

You should also note that in the third picture, there is still no disintegration of the steel. That tall projecting piece is the same size and thickness it was in the first picture. What the hell are YOU talking about? I'm tired of absolutely RETARDED 9/11 theories. Call me when something with actual scientific evidence pops up. Oh wait. It won't. Because people have gone over all sorts of bullshit for it and tried every scientifically possible concept they could think up to try to make some government conspiracy theory, and they were easily shot down by real scientists. I guess it's about time they start turning to fairy tales.

In reply to this comment by Fade:
What the hell are you talking about? I see steel turning into dust. What does falling though the dust have to do with it?

In reply to this comment by JAPR:
>> Fade:
I'm particularly fascinated by this one http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image42.jpg

OH GOD WHEN A HUGE HEAVY OBJECT IS FALLING THROUGH A DUSTCLOUD IT FALLS FASTER THAN DUST OH HEAVEN DEAR GOD HALP PSYOPS

No, but we do live in a real world where morons who put four time-lapsed pictures together can fool other idiots such as yourself. Don't be thick.

In reply to this comment by Fade:
If what you are saying is true then you should be able to see the structure in the fourth picture too. We don't live in a cartoon world where objects leave shadows of themselves in dust.

In reply to this comment by JAPR:
I see four pictures from a piece of a structure collapsing. In the second picture, it has begun to fall down, and there is absolutely not steel missing from it. The third picture obviously has a greater time lapse than the break between the first two, but is still continuing the progression downwards and slightly outwards. Now, I'm no physicist, but it seems pretty obvious to me that just as when you drop something into water, it causes a splash, when a huge object drops at a decent speed through a huge cloud of dust and debris, some of it will get pushed upwards along it.

You should also note that in the third picture, there is still no disintegration of the steel. That tall projecting piece is the same size and thickness it was in the first picture. What the hell are YOU talking about? I'm tired of absolutely RETARDED 9/11 theories. Call me when something with actual scientific evidence pops up. Oh wait. It won't. Because people have gone over all sorts of bullshit for it and tried every scientifically possible concept they could think up to try to make some government conspiracy theory, and they were easily shot down by real scientists. I guess it's about time they start turning to fairy tales.

In reply to this comment by Fade:
What the hell are you talking about? I see steel turning into dust. What does falling though the dust have to do with it?

In reply to this comment by JAPR:
>> Fade:
I'm particularly fascinated by this one http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image42.jpg

OH GOD WHEN A HUGE HEAVY OBJECT IS FALLING THROUGH A DUSTCLOUD IT FALLS FASTER THAN DUST OH HEAVEN DEAR GOD HALP PSYOPS

If what you are saying is true then you should be able to see the structure in the fourth picture too. We don't live in a cartoon world where objects leave shadows of themselves in dust.

In reply to this comment by JAPR:
I see four pictures from a piece of a structure collapsing. In the second picture, it has begun to fall down, and there is absolutely not steel missing from it. The third picture obviously has a greater time lapse than the break between the first two, but is still continuing the progression downwards and slightly outwards. Now, I'm no physicist, but it seems pretty obvious to me that just as when you drop something into water, it causes a splash, when a huge object drops at a decent speed through a huge cloud of dust and debris, some of it will get pushed upwards along it.

You should also note that in the third picture, there is still no disintegration of the steel. That tall projecting piece is the same size and thickness it was in the first picture. What the hell are YOU talking about? I'm tired of absolutely RETARDED 9/11 theories. Call me when something with actual scientific evidence pops up. Oh wait. It won't. Because people have gone over all sorts of bullshit for it and tried every scientifically possible concept they could think up to try to make some government conspiracy theory, and they were easily shot down by real scientists. I guess it's about time they start turning to fairy tales.

In reply to this comment by Fade:
What the hell are you talking about? I see steel turning into dust. What does falling though the dust have to do with it?

In reply to this comment by JAPR:
>> Fade:
I'm particularly fascinated by this one http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image42.jpg

OH GOD WHEN A HUGE HEAVY OBJECT IS FALLING THROUGH A DUSTCLOUD IT FALLS FASTER THAN DUST OH HEAVEN DEAR GOD HALP PSYOPS

I see four pictures from a piece of a structure collapsing. In the second picture, it has begun to fall down, and there is absolutely not steel missing from it. The third picture obviously has a greater time lapse than the break between the first two, but is still continuing the progression downwards and slightly outwards. Now, I'm no physicist, but it seems pretty obvious to me that just as when you drop something into water, it causes a splash, when a huge object drops at a decent speed through a huge cloud of dust and debris, some of it will get pushed upwards along it.

You should also note that in the third picture, there is still no disintegration of the steel. That tall projecting piece is the same size and thickness it was in the first picture. What the hell are YOU talking about? I'm tired of absolutely RETARDED 9/11 theories. Call me when something with actual scientific evidence pops up. Oh wait. It won't. Because people have gone over all sorts of bullshit for it and tried every scientifically possible concept they could think up to try to make some government conspiracy theory, and they were easily shot down by real scientists. I guess it's about time they start turning to fairy tales.

In reply to this comment by Fade:
What the hell are you talking about? I see steel turning into dust. What does falling though the dust have to do with it?

In reply to this comment by JAPR:
>> Fade:
I'm particularly fascinated by this one http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image42.jpg

OH GOD WHEN A HUGE HEAVY OBJECT IS FALLING THROUGH A DUSTCLOUD IT FALLS FASTER THAN DUST OH HEAVEN DEAR GOD HALP PSYOPS

What the hell are you talking about? I see steel turning into dust. What does falling though the dust have to do with it?

In reply to this comment by JAPR:
>> Fade:
I'm particularly fascinated by this one http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image42.jpg

OH GOD WHEN A HUGE HEAVY OBJECT IS FALLING THROUGH A DUSTCLOUD IT FALLS FASTER THAN DUST OH HEAVEN DEAR GOD HALP PSYOPS

Par. Let's take just one question instead of sidestepping around straw.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that a 767 is significantly bigger than a 707, that enough fuel remained in the building to burn enough to weaken the floors, that the visible molten metal was a freak occurrence and/or photoshop conspiracy theory, that somehow fireproofing was blown away all over the place over many floors even half a block away from the impact, and that the floors then distorted and collapsed catastrophically, due to the design of the building and the weak connections between the wall and the floor.

OK? I am agreeing with you so far.

Now, explain to me how the core, an enormous treetrunk of steel and concrete, collapsed also, completely, into dust, at the same time as all the floors, which had just disconnected from the core in order to fall, and were so flimsy that they couldn't drag the core down with them. I will even let you assume that somehow the floors disconnected evenly and simultaneously, permitting a total collapse into pretty much the footprint of the building.

How did the core collapse and turn to dust? Where did the energy come from for that? Just explain this, and I will instantly switch to your side of the argument and call choggie a weirdo conspiracy theorist.

I honestly would like to believe it man, it's just, you haven't addressed any of the issues that concern me, you've just debunked things i already find weak, and added things like "don't you trust NIST?" which make me think you might be gullible, or proud of you rational "non conspiracy theorist" position.

I would have an easier time believing the government on this one if they had done a better job of investigating the scene. If it is so obvious that there is no conspiracy, then I have to ask the question: Why not investigate the fuck out of this thing, out in the open? Families of victims still don't have satisfaction.

Then I remember the hundreds of other lies from Bush et al and I find it difficult to trust them on this one.

Please at least empathise with us skeptics, we have all been lied to a LOT, and it seems only rational to take a skeptical position in the absence of satisfactory explanation.

How did that core collapse like that?

not really. the maximum distance from the hypocenter which would produce instant clothes/skin/etc burning effects from the flash would necessitate a proximity that would mean the blast wave would arrive a mere second or two at most afterward. also, you would not be turned into dust statues as depicted and I highly doubt your skeleton would remain clutching the fence as your flesh is ripped off. that's just silly.

SaNdMaN:

Why are you commenting on a movie you haven't even watched? You didn't argue against the dozens of arguments. There are probably almost 50+ reasons why it doesn't make sense you only talked about the 6 or 7 I happened to present. Even so, you didn't resolve anything:

1. "They" is a private group of scientists in the video who ran computer simulations on what a 100 story pancaked building would be like. The result was each floor hitting the next and the collapse proceeding slower as each floor goes. Not at free fall velocity.

2. The point about concrete turning into dust is this: when you drop concrete it shatters, it doesn't EXPLODE into tiny particles of dust. Even if you think that the floors dropping were high enough to turn them into dust, why was there a explosive dust cloud on the first collapsed floor? The concrete should have simply broken into big pieces when falling a mere 10 feet. Also, all 100 floors or each building would have to collapsed at all points simultaneously, and instantly for the collapse to occur. The probability of such things is astronomical.

3. The point of the temperature of the fire isn't that it weakened steel. Lets say you are right that it weakened the steal enough an the building collapsed on its own. How do you explain the presence of molten steel? This right here is enough to tell something is wrong. It doesn't matter if 1000 planes crashed into the tower at the same time--jet fuel does NOT burn hot enough to MELT steel. Therefore if you have 1000 planes full of jet fuel crashing every day into a steel pile they it would never melt.

4. The building supported by an insanely strong metal core designed with a safety factor of 2000%. The pancaking theory states that the floors lost contact with the core and thus dropped on each other, all the way down. This says nothing about the core and explains in no where why the core started falling before the building collapsed, or that it collapsed at all.

6. Actually commercial planes have hit skyscrapers before and they were fine. The WTC was designed to be hit by a fulled fueled 707 and still maintain integrity. They not only designed this in mind, but over designed it by 2000%.


The problem here is that you don't believe the government would do such a thing. So it doesn't matter what evidence you face--we could show you pictures of bombs placed in the WTC and you'd find a way to explain it. We could even have internal cameras going off in conjunction to live feed with demolitions experts pressing the buttons and you still wouldn't believe it. The problem is that you don't realize 9/11 is just a part of whats happening to this country. You don't live in America anymore this country is already to the point of being fascist and the rest of the world is following suit.

Awwwww, hell the kethup was simply a suggestion for those whose knowledge of spices and their compliments are limited to what they can find in a bottle in their bachelor's/bachelorete's fridgy-widge.

This is the beginnings of roux, a yummy topping to buscuits and ham, or a basis for Chinese stir-fry sauces..(w/ corn starch or gluten not flour)

-any one who does not know a basic gravy, should treat this little lesson as a message from the gods....the gods of survival, the gods of your grandmothers, the gods who would, that all fast food and microwaves be ground into dust.........

Snake, your attitudes been very trying. I've spent more time than most would reading through your links, instead of "clicking it off the screen because it doesn't correlate with (my) opinion", so please keep the ad hominem attacks to yourself.

I look at the site, and their arguments do the same preaching I commented on earlier. "ignoring the stand down of the US air-force, the insider trading on airline stocks - linked to the CIA, the complicit behavior of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs"
Yes, it's cute to use a writing style trick to invert the meaning of the term conspiracy theorist to make yourself look right, but it doesn't make you right.

Stand-down? Insider trading? Controlled demolition? Oh come on - this is an insult to the term "documented proof".

In the end, your side arguments rest as much on Bush's incompetence as mine: I argue he sat there like an idiot because he is one. You argue he sat there like an idiot b/c he planned it all along.

If he planned it all along and sat there in a way to 'betray his prior knowledge', he would just as much an idiot since he should've been ready to "act" more surprised.

That's the fun and infuriating thing about these guessing games - you can so easily get into a loop of, "but that's just what they *want* us to think!"

Here's some more rational explanations for what happened. The towers did not "break the laws" of gravity:
http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html
http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=5566

Black smoke: http://www.911myths.com/html/black_smoke.html

Black boxes: http://www.911myths.com/html/black_boxes.html
Sorry joedirt, definitely found them on two flights; and no rational person will be surprised if you have trouble finding anything in the wreckage of the WTCs - literally tons of materials were pulverized into dust, as the video above reminds you.