Who Still Supports the Official Collapse Theory for the WTC???
Just curious.
Funny-- some commenters here don't seem so upset about the idea that the WTC was blown up-- just at the idea that it was nuked. Not that they have any meaningful arguments against nuking, mind you.
Funny-- some commenters here don't seem so upset about the idea that the WTC was blown up-- just at the idea that it was nuked. Not that they have any meaningful arguments against nuking, mind you.
posted by spooked at 9:38 PM
45 Comments:
I do, I do!!
And seriously, Spooked. The whole idea of nukes is just plain preposterous.
The Twin Towers were not a pair of futuristic, state-of-the-art, impenetrable fortresses.
They were sky-scrapers. A traditional demolition could have easily brought them down. There would be no need for nuclear weaponry. None at all.
The idea is as on par in its overkill as say, blowing up a building to get rid of some documents instead of just sending them through a shredder or wiping a hard-drive.
I don't see why you truthers insist on believing the most illogical, unnecessary and over-the-top "theories" out there.
But hey. There's no law against stupid.
.... Yet.
Mwuahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Who Still Supports the Official Collapse Theory for the WTC???
You mean besides the entire scientific and engineering communities?
Who Still Supports the Official Collapse Theory for the WTC???
You mean besides rational and educated people?
hey genius chad and the beavis and butthead of the shill gang - three ringing endorsements of *support* in a row!
They were sky-scrapers. A traditional demolition could have easily brought them down.
except anyone with eyes in their head can tell that wtc destruction was far from traditional.
an explosion is no more an implosion than it is a collapse.
except anyone with eyes in their head can tell that wtc destruction was far from traditional.
Yeah, someone smashed a fully fueled plane into it.
Or did you miss that part.
except anyone with eyes in their head can tell that wtc destruction was far from traditional.
Correct indeed, my friend. The collapses started from the top of the building, instead of from the bottom. Ironically, the initiation happened to be exactly where the planes impacted. Hmmm....
One might expect that if a nuke went off in the basement of the towers, as the famously anonymous "physicist" posits, things would've looked a tad different.
.... To anyone with eyes and a brain in their head, that is.
In their own words, they are just three
"Bush voting, gay guys."
Very conflicted, very moronic--about everything they are paid to post on. Very OWNED by you know who.
No wonder, they keep using terms like "sphincter" and "asshole."
A.P. was right--they're the ones into that.
While A.P.'s articles here have always been very analytical--and the shills never can criticize his physics or math--these three are very ANALytical.
Bogus Official 9/11 Science
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/spooked911
"everything they are paid to post on"
Do you actually think that the government would pay people to post on a tiny blog with about six regular readers?
Please. I post here because I like making fun of stupid people. That's my entire motivation...
While A.P.'s articles here have always been very analytical--and the shills never can criticize his physics or math--these three are very ANALytical.
Truther Rule # 18532: When all else fails, use gay jokes!!
That said, I do wanna give you props on finding a word within a word, for two reasons. One, you spelled it correctly. And two, I'm sure the amount of time it took you to come up with that witticism drastically ate into time normally spent smokin' a blunt.
Yeah, someone smashed a fully fueled plane into it.
Or did you miss that part.
hmmm. i must have missed that part since all 4 of the media videos that show an image of a plane actually hitting a wtc show it gliding right thru the wall like a cartoon ghost instead of smashing into it like a real airplane would.
or did you miss that part?
You no-planers really are quite special.
I guess the incredible strength of the steel and glass should've just caused the planes to crumple up like tissue paper on the outside of the building.
No wonder you think nukes would be needed to bring down the towers. Apparently they were made of a material stronger than anything this world has ever seen.
you seem to forget, Chad, that officially the WTC steel ended up shredding the plane into tiny pieces.
Quite a trick-- first the plane effortlessly shreds the steel and then the steel shreds the plane.
Yeah, good point, Spooked. Obviously one of the objects should've ended up totally unscathed.
You seem to forget, Spooked, that the WTC steel was not "shredded". It was broken. Quite often, the exterior columns were broken where they met other sections of exterior columns.
You ever been in or seen a car accident, Spooked? They must really blow your mind. How one car can effortlessly damage another while at the same time receive damage itself. ... Heavy shit.
"Chad":
I have begged you, imbecile, to leave the Physics to others.
Your citing of a double car accident only shows what an ignoramus you are to use that as an attempted analogy to a real (not CGI) plane hitting a tower whose outer structure contains thick steel.
The two cars hitting each other are basically the same. But with a plane, even more especially that mostly plastic nosecone, hitting thick steel, that same force of impact, acting on each other, by Newton's 3rd law, then acting on very different structures will produce very different results! So two cars is not a good analogy.
Stick to other issues, idiot. Get your handler to send you somewhere else.
And anonymous above is correct, your admission of being a "Bush voting, gay guy" is very hypocritical to say the least. (If it's true, and I don't necessarily believe anything an intel agent says. I also don't necessarily believe you are in Harrisburg, PA for example.)
But I think you are a disgrace to the gay community, if it's true. How could you vote for Bush, when
1. Bush is himself gay. Note Victor Ashe, and Jeff Gannon. (And all the other top Republican triple tappers. It's required training.)
2. Bush is so anti-Gay. I think gays, or any adults, should be allowed to marry, if they so wish. It is always the Gay leaders themselves who are so viciously anti-Gay. Read the great book, the Hidden Hitler, at how Hitler was a male prostitute until being "found," and used by Tavistock (London) and sent in to do what he did. Among the very first ones Hitler killed or incarcerated were gays.
So how the hell could you be a "Bush voting, gay guy"? It does seem like you are on the wrong and idiotic side of every issue.
You are a disgrace to the gay community (if true), as well as 911 truth, as your faulty double car accident example above shows.
And as far as "only 6 people reading Spooked's blog": I saw when he put up my piece responding to another (female) British agent's nuclear hit piece at a "911truth forum", that British agent's article at that forum had their hit count go up several hundred within a short time (hours), whereas it took several days to get to the first 200 hundred.
So everything you foul intel agents here ("Chad", "Swart", "Conspiracy Smasher", "Early Wynn") write is a stupid lie. Each of these four has said they believe the planes were real, not CGI (even though their wings blink in and out of existence in the videos), and that there was gravitational collapse, and NO explosions.
So why are you four people here???????????? (If there really are four of you.)
When the owner/moderator of this blog, and a contributor keep writing on these things you four deny? Would anyone but a well-paid agent be here all the time, if they believed what is daily posted here is false? Do you think I go to JREF when I saw, but ONCE, everything written there, on all topics, is blatently false and govt claptrap?
Yeah, you scum are paid well, and get good bennies. As I have written before, I hope you each have children, because you are working so hard to doom them to hell. All to get some money and some bennies, and the illusion of power. What filth.
Anonymous Physicist
I guess the incredible strength of the steel and glass should've just caused the planes to crumple up like tissue paper on the outside of the building.
yes the steel was of incredible strength. a real lightweight aluminum 767 with a plastic nosecone would've smashed like a beer can against it. the glass was nothing.
AP -
I appreciate your opinion that I am a disgrace to the gay community. Frankly, my sexual orientation does not define me and therefore does not govern my beliefs on any issue. But while we're on politics, let me briefly remind you that the Democrats singularly use gays as a means to get elected. They have passed more legislation detrimental to the "gay cause" than any righty. DOMA. DADT. Just to name a few. That said, I've become increasingly disenchanted with Bush over the past number of months. I do believe I shall change my profile.
Regardless, your unfounded skepticism of everything (even down to my residence) just speaks to your mental illness. You have no proof I don't live in Harrisburg, yet that doesn't stop you from believing it.
As to why I'm here? You think it's because I'm being paid and getting good "bennies". You have to believe that because then it gives this blog and your theories some credibility. Like you're on to something, and the government has dispatched intel agents to counter you. It makes you feel important. If that's the case, have Spooked block me. Take away my paycheck.
In reality, I am here because I get a kick out of seeing just how sadly ignorant and stupid some people are in this world. It's like that show "When Animals Attack". Completely retarded, but you just can't seem to change the channel.
I get a kick out of seeing just how sadly ignorant and stupid some people are in this world.
I agree with Chad! What kind of an imbecile would think that a hollow aluminum tube couldn't blast right through some heavy steel?
So let me get this straight. You no-planers here actually feel the entire plane should've crumpled up outside the building leaving no mark on the tower save a few shattered windows, is that correct?
"Would anyone but a well-paid agent be here all the time, if they believed what is daily posted here is false?"
AP, your stupidity runs deeper than your paranoia (which speaks volumes...) As I've already said, I'm here because I like making fun of stupid people.
People who believe in a hollow moon, nukes at the WTC, rayguns in space, bases on the dark side of the moon and other assorted witless fucktardisms. In short, I'm here to make fun of self-important stooges...like you...
no-planers here actually feel the entire plane should've crumpled up outside the building leaving no mark on the tower save a few shattered windows, is that correct?
oh i am sure that if a real aluminum 767 with a plastic nosecone were to really hit a wtc built out of massive structural steel it would do some damage to the wtc - but certainly it would not have behaved as we were shown by CNN; gliding thru the wall entirely, like casper the ghost, and then an explosion.
a real 767 is a giant flying beercan, not an armor piercing projectile - and the wtc were massive steel latticeworks built with structural steel, not glass houses.
Actually, according to the cartoon physics of NIST, the wings of the plane shredded those outer steel columns at the same time that the wings themselves were shredded.
So let me get this straight. You no-planers here actually feel the entire plane should've crumpled up outside the building leaving no mark on the tower save a few shattered windows, is that correct?
Of course not. I already wrote up thread what I thought would happen. Only a shill would write nonsense about a plane causing no damage except for broken windows.
Only a shill or a fool would not question the incongruity of a plane flying past massive outer steel columns like a ghost.
Kind of fun to see the shills out in force though. It's a regular SHILL PARTY! Whoo hoo!
Poor spooky...you haven't had this much attention since you built your scale model using cinderblocks and chicken wire (giggle)
p.s. I'd hardly call three people laughing at your stupidity a "party"...but hey, a clown like you needs to convince himself how important he is...
If any of you are know-it-alls you claim to be, you'd use your real names, which none of you do.
a real 767 is a giant flying beercan, not an armor piercing projectile
A skyscraper is not a battleship. The WTC wasn't made out of armor.
The WTC wasn't made out of armor
no? what exactly was it made out of?
People who believe in a hollow moon
yes terrence (conspiracy smasher), these people:
NASA scientist Dr. Gordon MacDonald stated, "If the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data require that the interior of the moon is more like a hollow than a homogeneous sphere."
Nobel chemist Dr. Harold Urey suggested the moon’s reduced density is because of large areas inside the moon where is "simply a cavity."
keep on with your ridicule, terrence - most here remember that you said that your disgusting hobby is bukakke.
what does that say about your wife?
Brief Overview of the Evidence for No Plane at the South Tower
1) Near impossible flightpath for amateur pilot. Remote control plane would have taken more direct path without looping flight path and last-minute course correction (extreme banking)
2) Overwhelming evidence that the videos showing "UA175" were manipulated or are fraudulent:
a) clear airframe abnormalities seen in images of the plane
b) plane is too small for 767 in some videos
c) aircraft attitude/flight path discrepancies between videos (even more apparent with photos)
d) bizarre/unreal/unlikely camera pans/zooms
3) Impossible crash physics upon contact with the tower
a) no slowing as plane enters
b) no explosion as plane enters
c) no part of plane breaks off despite fact that entry hole doesn't accomodate all of wings and tail
d) no deflection in the plane's path as it enters
e) no deflection/distortion of wings as they impact the tower
f) almost no deflection of debris backwards
g) impossibility of plane acting indestructible as it enters but then undergoing complete destruction after it goes in
4) Lack of plane debris clearly matching a Boeing 767 and no black boxes officially recovered
5) Evidence of planted plane debris
a) engine under canopy
b) fuselage piece on top of tower debris on WTC5 roof
c) plane wheel found weakly embedded in WTC column section after 1000 foot drop
Spooked, have you done anything with this "evidence"?
If so, what?
If not, why not?
"most here remember that you said that your disgusting hobby is bukakke."
Your such an idiot...I used the phrase "bukakked with stupid" once to describe morons like you. Clearly, you didn't get it...
Chad,
Poor spooky never leaves the confines of this blog. If he did, the laughter would overwelm him...
Who left the doggy door open?
It's like every Physics ignoring, low pay-grade government Shill in the 20 state area wandered in! :-D
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
That was a good one, Rob! Kudos to you!!
Doggy door.... Ah, you're killin' me!
For someone who claims to not like this site, our "Chad" seems to have taken up residence here.
No, nothing odd about that. Not at all. Perfectly normal behavior really.
I also spend lots of time in places I don't like either...
And a less than 10 minute shill response time to my random comment.
Impressive to say the least "chad"!
And you claim not to even like this site, correct?
For someone who doesn't like this site, you sure don't wander too far. :-)
Do they give you guys Blackberry's now or something? ;-)
You know, to decrease shill SPAM response time and all?
"Spooked, have you done anything with this "evidence"
FUCK no, he hasn't and he never will! He knows if he ever sticks his fat nose outside of this crappy blog of his with his *cough cough* "evidence" he would become a GLOBAL laughing stock, where as now he is just a Sphincter laughing stock.
Its also why the Anony Asshole has never published any of this crap. They don't believe it themselves - rather, they just want to see how many brain-dead drooling moronic idiots they can get to parrot their bullshit. They have about 3, at last count.
Rob, I've already made the analogy before, but I'll do it again, just for you.
It's not that I don't like this site. It's because it's on par with those stupid shows you just can't help but watch. "When Animals Attack". "World's Deadliest Car Chases". Fucking stupid shows, but you just can't change the channel. There's something about them that just fascinates you.
In the case of this blog, it's the level of stupidity that is posted by you truthers.
Pathetic excuse Chad. Bottom line: You are here because you either want or need to be. I slow down to look at car accidents, but I don't go online to see pictures of people's heads decapitated on a regular basis.
good one chad!
hey, how about that aluminum/plastic vs. steel/concrete!
Pay no attention to Chad-- he's already admitted he's a paid shill.
As if anyone would be paid to post on this tiny blog...
Tiny blog?
Looks regular sized to me.
Maybe make your browser window bigger.
Anyway, Chad admitted he was paid to come here and mock us.
Well his mockery is 2nd rate at best.
Yep. I'm paid BIG BUCKS!! No Whammies.
What's even funnier is that you guys actually believe it. No proof, other than my sarcastic comment about it. But hey... the lack of proof hasn't stopped you from believing anything the AP throws out there.
Funny how you take my word when it's something you want to believe.... Much like a religion.
No matter though. I'm sure this blog will eventually save the world from the inevitable NWO oppression.
sword of "truth" seems to have forgotten about something:
a real 767 is a giant flying beercan, not an armor piercing projectile.
Sword of Truth said...
""A skyscraper is not a battleship. The WTC wasn't made out of armor.""
no? what exactly was it made out of?
you've had a whole day now to figure this out sword - what about it?
Post a Comment
<< Home