Is Jesse Ventura right?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Thursday, August 22, 2024 21:33
VIEWED: 9077
PAGE 7 of 13
Quote:You misunderstand me. By all means, express your opinions on this thread. I just didn't know why someone who found this topic tedious would post about it. If you find it tedious, move on.
Originally posted by citizen:
(not to mention expressed the opinion that those with a different opinion to you should not be expressing that here on this thread),
If you find it interesting, like I do, please by all means say what you think. Believe it or not, I've been reading your answers. I don't agree, but that doesn't mean I am ignoring them. Besides, I've heard all these answers before. The reason I have my doubts is because these answers didn't satisfy me in the first place. Hearing them again doesn't change that.
(You didn't really expect me to go, "Damn Citizen, thank you for answering the question in a way that I've never seen before! NOW that you've spoken, my questions have all been answered, and I no longer have any doubts about the official story." Did you?)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not shooting down commercial aircraft. September the 11th 2001 was the first time hyjackers have used planes to attack targets, and not merely as political leverage. It's really easy to second guess decisions made after the facts are known, but to presume the military not shooting down those planes means anything is little more than confirmation bias.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Where the hell was our Air Force on 9/11?
Quote:They did have flight experience, and it's easier than you think.
How did people with no flight experience successfully target the twin towers 209 feet wide flying jumbo jets 150 feet wide going 500 miles/hr? Not once, but twice.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey..what about the fucking Titanic?..huh? Iceberg my ass!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, I think your mind is already made up to be honest.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
(You didn't really expect me to go, "Damn Citizen, thank you for answering the question in a way that I've never seen before! NOW that you've spoken, my questions have all been answered, and I no longer have any doubts about the official story." Did you?)
By the same token you don't expect me to go "oh, the same tired baseless accusation displaying more a lack of knowledge on the poser than a problem with the theory, I guess the theory must be wrong now I've heard that for the five hundredth time!" do you?
No, what I expected was you to engage in the discussion you asked for, instead you completely ignored my response. That's the tedious part. The fact that I find myself debunking the same thing over and over again, and it pops up over and over again as if it never happened.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's just it. How did the support get "removed"?
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Remove support and it will fall straight down because in the absence of any other forces physics says it can only fall downwards.
When the supports are weakened or deformed by heat as the official story alleges, buildings behave differently. It is when the supports are removed, say by explosives, that they fall straight down. At least, that is how I understand it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Iceberg my ass!
lolisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I've read your post over and over again. I didn't respond because I don't know what to say. You say, "Yes, they are designed to fall that way." I can say, "No, they're not designed to fall at all." Seems like a waste of time just to say, "I disagree."
Originally posted by citizen:
No, what I expected was you to engage in the discussion you asked for, instead you completely ignored my response.
So the way I see it, you've expressed your opinion. I didn't see any facts in your opinion that merit a counter-argument, so I let it rest.
In topics like this where it is 5 to 1, sometimes I don't have time to answer every single opinion. I have to let some things go.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"That's just it. How did the support get "removed"?"
By becoming uncoupled from the walls due to heat-induced sagging, as the debris amply demostrates. In an earthquake the wall/floor supports shear due to seismic stress and the floors then pancake; in the fire the joists sagged due to plastic deformation, came off the walls and the floors then pancaked.
And gravity, being a force that acts towards the center of the earth, pulled everything straight down and not to the side.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm not presuming anything. I was asking a question. It is not one answered by the official story. They sort of just ignored it.
Originally posted by citizen:
It's really easy to second guess decisions made after the facts are known, but to presume the military not shooting down those planes means anything is little more than confirmation bias.
Quote:See, this is why it is hard for me to answer your posts, Cit. What can I say to that? No, it's not easier than I think? You make general opinion statements--how do you counter general opinions not backed by anything? I just got to let it go, you know?
They did have flight experience, and it's easier than you think.
My husband is a pilot who has significant flight experience (flown over Europe, Africa, and the Atlantic ocean), but no jumbo jet experience. He says he can't do what those jetliners did--target that width at that speed in a 767. It is hard for me to believe that people with only simulator experience could do it. Not saying it's impossible, just terribly unlikely. And simply telling me "no, it's easy" isn't what I call a convincing argument.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You know, I wondered about that. Does anyone have any good info on just how fast those planes were going when they impacted the towers?
When the jets hit they were not going anywhere near 500 mph. I ( and a billion others ) saw the 2nd plane hit...looked like it was going pretty slow after it made its' big looping curve around to get into position to hit the 2nd tower.
Cause in videos, they looked pretty slow to me too. But when I read about it, people say 500 mph.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME