America: Freedom to Fascism

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Maniacalsalivation is right, denial isn't only a river in Egypt.

Let me ask you this. Have you ever met someone from New York City? I've been thinking about this for a couple minutes, and no, I can't say I have.

Have you ever been to New York? I've checked my pockets and my wallet still exists, I can't say I have.

What I'm trying to get at here is that New York City is a hoax. A fraud. A sham. An invention by Hollywood elites looking to ship chic merchandise. 9/11 was merely a B-movie that everyone has eaten up as the truth. They rolled with it and now 9/11 is a billion dollar industry. The government has merely joined in on the circus because they want to steal your gold.

The towers never existed. The city has never existed. Airplanes are fiction and don't exist either (the earth is flat and flying upwards through space, plane science simply doesn't fly).

Only believe what you see with your eyes, and your heart, and your appendix (your truth organ, which is why the government tries to steal it). Don't fall into the trap and give all your gold away to the 9/11ists.

I dont think you can insult me so easily. I have been to NY more then 10x both before and after 9-11.
I have seen the 'evidence'. But does that change anything in your view?

 

[sophie]

I dont think you can insult me so easily. I have been to NY more then 10x both before and after 9-11.
I have seen the 'evidence'. But does that change anything in your view?

Have you though? Have you really? How do you know? You haven't walked there. Planes are a conspiracy, we can't fly! I've never seen a person fly before.

 

[Leoreth]

I dont think you can insult me so easily. I have been to NY more then 10x both before and after 9-11.
I have seen the 'evidence'. But does that change anything in your view?

But we have been lied to about Iraq, so why am I supposed to believe you about having been to New York? Like I'm not that gullible.

 

[SLAAKMAN]

Temperatures of the molten metals burning under the WTC debris including WTC7 reached over 1200 Fahrenheit and continued to burn for many weeks, long after the purported jet fuels burned out. Only exothermics and/or nuclear material could burn continuously for that long.

But we have been lied to about Iraq, so why am I supposed to believe you about having been to New York? Like I'm not that gullible.

We were also lied to about Afganistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Gaza & hosts of other heinous crimes but you expect us to accept the phony official spin regarding 9-11. Why? Forensic protocols for recovery & examination of the evidence were deliberately ignored and none of their assertions are scientifically valid.


Link to video.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) did document the flow of molten metal pouring out of the South Tower during the final seven minutes before its collapse, noting the accompanying "unusual bright flame" and "plume of white smoke." However, NIST failed to investigate the phenomenon, dismissing it as molten aluminum from the crashed jet, which melts at only 660°C/1220°F. NIST's hypothesis may seem plausible at first. But Dr. Steven Jones demonstrates in his 2006 paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" that the official government hypothesis is untested and implausible.

Dr. Jones' paper reveals that the initial bright yellow-white glow of the expelled liquid was consistent with a glowing stream of molten iron from "a nearby thermite reaction zone," and the expected white smoke (aluminum oxide off-gassing) supports that conclusion. NIST must rely on its claim of molten aluminum in order to validate its official fire-based explanation, because office fires cannot generate the extreme temperature required to melt steel or iron. The fundamental flaw of the aluminum hypothesis, though, is that the implied temperature of the white glow remains above 1200°C/2200°F, regardless of the metal involved. An independent researcher suggested that the molten substance could be lead from storage batteries, but this explanation fails — as do all hypotheses based on alternative metals — because the temperature required for the yellow-white glow of the metal is beyond the capability of the building fire. Dr. Jones also notes that molten aluminum appears silvery as it melts at 660°C/1220°F, and that it remains silvery when poured in daylight conditions, regardless of the temperature. It is theoretically possible to continue heating liquid aluminum way past its melting point and into the yellow-white temperature range, but the office fire was not a plausible source for such high temperatures, and there was no crucible to contain liquid aluminum for continued heating. Put another way, even if the building fire could have somehow provided the needed temperature for the yellow-white glow, the unrestrained aluminum would have melted and trickled away before it could achieve such a temperature. This problem also rules out other proposed alternative metals — lead, for example — which have similarly low melting points.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/affil...se-steel-and-iron-or-aluminum-andor-lead.html

 

[SLAAKMAN]

I consider this evidence to be the smoking gun. It shouldve been investigated thoroughly but was ignored or deliberately suppressed by NIST-

Dr. Jones addressed the evidence from yet another angle, pointing out that "we can rule out some metals based on available data." A photograph taken 16 days after the 9/11 event shows an excavator grabbing debris that remains solid even though it is glowing in the salmon-to-yellow hot range. Dr. Jones notes that the solid metal, glowing in the 845°C/1550°F to 1080°C/1975°F temperature range, could not have been aluminum, lead, or other metals with low melting points, because none of them could have remained solid in this range.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/affil...se-steel-and-iron-or-aluminum-andor-lead.html

 

[SLAAKMAN]

Gary,
If you look around the Internet there are plenty of videos and sites that debunk pretty much all the claims of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Why should any of us believe that 9/11was a conspiracy when simpler explanations seem to exist?

The "simpler" explanations require apathy or blind faith and do not match the blatantly obvious evidence. Bush lied about the military being taken by surprise when he stated nobody envisioned aircraft used as a weapon so what is so believable about 2 planes taking down 3 buildings, especially when they were specially constructed to withstand such impacts?? Too many false narratives to believe and the evidence is overwhelmingly against the official claims.

 

[Joecoolyo]

I dont think you can insult me so easily. I have been to NY more then 10x both before and after 9-11.
I have seen the 'evidence'. But does that change anything in your view?

I don't believe you. The numbers simply don't add up. You want me to believe that 11 million (or 20 million or god knows what number) can live so crammed together in such a small space?

Last I recalled the Mayans tried to create the world's largest city, and you know where that got them? Societal collapse. You want me to believe that we, in the 20th century and our technological incapability, could create what the Mayans failed to do?

The "simpler" explanations require apathy or blind faith and do not match the blatantly obvious evidence. Bush lied about the military being taken by surprise when he stated nobody envisioned aircraft used as a weapon so what is so believable about 2 planes taking down 3 buildings, especially when they were specially constructed to withstand such impacts?? Too many false narratives to believe and the evidence is overwhelmingly against the official claims.

You say these things as if airplanes, let alone skyscrapers, exist in the first place. I've never been in the air, and every time I try to jump off my bed I fall to the ground. If I can't do it, why would something so bulky and heavy as a giant piece of metal be able to? It just doesn't make any sense.

Let alone the idea that we could stack concrete and metal so high in the air without it falling over. Have you seen ancient structures? They're all pyramids, like mountains. Building straight up without it falling over is pure fantasy.

Like New York, and airplanes.

 

[SLAAKMAN]

You say these things as if airplanes, let alone skyscrapers, exist in the first place. I've never been in the air, and every time I try to jump off my bed I fall to the ground. If I can't do it, why would something so bulky and heavy as a giant piece of metal be able to? It just doesn't make any sense.

Let alone the idea that we could stack concrete and metal so high in the air without it falling over. Have you seen ancient structures? They're all pyramids, like mountains. Building straight up without it falling over is pure fantasy.

Like New York, and airplanes.

[RD] ("Real Discussion") threads are for mature, civil discussions. [RD] threads are for those who are genuinely interested in a free exchange of ideas, with an open mind. They are not for people who want to troll, make oh-so-witty one-liners, or derail decent discussion. They are not designed for chatting about the weather or for the random-rants type threads. Please do your best to create a strong and informative OP to get the discussion started.

[RD] threads will be moderated quite tightly. No trolling. No name-calling. No insults. No ad-hominem attacks. Discuss in a mature manner.

 

[SLAAKMAN]

Have you though? Have you really? How do you know? You haven't walked there. Planes are a conspiracy, we can't fly! I've never seen a person fly before.

[RD] ("Real Discussion") threads are for mature, civil discussions. [RD] threads are for those who are genuinely interested in a free exchange of ideas, with an open mind. They are not for people who want to troll, make oh-so-witty one-liners, or derail decent discussion. They are not designed for chatting about the weather or for the random-rants type threads. Please do your best to create a strong and informative OP to get the discussion started.

[RD] threads will be moderated quite tightly. No trolling. No name-calling. No insults. No ad-hominem attacks. Discuss in a mature manner.

 

[sophie]

What happened to free speech? I thought we lived in a country that guaranteed people wouldn't be censured simply because they held controversial opinions.

This is why America is failing. You're just buying the kool-aid the government sells you on the modernism conspiracy.

WAKE UP SHEEPLE IT'S REALLY 1675 EVERYTHING IS A LIE

 

[Joecoolyo]

[RD] ("Real Discussion") threads are for mature, civil discussions. [RD] threads are for those who are genuinely interested in a free exchange of ideas, with an open mind. They are not for people who want to troll, make oh-so-witty one-liners, or derail decent discussion. They are not designed for chatting about the weather or for the random-rants type threads. Please do your best to create a strong and informative OP to get the discussion started.

[RD] threads will be moderated quite tightly. No trolling. No name-calling. No insults. No ad-hominem attacks. Discuss in a mature manner.

I'm being serious. I've presented a view and backed it up with evidence. Let me spell it out for you.

Skyscrapers cannot physically exist, they would fall over. [CLAIM]

All ancient structures are pyramids. [EVIDENCE]

Mountains also use this type of structure. [EVIDENCE2]

Therefore, all stable structures must exist in this format. [CONCLUSION]

Extrapolating from this, New York City cannot exist in the popularly conceived form, filled with skyscrapers such as the World Trade Center. With that in mind, 9/11 did not happen as the buildings did not exist. [LARGER IMPACT OF CONCLUSION]

I presented a solid argument adhering to all rules in this thread. I did so without relying on moving images with synchronized sound. That in fact gives me a leg up on you.

It is up to you whether or not to respond to my serious argument. However, I find it does a great job of poking holes in your theory and would welcome a discussion.

What happened to free speech? I thought we lived in a country that guaranteed people wouldn't be censured simply because they held controversial opinions.

This is America bub. You either use youtube as evidence now, or live long enough to see yourself producing youtube videos as evidence.

 

[SLAAKMAN]

Question for mods - these wannabe's (Joe & Owen) seem to think that they can out-silly yours truly...nobody in the Multiverse can out-silly yours truly....should I do it here or shall I let it rest for another topic?

 

[Gary Childress]

[RD] ("Real Discussion") threads are for mature, civil discussions. [RD] threads are for those who are genuinely interested in a free exchange of ideas, with an open mind. They are not for people who want to troll, make oh-so-witty one-liners, or derail decent discussion. They are not designed for chatting about the weather or for the random-rants type threads. Please do your best to create a strong and informative OP to get the discussion started.

[RD] threads will be moderated quite tightly. No trolling. No name-calling. No insults. No ad-hominem attacks. Discuss in a mature manner.

What difference does it make, SLAAK? You have a one track mind and no amount of counter evidence is going to sway you anyway.

Here's some stuff for you to read:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/05/9-11-conspiracy-theories-debunked

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a49/1227842/

Here's a 7 part video full of debunking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN3qUXJp7l0

I suggest you watch it and weigh the evidence. Was 9/11 a super elaborate hoax where thousands of pounds or whatever of explosives were secretly smuggled in and placed on key supports throughout the building without anyone noticing or anyone spilling the beans or was it structural failure after two big passenger jets pummeled directly into the buildings?

 

[sophie]

Question for mods - these wannabe's (Joe & Owen) seem to think that they can out-silly yours truly...nobody in the Multiverse can out-silly yours truly....should I do it here or shall I let it rest for another topic?

Es ist doch mir egal. Either I get an infraction or I don't. Your counter trolling would make no difference to me, since your "evidence" has clearly had no effect.

 

[Gary Childress]

SLAAK, Here's a webpage with someone explaining some of the preparation that goes into setting a building up for controlled demolition. Could even half of this successfully be carried out without anyone noticing anything strange going on? I've bolded some of the stronger reasons to be skeptical of a controlled demolition happening.

https://www.quora.com/9-11-Conspira...ecute-a-controlled-demolition-of-a-skyscraper

Among the many things which would have be done in advance of a successful building would be:

1.Obtaining detailed blueprints,electrical and piping schematics, and other diagrams which cover the layout and design of the building.
2.Multiple in-person visits to the structure being demolished for inspections and note-taking

3.Photographing the interior and the exterior to determine where to plant charges and to remove internal supports.
4.Multiple meetings to discuss the best methods to demolish the structure
5.Creating a detailed plan on how to perform the work.
6.Hiring the necessary employees.
7.Walking the demolition plans through with them.
8.Beginning the removal of internal supports which might impair the demolition or create safety hazards.
9.Planting explosives throughout the structure according to the plans created.
10.Wiring the explosives
11.Testing the detonators
12.Detonating the explosives.

Key reasons why we should be skeptical of an "inside job":

1.Being spotted planting the explosives and detained
2.Leaving one or more explosive device unwired and having it survive the building demolition.
3.Risking premature detonation of the explosives due to stray radio signals or the fires raging in the building at the time.

Occams razor - Two fuel-laden planes struck both two and created exceptionally hot fires causing internal supports to weaken. When their weakness affected their ability to support the hundred of thousands of tons of material above them failed and the buildings collapsed

 

[classical_hero]

I'll ask again, why didn't the Showden leak reveal any of this info?

 

[tetley]

Based on what I have seen on these boards, America is going from freedom to fascism because so many of the people applaud it every step of the way.

Takes the wind out of my sails, to be quite honest. No point sticking my neck out to defend your freedom when you won't even defend your own.

 

[Serutan]

You literally didn't read that post did you

What's 38 years amongst friends?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Based on what I have seen on these boards, America is going from freedom to fascism because so many of the people applaud it every step of the way.

Takes the wind out of my sails, to be quite honest. No point sticking my neck out to defend your freedom when you won't even defend your own.

The problem with this American exceptionalism-idiotism is that it can leave large financial and military resources in the hands of some psychopats and sadist while the rest of the country just watches.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

SLAAK, Here's a webpage with someone explaining some of the preparation that goes into setting a building up for controlled demolition. Could even half of this successfully be carried out without anyone noticing anything strange going on? I've bolded some of the stronger reasons to be skeptical of a controlled demolition happening.

Here the ex CIA operative answers some of your questions. She even says she was told in August to stay out of NYC becouse imminent attact was to be expected using hijacked planes to be flown into WTC! Thats pretty strong and detailed warning but Bush never the less claims "we couldnt imagine this"!!!

Link to video.


The officially debunked theories are being debunked in this vid:

Link to video.