Did You Change Your Mind About 9/11? When? Why?

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, Jun 21, 2017.

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,365
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So did you figure out the difference between Hollywood and reality yet? If not, here's another example of reality.



    This too is real:



    None of the above is a Hollywood production.
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,365
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So once I was exposed to reality in scientific detail, it immediately confirmed why I changed my mind about the official 9/11 story around late 2004. There's no way back. Everything I've learned since only confirms for me that the official 9/11 story is pack of lies. And certainly Hollywood may be entertaining but it's definitely not real. This Hollywood production is brought to you by the CIA:

     
  3. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,448
    Likes Received:
    2,665
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Slight correction: we did not all see the footage of the two planes crashing into WTC, and neither did George Bush, despite his dyslexic claim.

    Few people saw the first strike, the one on the North Tower. Yes, everybody saw the second strike because cameras and eyes were trained on the area.

    But very few people saw the first strike. Interestingly, those who did and called NYPD described it as a smaller, maybe commuter type airplane.
     
  4. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That's a lie. The structure didn't "completely turn to dust".

    If it was "unimpeded" like you say, then why didn't it collapse at G?
     
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,365
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Answered in post #74 in this thread.

    Because it didn't collapse (as a natural consequence of plane/damage/fire). The observable video evidence is quite clear. The better question is if it was impeded by its own structure why did the destruction wave accelerate uniformly with no visible significant hesitation?
     
  6. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No it wasn't. You said "completely" turned to dust. All you talked about was the concrete. That's not completely. So yes, it's a lie. There are pictures of chucks of concrete in the debris. So yes, what you stated earlier is a lie.

    Wrong.

    You said it was "unimpeded". That means it should have fallen at G/freefall. So did you misspeak?
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2017
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,365
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unfortunately I used the wrong term "metamorphic" in post #74. I should have said "figure of speech". For that I stand corrected. As explained in simple terms any genuine poster would understand, if you read all my posts on the subject, many of them (that you have read yourself) refer to the steel debris. So it's more than obvious that I didn't literally mean "completely turned to dust". If you want to claim it's a lie, then it's a lie for you. Ask me if I care. It certainly was never meant as one and obviously and deliberately taken out of context for the purpose of trying to derail the question (which I reworded).

    For you it's wrong because you claim to believe it was a natural collapse.

    Nope not at all. If you read my response for comprehension, it didn't collapse and it didn't fall, it was destroyed top down. I stand by my point. If you however believe otherwise, that's your problem.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So why continue to say it? It's misleading and you know it. Are you too lazy to actually type out what you are referring to? Figure of speech... That's a good one.

    Stop using the statement then. It's NOT a figure of speech and is misleading. The reason you keep using that phrase is because is sounds better when trying to support your position.
     
  9. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,448
    Likes Received:
    2,665
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For the record, I am a layman. I am neither architect nor engineer, but I did take 2 years of college physics many years ago.

    When reading Bob's post, I knew he did not mean "completely" turned to dust, and part of the reason I knew that is because I've studied the subject myself, and I've viewed most every picture I could put my hands on, including the early FEMA photos taken by their former photographer who now lives happily in exile in South America. Sonnenfeld, I think is his name.

    There was a very large quantity of dust scattered over everything, reported to have been several inches deep in parts of Manhattan.

    So when a person describes the scene as having been turned to dust, I know he does not mean completely, and that he means "significantly".

    If you must focus on such trivial semantic points, I shall avoid discussions with you.
     
    psikeyhackr and Bob0627 like this.
  10. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Right. YOU know that. How about the people who come here as lurkers, maybe researching it for the first time, and read the last page of a thread and see his statement "the structure completely turned to dust"? They know exactly what he means right? Maybe they believe Judy Wood's energy weapon garbage and take that statement to support what she says. I don't care that you or anyone else "knows" what he means. It's misleading and incorrect. I guess when Judy Wood's uses the phrase "2. They underwent mid-air pulverization and were turned to dust before they hit the ground.", she understands that it holds the same "metaphoric" meaning as what Bob intends right? How about these two statements from Judy's site: http://drjudywood.com/wtc/key.html

    "9. The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth."
    "10. The upper 90 percent, approximately, of the inside of WTC7 was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth."

    Sounds like Bob supports Judy Wood and here energy weapon baloney. Especially when newcomers come here and read his latest statements WITHOUT going through all his threads.
     
  11. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    See post above.

    Not so trivial is it when put into the context I did.
     
  12. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,448
    Likes Received:
    2,665
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OMGamolon, you are here to protect lurkers who can't think for themselves? What a noble fellow you are.

    Most of us here are layman, merely seeking the truth, and understanding that the truth seldom comes from government sources on any issue, from unemployment statistics to inflation to 911 to JFK and MLK.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,365
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To piss people such as yourself off [/sarcasm]. Because rather than review the immense amount of material I posted in this section of the forum, you will always find one nitpicky issue to latch on to and try to build a mountain out a molehill with. Because you're not here to discuss 9/11, you're here to try to criticize anything and everything that doesn't match the OCT. If you want to point out a real lie, it's the above, where did I continue to say it after it was made an issue of by one with a similar mentality? How many times did I post that exactly?

    The hypocrite repeats his lie to try to emphasize the irrelevant. How about answering the (rephrased) question? Oh yeah, you can't so you'd rather focus on nonsense. Like I said, your real objective is to try to derail the issue.

    People who come here as "lurkers" are much more likely to see titles of threads I created than a couple of words buried in one post. And if they actually read the contents they will note the many issues posted about the steel debris. So as Eleuthera pointed out, after a long absence from this forum you made your appearance in this thread to protect lurkers???? Who are you fooling with your BS?

    You mean when you keep repeating your lie?

    So Gamolon, the real question here is:

    Did You Change Your Mind About 9/11? When? Why?

    Well, did you? Why don't you stick to the topic instead of trying to derail it with your typical BS.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017
  14. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Answer the question Eleuthera. Does Bob's "metaphoric" description mean the same as Judy Wood's explanation? Does Bob believe an energy weapon was used to dustify 80%-90% of the towers including steel? Yes or no?

    "Metaphoric"... You've got to be kidding me.
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,365
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why aren't you asking ME that question? How on earth do you expect another poster to know what I mean?

    Yes I was "kidding" you. It was all a big joke just for you. Like I said, your only objective is to try to derail the thread.
     
  16. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Is your post #101 a derail Bob?

    I'm responding to quoted information YOU and others posted in this thread. Are the rules for this thread that anyone who posts must answer your initial questions of "Did You Change Your Mind About 9/11? When? Why?" and that's it? No further discussion or questions on anything that's posted? If that's the case then you have a lot of reporting to do.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017
  17. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So Bob, do you hold the same beliefs as Judy Wood as shown by the bullet points I posted from her website?
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017
  18. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Explain this to me Bob in your own words. I am genuinely interested.

    How were explosives/thermite used to get the roofline in that video to UNIFORMLY accelerate/fall at 2/3G? Have you thought this through?

    If explosives/thermite were detonated on one level to destroy ALL supporting components, the upper section would drop at G because there is nothing below to support it? How did they accomplish 2/3G?

    If blowing ALL supports below a structure equals something falling at G such as is claimed for WTC7, what needs to be done for a constant acceleration at 2/3g?
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017
  19. Hotdogr

    Hotdogr Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    9,093
    Likes Received:
    3,289
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The "no planes" nutjobs have no credibility with me, because the wife of a golfing buddy of mine in Greensboro, NC, was a flight attendant on Flight 93. She never came home, that awful day, to her family. As to the "official narrative", I have found no compelling reason to disbelieve it. Occam's Razor, and all that.
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,365
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not at all. If you read the subsequent post I wrote, it's perfectly on topic.

    It's obvious you appeared in this thread to nitpick to try to derail the thread. You never responded to the question posed that is the topic of thread. I don't report anyone unless it's obvious trolling. The thread is open to related issues, but to be fair, you should first answer the question rather than first focus on the irrelevant. And thus far you haven't made any attempt. Why is that? (rhetorical - see first sentence in this paragraph if you believe I'm wrong).
     
  21. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    How is my post #118 irrelevent for example? I have a legitimate question regarding your posting of the roofline falling at 2/3 G and what it indicates? Will you address it?
     
  22. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Never changed my mind. I found the "official story" to be the most believable to date after years of research.
     
  23. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So are all my posts as I am responding to quotes posted in this thread. Again, how is that derailing if I am directly responding to things you and others have posted within this thread?
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017
  24. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Agreed.
     
  25. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Explanation of what Chandler actually shows and his mistakes.

    http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911c.htm
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017

Share This Page