• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A good day to celebrate the lunacy of the USGOCT

C

camlok

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
6,268
Reaction score
614
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here is the lunacy of the US Government Official Conspiracy Theory [USGOCT] all wrapped up for everyone to see and hear in five short minutes.

9/11 - The Truth In 5 Minutes - James Corbett

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgrunnLcG9Q

Why did folks believe and support such world class liars, like GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, the US and other western media?

It is completely unbelievable.
 
From Corbett's own web site

". His satirical piece on the discrepancies in the official account of September 11th, “9/11: A Conspiracy Theory” was posted to the web on September 11, 2011 and has so far been viewed nearly 3 million times"
https://www.corbettreport.com/about/

Guess AE911T (Tony Sz) is following Corbett on number of views = number of people who believe the vid.
noted: nothing in the vid presents an alternative explanation.


Why do folks believe and support people like Gage, Jones, DRGriffen, Prager, Wood, etc, alternative media known to lie and feed to certain mentality?

It is sad some believe articles found on GlobalSearch, Veterans Today, Infowars, etc., is all true.
 
camlok said:
Here is the lunacy of the US Government Official Conspiracy Theory [USGOCT] all wrapped up for everyone to see and hear in five short minutes.

9/11 - The Truth In 5 Minutes - James Corbett

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgrunnLcG9Q

Why did folks believe and support such world class liars, like GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, the US and other western media?

It is completely unbelievable.
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding me!
About as brilliant as Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell, the heads of the know nothing Left.
 
SSGT Bags said:
You have got to be kidding me!
About as brilliant as Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell, the heads of the know nothing Left.
Click to expand...

Never a lick of evidence, proof, anything that illustrates the USGOCT has the slightest veracity.

Remember, this was brought to you by world class liars, who studied American history, learning from generations of world class liars.
 
I watched the buildings come down.

From personal knowledge and experience, all three building collapses looked like they were caused by a controlled demolition; most especially Building 7.

I do not know the truth, but I do not believe the narrative finally released for public consumption.

Unless and until a repeatable model (not computerized, which can be programed to give the answers desired) demonstrated by actual scale models replicating all materials and conditions shows that all three buildings would fall the exact same way 90%+ of the time...I will continue to maintain a belief in a controlled demolition.

I require at least a 90% repeat rate because it was 100% for all three buildings in our historical reality...something I have yet to see repeated in any other claimed example.
 
Last edited:
mike2810 said:
From Corbett's own web site

". His satirical piece on the discrepancies in the official account of September 11th, “9/11: A Conspiracy Theory” was posted to the web on September 11, 2011 and has so far been viewed nearly 3 million times"
https://www.corbettreport.com/about/

Guess AE911T (Tony Sz) is following Corbett on number of views = number of people who believe the vid.
noted: nothing in the vid presents an alternative explanation.


Why do folks believe and support people like Gage, Jones, DRGriffen, Prager, Wood, etc, alternative media known to lie and feed to certain mentality?

It is sad some believe articles found on GlobalSearch, Veterans Today, Infowars, etc., is all true.
Click to expand...

Typical of your posts, mike, a complete study in confusion. As always, not the slightest bit of evidence/proof from you about anything. You make crazy accusations with nothing to back them up.

You know full well, as does everyone else who lives on planet Earth, that the perpetrators of 911 are world class liars. They brought us Iraq WMD, the phony chase of OBL, when they knew full well that he, and the Taliban, and the people of Iraq and Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with 911.

You know full well who pulled off this mother of all lies and still you seek to deceive. Not at all nice, mike.

Here's Rumsfeld doing his lies and guess who helps him out, another renowned American liar.

Rumsfeld: Bin Laden's Mountain Fortress's

 
Captain Adverse said:
I watched the buildings come down.

From personal knowledge and experience, all three building collapses looked like they were caused by a controlled demolition; most especially Building 7.

I do not know the truth, but I do not believe the narrative finally released for public consumption.

Unless and until a repeatable model (not computerized, which can be programed to give the answers desired) demonstrated by actual scale models replicating all materials and conditions shows that all three buildings would fall the exact same way 90%+ of the time...I will continue to maintain a belief in a controlled demolition.

I require at least a 90% repeat rate because it was 100% for all three buildings in our historical reality...something I have yet to see repeated in any other claimed example.
Click to expand...

The problem with the whole "controlled demolition theory" is the idea that the builders of the World Trade Center intentionally rigged their buildings to explode, not to mention the additional task of concealing the fact from the buildings occupants for some thirty years that the towers they were working in were full of explosives.

Also, don't most controlled demolition start at the bottom of buildings, not at the near top of said structures?
 
camlok said:
Typical of your posts, mike, a complete study in confusion. As always, not the slightest bit of evidence/proof from you about anything. You make crazy accusations with nothing to back them up.

You know full well, as does everyone else who lives on planet Earth, that the perpetrators of 911 are world class liars. They brought us Iraq WMD, the phony chase of OBL, when they knew full well that he, and the Taliban, and the people of Iraq and Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with 911.

You know full well who pulled off this mother of all lies and still you seek to deceive. Not at all nice, mike.

Here's Rumsfeld doing his lies and guess who helps him out, another renowned American liar.

Rumsfeld: Bin Laden's Mountain Fortress's

Click to expand...


Your posts are so predictable in what you will say.

Still waiting for your one concise controlled demolition explanation.
Please provide a link to that explanation and the information to support it.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I watched the buildings come down.

From personal knowledge and experience, all three building collapses looked like they were caused by a controlled demolition; most especially Building 7.

I do not know the truth, but I do not believe the narrative finally released for public consumption.

Unless and until a repeatable model (not computerized, which can be programed to give the answers desired) demonstrated by actual scale models replicating all materials and conditions shows that all three buildings would fall the exact same way 90%+ of the time...I will continue to maintain a belief in a controlled demolition.

I require at least a 90% repeat rate because it was 100% for all three buildings in our historical reality...something I have yet to see repeated in any other claimed example.
Click to expand...

It sure is nice to see some thinking people commenting.

Professor Hulsey of the Univ of Alaska - Fairbanks, has determined in a two year plus study that the NIST WTC7 study was not only not possible, he said the chance of it being accurate is "zero", it was fraudulent.
 
If you are truly a professor, I am sure glad I went to High School in the late 60's and College in the 70's. Before idiots like you ruined academia.
 
mike2810 said:
Your posts are so predictable in what you will say.
Click to expand...

Of course they are, mike, and it is these stark truths that always have you so discombobulated. So much so that you can never address any of the myriad truths that illustrate the USGOCT is ludicrous on its face.

mike2810 said:
Still waiting for your one concise controlled demolition explanation.
Please provide a link to that explanation and the information to support it.
Click to expand...

mike's main meme, that all you harp on and on about, mike. And he talks about my posts being predictable.

It doesn't matter if folks want to develop a hundred more theories for controlled demolition, the facts simply do not come within light years of supporting the phantasmagorical USGOCT, and as you know this full well, you keep on clinging in desperation to your meme, the last tiny, shredded little straw of a drowning man.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The problem with the whole "controlled demolition theory" is the idea that the builders of the World Trade Center intentionally rigged their buildings to explode, not to mention the additional task of concealing the fact from the buildings occupants for some thirty years that the towers they were working in were full of explosives.
Click to expand...

Why do you seize on one notion and then proceed as if it is the whole truth?

The problem with the whole USGOCT is that there is no evidence/proof at all that it happened as the US government says it did. Given the weight of that, the focus should be on the total impossibility of the US government fable.

Unitedwestand13 said:
Also, don't most controlled demolition start at the bottom of buildings, not at the near top of said structures?
Click to expand...

Controlled demolitions can start anywhere in a building. Starting at the bottom was what was done for the twin towers. There were massive basement explosions that occurred before the plane hit WTC1.

The French often use a style of CD that starts in the middle.

WTC7 fell at free fall from the top for 2.25 seconds, 105 feet, 8 storeys. Gravity collapses cannot do free fall. Sir Issac Newton says so.
 
Last edited:
mike2810 said:
From Corbett's own web site

". His satirical piece on the discrepancies in the official account of September 11th, “9/11: A Conspiracy Theory” was posted to the web on September 11, 2011 and has so far been viewed nearly 3 million times"
https://www.corbettreport.com/about/

You are being very unclear as to what it is that is actually "From Corbett's own web site", mike. That isn't how science should approach these things.

Guess AE911T (Tony Sz) is following Corbett on number of views = number of people who believe the vid.
noted: nothing in the vid presents an alternative explanation.

The video illustrates clearly why there is no need to "present an alternative explanation". Corbett's video illustrates that the US government story is so patently ludicrous.


Why do folks believe and support people like Gage, Jones, DRGriffen, Prager, Wood, etc, alternative media known to lie and feed to certain mentality?

It is sad some believe articles found on GlobalSearch, Veterans Today, Infowars, etc., is all true.
Click to expand...


This is a video by James Corbett, mike, on the lunacy of the USGOCT, and here you are illustrating, in spades, just how much it, 'it' being the truth, scares the daylights out of you.
 
SSGT Bags said:
If you are truly a professor, I am sure glad I went to High School in the late 60's and College in the 70's. Before idiots like you ruined academia.
Click to expand...

Why do you take such great pains to illustrate that the truth means nothing to conservatives and very conservatives?

I would sure like to see some of that "High School in the late 60's and College in the 70's" put to some use.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
(1.)The problem with the whole "controlled demolition theory" is the idea that the builders of the World Trade Center intentionally rigged their buildings to explode, not to mention the additional task of concealing the fact from the buildings occupants for some thirty years that the towers they were working in were full of explosives.

Also, (2.) don't most controlled demolition start at the bottom of buildings, not at the near top of said structures?
Click to expand...

To answer the second question first, not always.

Top-Down Demolition has been used, and is a process suggested to deal with skyscrapers in built up areas. For your consideration:

http://global.ctbuh.org/resources/p...tem-for-skyscrapers-controlled-demolition.pdf

Here are three examples:

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVQaVgJne6c

Regarding your first comment, the following is my "speculation" about this issue.

One of the major fears when dealing with high-rise buildings is that if (or when) a catastrophic event the likes of 9/11 happens, how do you control the fall of such tall building so they don't threaten the lives and property within the surrounding area.

Recall, each of the Twin Towers was 1/3 mile tall and if they fell north, south, or eastward they would cause a domino effect damaging/destroying other buildings and risking thousands of additional lives.

If westward, they would create a river hazard.

In the event of damage, it would be a good plan to set up a design allowing for tall buildings to collapse into their own footprint as much as possible.

So my view is that either such a structural design was intentionally built into the World Trade Center plan; or demolitions allowing for such a possibility were pre-positioned at some point well before this attack occurred.

NOT in anticipation of such an attack, but rather as a hidden design for any eventuality.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
One of the major fears when dealing with high-rise buildings is that if (or when) a catastrophic event the likes of 9/11 happens, how do you control the fall of such tall building so they don't threaten the live and property of the surrounding area.

Recall, each of the Twin Towers was 1/3 mile tall and if they fell eastward they would cause a domino effect damaging/destroying other buildings and risking thousands of additional lives.

In the event of damage, it would be a good plan to set up a design allowing for tall buildings to collapse into their own footprint as much as possible.

So my view is that either such a design was intentionally built into the World Trade Building area, or demolitions allowing for such a possibility were pre-positioned at some point well before this attack occurred.

NOT in anticipation of such an attack, but rather as a hidden design for any eventuality.
Click to expand...

Who packs a building with explosives as a design feature? And part of the south Tower did not fall straight down, but fell at a angle
 
Captain Adverse said:
I watched the buildings come down.

From personal knowledge and experience, all three building collapses looked like they were caused by a controlled demolition; most especially Building 7.

I do not know the truth, but I do not believe the narrative finally released for public consumption.

Unless and until a repeatable model (not computerized, which can be programed to give the answers desired) demonstrated by actual scale models replicating all materials and conditions shows that all three buildings would fall the exact same way 90%+ of the time...I will continue to maintain a belief in a controlled demolition.

I require at least a 90% repeat rate because it was 100% for all three buildings in our historical reality...something I have yet to see repeated in any other claimed example.
Click to expand...

A quick study on the outer columns would explain it. Look at the blue prints. It is fully believable in my opinion that the outer columns contained the collapse pretty well. You could see them bulging during the entire fall.
 
RetiredUSN said:
A quick study on the outer columns would explain it. Look at the blue prints. It is fully believable in my opinion that the outer columns contained the collapse pretty well. You could see them bulging during the entire fall.
Click to expand...

Which might coincide with my first suggestion...a planned design "flaw" that would not require explosives, just enough pressure to cause the collapse similar to a controlled demolition.

The problem I have with that possibility is the time frame of the construction...I'd think it was earlier than the technology required to incorporate such a design "flaw" would exist. I don't know for sure.

Even so, I don't think it would be good public relations to let people know they were in a building designed to "collapse" under certain circumstances. ;)
 
camlok said:
This is a video by James Corbett, mike, on the lunacy of the USGOCT, and here you are illustrating, in spades, just how much it, 'it' being the truth, scares the daylights out of you.
Click to expand...

Thought you might have changed your tone since your time out. I thought wrong.
You show your true colors in still promoting theories that are not proven.

No the truth does not scare me. It scares you or you would have answered the questions asked in other threads.
 
From camlocks post 13 where he quoted my post and added comment in red.

"You are being very unclear as to what it is that is actually "From Corbett's own web site", mike. That isn't how science should approach these things"

"The video illustrates clearly why there is no need to "present an alternative explanation". Corbett's video illustrates that the US government story is so patently ludicrous"

You are being unclear camlock. If what you post is based in science, I suggest you go back or stay in school and learn.

Please inform AE911T (Gage, et. al). there is no need for further investigation of an alternative explanation. The reason you believe Carbett's vid proves there is not need. This just keeps getting better camlok.

Bet you have no questions regarding Hensley's latest report on WTC7?
Funny how he gave his conclusion a month before the analysis was concluded.
Ever wonder why the damaged portion of the WTC7 floors was not included in the computer model run? Or how about only looking at fire on two floors.

No modeling, including NIST has been conducted that represented the real world collapse of WTC7. Assumptions were made of fuel load, fire behavior, structural damage, etc. Sorry, AE911T paid for analysis failed to prove anything.
 
Last edited:
camlok said:
Here is the lunacy of the US Government Official Conspiracy Theory [USGOCT] all wrapped up for everyone to see and hear in five short minutes.

9/11 - The Truth In 5 Minutes - James Corbett

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgrunnLcG9Q

Why did folks believe and support such world class liars, like GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, the US and other western media?

It is completely unbelievable.
Click to expand...

A good example of the usual CT lunacy, believing fairy tales and constantly lying yet whining when nobody believes them.

Why do you expect anyone to believe obvious liars like your heroes?
 
Pardon me, I never delve in the CT forum and I'm dumbfounded that 9/11 CT is still raging, but I'm trying to understand the thread.

camlock posted a known satirical (joke) video that summarizes 9/11 CT in 5 minutes (I just watched it).
camlock posts this satirical video as an argument FOR 9/11 being orchestrated by the U.S.

Is that really what I just read?
 
mike2810 said:
Thought you might have changed your tone since your time out. I thought wrong.
You show your true colors in still promoting theories that are not proven.

No the truth does not scare me. It scares you or you would have answered the questions asked in other threads.
Click to expand...

The truth scares you folks silly. That is why your posts here were such a shamble, a confused mess of rambles.

You still go on with the silly notions. Your "questions" are always just distractions, aimed at hiding the truth.
 
Mach said:
Pardon me, I never delve in the CT forum and I'm dumbfounded that 9/11 CT is still raging, but I'm trying to understand the thread.

You don't know that a two plus years long study has shown that the NIST WTC7 study was both false and fraudulent?

camlock posted a known satirical (joke) video that summarizes 9/11 CT in 5 minutes (I just watched it).
camlock posts this satirical video as an argument FOR 9/11 being orchestrated by the U.S.

Is that really what I just read?
Click to expand...

This would seem to illustrate just how little you must know of the science of 911 and the events of 911.

James Corbett was satirizing the USGOCT, showing just how nonsensical, how far out of touch with reality it is.

It summarizes the US government official conspiracy theory and in doing do shows that it is totally full of holes big enough to fly a fleet of 767-200s thru.
 
Tigerace117 said:
A good example of the usual CT lunacy, believing fairy tales and constantly lying yet whining when nobody believes them.

Why do you expect anyone to believe obvious liars like your heroes?
Click to expand...

Another posting completely devoid of evidence/proof/logic.

With world class liars like GW Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the other Class A war criminals/terrorists, you have some gall pointing fingers.

Did you watch the short video about Rummy's "underground fortresses"? I mean, come on, this was on US national TV and it was absorbed and swallowed by large numbers of American sheeple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom