TENURED professor fired for saying Sandy Hook staged by govt

Grind (Today) said:
wouldn't surprise me at all if the gov were behind these attacks. False flags are real. The government wants to subjugate us. The dems pretty much cream their pants everytime there is a 'mass shooting' where 2 people die.
Click to expand...


prove your claim with facts
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
HAHAHA. You don't even understand the issue. NO PLANE hit bldg 7, you ignorant jackass. And it was on a separate block from the twin towers that were hit by planes. So why did 7 undergo unitary collapse at near free fall speed?. What could have possibly caused that except explosives. THINK
Click to expand...

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon. The collapse also caused damage to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage included a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between Floors 24 and 41

Plus

Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong.

As you can see from the graphic below, all the buildings just as far away from both towers as WTC7 were hit. The others were either very short buildings which didn't have to support a massive load above or had no fire. Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above them.

fig-1-7.jpg
 
How can you possibly effectively educate anybody at all if you believe that kind of nonsense? Wouldn't it be like a science teacher reading from Genesis rather than teaching the Big Bang Theory?
 
transwarpdrive said:
Asshole, I didn't claim that it was hit by a plane. It was struck by massive amounts of debris as it was right across the street. Idiots like you seem to believe you have some special "insider" information; you do not. There was no physical way that:

1-in a building with dozens of maintenance workers, thousands of regular workers, that "some government operatives" could have slipped the huge amounts of explosives to collapse the building and not be seen

2-that the hundreds, if not thousands, of people in the gov't who would have been involved not spoken to anyone about it - or been willing to mass murder thousands of civilians

3-there was no loud explosive sounds as would have been the case in a controlled demo - I was there fuckhead when the buildings when down.

The 9/11 truther is the lowest form of jackass moron that exists, after arab muslims of course. It is the age of the internet, where low IQ trash like you can try to increase their non-existent importance to pretend they are something they are not - useful.
Click to expand...

I've found that those who want to believe that it had to be a Government conspiracy, do so; because they're afraid that terrorists could do such a thing.
The idea that they themselves might be vulnerable scare them and it's easier to blame the Government, is because it's easier to blame who you know, rather then what you don't know.

Kind of like little children believing that the scratching on their window is because of a monster, rather then a tre branch.
 
Superfreak said:
except it is not

But let me guess, you will ignore the damage from the debris of the falling towers and pretend that didn't happen?
Click to expand...

The falling debris was from a tower on another block(!!) and just did slight damage to 7 and all that was on one side. No way that can cause a unitary collapse that looked exactly like controlled demo. THINK
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong.
Click to expand...

What a liar you are. The twin towers did NOT tilt and fall sideways as you just claimed. They fell straight down into their own foundation. As idiot bush said "like a stack of pancakes". The damage to bldg 7 was very slight and just on one side and it's absurd to claim that could cause unitary collapse. THINK
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
The falling debris was from a tower on another block(!!) and just did slight damage to 7 and all that was on one side. No way that can cause a unitary collapse that looked exactly like controlled demo. THINK
Click to expand...

The debris landed on Bldg 7 at 9:00 am, and it burned until about 5:00 pm that day, about 8 hours. Tell us what building can burn indefinitely and not suffer massive structural damage, you talented engineer.
 
transwarpdrive said:
The debris landed on Bldg 7 at 9:00 am, and it burned until about 5:00 pm that day, about 8 hours. Tell us what building can burn indefinitely and not suffer massive structural damage, you talented engineer.
Click to expand...

Burn indefinitely??? Nobody made that claim you paid govt shill.

The question is. How can fires cause a unitary collapse that looks exactly like controlled demo?
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
The focus is on bldg 7 because it is the smokiest gun in history. Even a paid govt shill like you sees that.
Click to expand...

No, the focus is on Building 7 because we spent an entire year debating about aircraft used as missiles, jet fuel, and the structural design and layout of the twin towers, and got nowhere (except that fewer people made the claim after that). So, people latched onto Building 7, and away we went from there.

If you guys had just made it your central argument immediately after the dust had settled, at least you would have credibility and moral standing in this argument.
 
Threedee said:
No, the focus is on Building 7 because we spent an entire year debating about aircraft used as missiles, jet fuel, and the structural design and layout of the twin towers, and got nowhere (except that fewer people made the claim after that). So, people latched onto Building 7, and away we went from there.
Click to expand...

Bldg 7 is irrefutable and that's why it's the focus. You don't need an expert to see that it absolutely had to be brought down by controlled demo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top