DYSFUNCTIONAL COUNTRY, DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY

She doesn't speak with a British accent. It's just not the same.

 

Well, i sound more like Sean Connery than Liz Whorley. Stick that in your fantasy and shmoke it! :

 

This is great.

Are 911 Truth Deniers Dumber Than A 5th Grader?


The most subversive show on television is on the Fox TV network. Maybe you've seen it. Hosted by a guy named Jeff Foxworthy, the show is called "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?"

Hopefully, the show is broadcast to every nation of the world, including China, the Middle East and the English-speaking nations of the former British empire. Why? To show the rest of the world what they already suspect: that most Americans are a bunch of greedy nitwits, numbskulls and knuckleheads.

Truly, most Americans are Not smarter than a fifth grader. Indeed, judging from the shows I've seen, quite a few American adults are dumber than a FIRST grader. The adults--and I use that word loosely--who participate on the show are college graduates with good jobs. Some of them graduated with honors--whatever that means in collegiate circles. Uniformly, they perform badly. If ignorance is bliss then most of the adults on the show are positively delirious. They win a few thousand dollars, sometimes a quarter million, but for the most part, look like greedy imbeciles.

They ALL remind me of 911 truth deniers.

First question: What is jet fuel? Don't know? Yes, you are dumber than a fifth grader. Could a kerosene fire (basically jet fuel) melt steel beams? No, but sometimes it does if the government says it can and the Twin Towers are involved. Sorry, wrong answer. You are dumber than any first grader possessing a basic understanding of a barbecue grill.

I'm forever delighted by the faces of the wise children everywhere. They remind me of "Truthers," those citizens concerned with nothing so much as unraveling a great crime against America, convinced we can persuade even the dumbest Americans--and God knows there are millions of them---that steel building do not just fall down at the speed of gravity, no matter how many morons at MIT say they can.

Okay: How many sides to a trapezoid? Every Truther, and fifth grader on the show that I happened to watch, knew the answer to that. Four, as in the shape of the WTC-7 foundation.

Most 911 debunkers love to quote the number of top US scientists, engineers and architects who deny 911 was an inside job. Luckily, we Truthers can demonstrate that many of these top experts are just plain dumb. How? We need only point to a show like "Smarter Than A 5th Grader," a show that readily indicates how dumb so-called educated American people can be. Even ones with advanced degrees and Cum Laude after their names.

Indeed, one of the World's Most Famous Smart Persons, a professor at MIT named Chomsky, said the perplexing anomalies of 911 didn't really matter to him. Huh? That would be like asking a group of fifth graders how did the Titanic sink? And then remarking to them to ignore the iceberg altogether and focus instead on the weight and volume of the water that filled the ship. All while manipulating computer models to show that a few open portholes caused the Titanic to sink.

Because that was EXACTLY what the Kean Commission did to WTC-7. They ignored the collapse of a 600 foot World Trade Center building altogether. And that was EXACTLY what NIST has done also, for the past five years. They have ignored the obvious, ignoring the iceberg, focusing on the floodwater.

Are Americans dumber than 5th graders? Yes, especially most of the top scientists working for the US government. For example, a videotape was shown---but not identified---to a top Dutch demolition expert. The videotape was of a 47 story government building collapsing in 6.5 seconds. The Dutch expert---unlike many of the top US experts---said unequivocally that the building had been blown down. A controlled demolition. Indeed, you could show that same videotape to those 5th graders and get the same answer.

The chief difference? Neither the Dutch expert nor the 5th graders depend on the US government to pay their salaries, or fund their think tanks or universities. Thus they can answer honestly and without fear of retribution.

Magna Cum Laude in Cowardice? Simply look around.

Next Question: Who met with the (alleged but never proven) head hijacker's bagman, met him for breakfast on 9-11? If you answered a top Al Qaeda member, you would be WRONG. But if you answered several top US intelligence figures met with the man who provided Mohammed Atta with $100,000 you would be right.

Another question. Why couldn't NORAD get even one plane aloft to encounter even one hijacked jet? Was it because our highly trained air force pilots are incompetent and dumber than a 5th grader? How do you feel about that? That the rest of the world thinks we are dumber than a newborn babe for believing that the top air defense in the world--NORAD--couldn't even get ONE fighter jet aloft in ninety minutes, 90 MINUTES?

We really are a dumb race of people if we believe 9-11 was a case of incompetence. Dumber still if we accept the excuses from our government officials and haven't demanded the indictment of even ONE person that allowed close to 3,000 citizens be murdered.

Debunkers would have you believe the official lie. And it is a masterful lie. They want to keep you dumb; that is their whole purpose. To keep you dumb. To keep you from asking too many questions. But mostly to keep you from demanding answers, and then demanding indictments and convictions.

But debunkers are relatively few, and mostly shrewd, manipulative liars.

911 truth deniers, on the other hand---the millions of ordinary folks who adhere to the official story--would have us simply give the US government the benefit of the doubt. When you ask them why, when you point to the string of lies before and after 911, when you point to the murderous government policies post- 911, they stare dumbly, like contestants on that TV game show.

On that TV show, however, the 5th graders can sometimes help those dumb adults. But only IF the adults want to be helped. Five years after 911, we Truthers are the fresh-faced students, trying to awaken our compatriots to the correct answers. And in this case, they have a whole lot more to win or lose than a few thousand dollars.

Footnote: I would like once again to thank my compatriots at 911blogger.com who provided the illustration. As you can see, it doesn't take a rocket scientists to understand 911. Indeed, most American rocket scientists are probably too dumb.

Simply put: Can an object fall through mass 5 times greater than itself, falling nearly as fast as it would fall through empty air, when the only force available is gravity? Sure it can, as long as the object is falling through a heavily-insured white elephant housing sensitive government offices.

USAF veteran Douglas Herman writes for Rense regularly and clearly understood the scam of the NORAD standdown within a few months after 911. He wrote the recent Rense feature, Why No Norad On 911?

 

Wow. I actually do feel dumber after actually reading that.

Did you know it was actually covert British agents that masterminded the Boston Tea Party? Or that the secession of the south in the Civil War was actually the same British Covert group. I mean just look at the teeth of those Brits.

Dont forget Pearl Harbor, I mean, we were just chomping at the bit to get into WWII full fledged. Think of all the scotch tape it took to get all those Americans to look Japanese.......

 

This has what to do with laws of physics and stand down orders?

 

Honestly Nursey you need to take a few steps back and look and what you have copied into this thread. The way you throw the word physics up there leads me to understand that you are either not paying close attention or have a really poor understanding of physics.

Do you think if they were designing two fairly identical towers using the same materials they would use the same exact materials if in the design one of the towers was designed to hold up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit and 30 tons of matter pounding into the top qtr. of its height. Do you truly believe it would be made of the same reinforcement?

The whole idea if the beams having to melt have been gone over already. Time and time again however you bring it up as if there is a point we need to consider.

Do yourself a favor and take a physics class ok?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4261315.stm

this one burnt for around 24 hours...(not an hour or so) the top part of it collapsed... but the rest of it was obviously strong enough to hold out and not collapse almost in a freefall..

my theory??

the trrrrrrisst KNEW your buildings are WEAK like your MEN and your ECONOMY


VIVA ESPANA!!

 

VIDEO.

 

Hold on I have not watched the video but are you actually saying that this is a Republican conspiracy? ;D

Oh hell this is getting crazier by the minute. It's like the whole O.J. Simpson was conspired against by the whole LAPD conspiracy. At face value it’s totally nuts. You cannot keep that many people quiet. You have to ignore that there is a whole black segregated (by choice) section of the FOP that watch and monitor the department for anything out of line. And there is no party loyalty strong enough shit like that cannot simply be kept secret.

This is lunacy pure lunacy.

It's like you are compelled by some lunitic force to believe this shit.

 

So how do you compare the structural integrity of a 32 story building, and the lateral force applied, to a 110 story building? There was more building above the planes than that whole building. Not to mention the concrete, steel, and all the other building material that it took to build a building that tall. The argument that Jet A does not burn hot enough is ridiculous. The heat doesnt have to melt the steel, just heat it up enough to make it pliable.

Boeing 767
Operating empty 90,535kg (199,600lb)
Max takeoff 181,890kg (401,000lb)


Cruising Speed around 500MPH

So you take this weight, the cruising speed and run it into a building, that construction started on in 1966, and see what happens. The heat from the fire didnt melt the steel, it just made it bendable. With all the weight above it, just heating it enough would cause the beams to bend, as the weight comes down, the 'pancake' effect happens, and as the weight falls, 1 floor height, the next floor, not designed to carry the added weight of the 30-40 floors above it.

We all watched the planes crash into the buildings. We saw the buildings collapse. And someone wants me to believe, as these buildings are collapsing, and all the people are running away from it, that someone stops, looks back and says, "Hey was that an explosion?" Yea, the government decided to kill over 3000 people just to go into Iraq.

Sometime the answer is right in front of your face.

But, here is a good read for all.

http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/Logic101a.htm

A few I liked....

Fallacy of opposition: those who disagree with you must be wrong and not thinking straight.

Multiple questions or assertions (plurium interrogationum): asking a complex question or a series of questions, or stating a complex assertion or multiple assertions, while only allowing for a single simple response, and then assuming the oppositions inability to adequately respond is indication that their position is wrong.

Shifting the burden of proof: demanding that the person denying and assertion prove his/her case, whereas the burden of proof is upon the person who argues the position.

 

I was watching 9/11 almost from the beginning and I screamed at the TV when I saw the buildings collapse, the word I said was

' FARCE '

because what I was seeing was going against what I was hearing, it was a joke, ive seen dozens of buildings brought down by demolitions exactly like that, there is no way that could have happened the way it did if steel 'bent' because the 'bending' is a force that would transfer to the whole building itself, it WOULD NOT COME DOWN IN ITS OWN FOOTPRINT WITH 0% SWAYING

If it had indeed, softened the steel, the supports would bend AT THE POINT THE HEAT WAS APPLIED,which means it would twist and topple over, ending up like an upside down U

Quite basic physics & gravity there really :

PS I havent watched a TV since that day (it was removed from my room), thats how much I believed it was a scam.

 

Okay. Here is a simple test. Take an empty coke can, pop can to some, place yoour foot squarely on top and apply a good bit of pressure. Depending on your size, you can probably step on it completely. Have one of your friends, chums, mates, or your mom thump the can.

Which way did it go?

Okay? You see how that works?



*Special thanks to Mr. Wizards world, circa 1984 or so.......

 

so the top of the building falling onto the floors underneath and making them 'freefall' was the scaled up equivalent of a person's weight pressing upon an empty (untrussed) cylinder of 24g aluminium? wow.. heavy stuff!.. was there much space between the atoms even?!?!?!

you know that when i was doing design and technology at school.. i created a platform out of balsa wood that could easily support my weight... in fact it was so overengineered that when a portion of it was destroyed it never collapsed... the strength of triangles wonderful things...

in fact i've seen many many many overengineered structures with lots of triangles in them in the many years i've been working in construction... i also know that buildings designed to withstand fires, hurricanes, earthquakes, bombs etc need plenty of precisely placed explosive to bring them down cleanly... i don't just read these things on websites.. i know these things because i work in the fucking building industry....

i know of course that steel loses half it's integrity at 500 degrees... i didn't realise though that the aviation fuel had drenched the whole building from top to bottom in about an hour and made it as weak as the scaled up equivalent of a person's weight pressing upon an empty (untrussed) cylinder of 24g aluminium... phew!!

obviously the trrrrists did though.. and knew your buildings are WEAK like your MEN and your ECONOMY!! and the fuel was STRONG and PLENTIFUL like JIHAD!

 

If you can stand on a can to crush it in the same way every time I'll be amazed, because actually calculating where your foot and body mass should be placed for perfect center weight dispersion is only capable by very smart people or machines, you'll probably find drink cans bend to the side most attempts. ( actually its sort of to the side, and then in and down on top of its self, leaving not a flattened circle, but a spread out oval )

The keyword there is 'calculated', or you could possibly use 'formulated' or just 'premeditated' or 'PLANNED' they're all good.

 

actually we have to crush cans lots since the council make us recycle and only collect once a fortnight, and since their sack is pretty small for my beer guzzling household crushing is the only way to get all our cans in there...

its actually very rare to have a can crush cleanly in on itself to create a circle..

unfortunately it was collection day today so the sack is bare... give me a week and i'll have lots of crushed cans to photograph for PROOF... because visual PROOF is great innit!?!.. words just don't have the same impact

 

Did you see any of your mystical triangles in the buildings? I understand the cross beam and it's supporting ability, the can example simply shows that it doesnt have to fall over into a U shape. The fuel fire does not have to consume the whole building. Hell the Jet itself damaged the steal beams, causing the structural integrity to be compromised.

Have you seen the blueprints and building materials sheet for the buildings? I havent but I'm just curious what materials were used and to what specs. Most buildings of that height are built on a stacked design, with higher portions being smaller than the ones below. The Sears Tower is a good example, the Empire State as well.

Do you think the design company and the building companies would be so quiet if there was such compelling evidence that it wouldnt happen? Was I amazed that it fell like that? Yes. Do I believe that it was the governments idea? No. Do I think the government could have done more to prevent it? Maybe. It's easy to look back and say, "What about this?" But when people get these warning signs, that are so clear in hindsight (Va Tech), it's easy to point fingers.

What reason would the US government have for doing it? And dont say any bullshit about Iraq. Cause if that was it we would have already been 'attacked' by Iran.

Not too mention I dont ever remember al qaedda denying that they orchestrated the attack. Or the fact that your cousin, bin laden, even talks about the martyrs and how proud they made him.

I dont understand how you can look at a mountain of evidence, watch the actual video footage, and then still say the government did it.

What do you think would happen in this country if it was revealed that the government had fore warning, reliable fore warning, that such an attack was going to occur and did nothing to prevent it? Let alone the idea that it detonated thermal explosives that were preset in the WTC buildings prior to the incident?

I can live with the fact that you, and a lot of others, don't like the united States, and thats fine, but to say that as a country, our government, in an attempt to control the public performed these attacks is ridiculous.





DISORDER - would you say that two buildings built on Identical designs, to identical specifications, would react differently to almost identical attacks? Buildings that were essentially perfectly weighted to support themselves in winds up to and beyond 100mph? I will say that it was planned, but not by our government. Were other buildings around ground zero not damaged by the falling towers as they came down?

 

I don't understand you can look at the MOUNTAIN of ANOMALIES...and the footage...yet still believe the government's version, unless you are extremely simple or in complete denial.

Here's a couple of videos you should watch:

FEMA & NIST's "Pancake Theory" is a Lie

MIT engineer and research scientist Jeff King: what most likely happened

 

Huh!? Go and lie down in a dark corner Joe. You're getting a little overexcited.