50 Questions They Can’t Answer About 9/11 [Part 2 Of 3]

Submitted by: monkwarrior 3 months ago in News & Politics


9/11/2001 is a sensitive topic for some people, so viewers discretion is advised for this video and/or the comments. 

This new investigative documentary, about the events on September 11th 2001, is an eye-opening and straightforward factual examination into the specifics surrounding what has become known as 9/11.
 
Part two of this investigation dives right in with an explosive bang, continuing its style uncovering more questions in relation to topics such as the pentagon, flight 93, and the twin towers. The second part is by far the most interesting of the three parts, from start to finish. If you were holding out for the best segment, or the condensed version, then this is it. 
 
Personally it’s almost as if the evidence is too overwhelming to bear; the ‘official report’ and ‘debunkers’ are clearly wrong, and it’s clear a re-investigation is warranted. It is extremely difficult to deny the findings of this investigation at this point.

 BTW: here’s a link to the cool 9/11 snow towers demo shown in this part:



(BECAUSE SCIENCE!!)
 
Stay tuned for part 3 finale tomorrow!
There are 63 comments:
Male 6,621
fancylad are you going to put up part 3?
0
Reply
Male 1,976
monkwarrior Why should he? Its just more bullshit and lies, like the two already posted.
0
Reply
Male 10,335
K fancylad what gives? There is no fucking way 71 people on IAB up voted this not to mention how many more up votes it must have gotten to cancel out all the downvotes.

The next highest non 9/11 conspiracy bullshit post on the first 3 pages of the site are 26, 20, and 17.

Can we get a little clarification on how the voting works and how it is being gamed? Or maybe add functionality to see who upvotes and downvotes things?
0
Reply
Male 41,561
holygod In the past? YOU have lectured me extensively about how the +/- reveals my falseness in IAB posts.
And I definitively disproved that...
And here you are, admitting that what you previously claimed is a lie. You admit you were a liar back then, and have no remorse at all over it. Yes.
0
Reply
Male 10,335
5cats Your "falseness"? No I lectured you on posting content that was routinely downvoted. You post stuff you know most of the community thinks is bullshit yet you post it just to troll the site. You post factually incorrect propaganda written by unqualified morons sourced from biased blogs. The shit you post is just as bad as this, just less offensive.

Remember when hillary wasn't really at a rally because the flag behind her looked too big? I mean you had video evidence and everything.

That was mostly on the old site where comments didn't affect the rating of an article. This system seems a little silly.
0
Reply
Male 41,561
holygod Back when we had the stars? Your claim that my posts were low and therefor my submissions were bad was disproven when I did statistical analysis on other posters (and yours) ratings: they were essentially the same. The rating system is and was meaningless, especially when we consider how certain IAB members routinely downvote (1 vote) my content disregardless of merit, and use puppets to do so as well. (as shown here)

Is every post I put up Nobel Prize worthy? Of course not. Some turn out to be wrong, it happens. I submit stuff I find interesting and hope others do as well. However: it isn't me who puts them up, keep that in mind. Also: often other members submit the same thing, it isn't just me, so why single me out? Oh yeah! Hate has blinded you, I nearly forgot. :-/
0
Reply
Male 10,335
5cats You never proved anything. We went through in one period and your 10 most recent political / gun / AGW posts had the lowest 10 ratings in that time span.

Your ratings were never "essentially the same" as mine. Most of your political stuff was rated lower than anything I ever submitted.

You have invented the scenario where people routinely downvote you. It was disproven by some of the non political posts you submitted that had high ratings. You have also invented the puppets scenario to make yourself feel better. How was it shown here?

Nobody beats a dead horse like you except maybe monk with his 9/11 shit. You post virtually the SAME thing over and over and over and over again it terms of AGW. It is grating.

I don't hate you. I honestly and truly don't. I frequently hate the bullshit you post, but I have no ill will towards you.


0
Reply
Male 41,561
holygod 10 is a fluke, anything can happen. And there's people who are AGW Zealots who will hate any non-AGW worshiping post. 

I went back 500 posts (iirc, we've done this a couple of times now) and counted mine, his and yours: essentially identical average scores for the 40-50 posts in them. Yes some topics got lower than others, but that's the topic, not the poster, mostly.

My political / non were about 1:4 (again iirc) in that there were 3-4 non to every political one. About the ratio I used to submit them.

I invented several commenters who openly admitted they scored a 1 on sight for all my postings eh? And I invented someone with a bot or puppet who downvoted my post by -8 or more in just a few minutes (as DuckBoy observed) too?

And again: both the 4 star and the +/- ratings do not reflect the average opinion of the viewers. Very few are motivated enough to score them in either direction, and there actually is a core group of negative voters for each and every one of my posts which distorts it, no matter what you think.
0
Reply
Male 10,335
5cats You just proved my point.

"Yes some topics got lower than others, but that's the topic, not the poster, mostly."

See? It isn't people just hating you and downvoting everything you post. It is people hating and downvoting a specific type of post, yet knowing that you repeatedly post it anyway.
0
Reply
Male 41,561
holygod Except all my posts get that treatment, and until very recently ALL my comments got it too...
My popular posts often start out -2 or so as the haters hit it. Happily enough people like it to push it up.

It got so bad people were pointing it out and wondering why. I'd say something nice in a comment, provide a link even and have -5 for it :p

Seems to have quieted down some though.

0
Reply
Male 10,335
5cats Well, I for one have spoken up on numerous occasions that people should not downvote you regardless of content. Also, I'll point out, that the same thing happens to me constantly. Don't let it bother you.

I can promise you that the entire time I have been on IAB I have only downloaded content I didn't like or comments I disagreed with. I have upvoted your submissions and comments on numerous occasions.
0
Reply
Male 8,183
5cats No it hasn't.  Hardly anyone here likes your content.
0
Reply
Male 41,561
normalfreak2 The same can be said for any post here on IAB. Do you really expect everyone to like a post? Can a member post 10 things that each and every other person who comes here likes and agrees with? I think that's impossible, so why hold me to that standard?

Some people DO like my posts, I try to submit a variety of interesting things. Even YOU have liked some of my posts in the past, admit it. Or are you that blinded by your own hate?
0
Reply
Male 8,183
5cats I do like some of your post, Your non political ones.
0
Reply
Male 41,561
normalfreak2 Some people hate those too, should we just forbid any posts that "someone hates" from being put up?
Should we forbid certain people from posting because others personally dislike them? Regardless of their posting content?

If only there were some central ruler who could judge the submissions and only post the ones he felt were worthy of IAB... It sure would be a Fancy job for some Lad eh? ;-)
0
Reply
Male 344
holygod It's the sum of upvotes in the thread plus direct votes to the post.
1
Reply
Male 10,335
Beaverfever Well that is counter productive. So if I downvote a post I don't like and then come in here and upvote 20 comment that call the post bullshit I've actually given the post a net score of +19? Seems like a dumb system.
0
Reply
Male 344
holygod Yep, I'm just here for science and boobs.  Full stack is for others.
0
Reply
Male 3,814
Beaverfever its the sum of fecal matter piled up around Monkwarriors crusade
3
Reply
Male 344
5
Reply
Male 3,776
Beaverfever I love this gif...especially in relation to this topic...
2
Reply
Male 344
kalron27 Apparently we still have part three to wait for.  Shit, it's like GoT final season anticipation.  /s
3
Reply
Male 149
All you bootlickers can do is call someone names for bringing up valid questions and facts that don't fit your comfortable world view.

Building 7, the news outlets declared it had fallen while it was still in the background of their shot. Also, there is no way that building 7 could have fallen on it's own from debris. It was a controlled demolition. Suck on it. Conspiracies exist, greed begets power begets more greed. JFK was killed because he tried to expose the hidden powers. All they care about is more control and power.

-4
Reply
Male 1,976
moldysod Yeah, never mind the falling debris that landed on top of and down the sides of building 7, or the fires that the debris started. There is absolutely no way in HELL any of that could have contributed to its collapse, right?
0
Reply
Male 6,621
moldysod most insightful post of the 2 posts so far, good job!
0
Reply
Male 3,814
moldysod but its fake news right? you bootfucker
3
Reply
Male 41,561
Snow towers... because snow is identical in strength and integrity as concrete and steel. Oh yes! Ask any Eskimo, eh?
Surely that has to be a joke video, right?

Should I re-link the text version of the '50 questions' or people can just find it at Part-1?

https://steemit.com/truth/@/911-the-only-post-that-you-ever-need-to-read-truth

There it is. (I hope it still works)

If it doesn't work? Copy this and search, it should be the very top link, leading to steemit:

9/11 - The Only Post You Need to Read - 50 Questions They Can't Answer
2
Reply
Male 40,538
Because snow behaves exactly like aluminum, steel and concrete. LOL
3
Reply
Male 1,089
Stop posting this crap Fancy.
7
Reply
Male 3,707
marsii Well, overall I'm against silencing opposition, even if the opposition couldn't pour piss out of a boot, with instructions on the heel, but I do feel that this topic should have been limited to one thread.
6
Reply
Male 1,295
DuckBoy87 I agree with you on all accounts -- especially the one post.

I'm surprised that monkwarrior hasn't chimed in on either of the posts he posted.  I would be interested to see how he would rebut some of the comments in this thread.
3
Reply
Male 194
lockner01 Could it be that ... monkwarrior  and Fancy are the same. Discuss.
2
Reply
Male 10,335
lockner01 really?  Well let me help you out:

"Western media delusion"
"Logical fallacy"
3
Reply
Male 3,814
holygod you forgot "Troll"

2
Reply
Male 1,089
DuckBoy87 One thread once a year from one asshole. We get too many as it is. Oh yeah, also, let's do it on the anniversary, just in case there's some wounds to rub some salt in.
4
Reply
Male 15,401
The tin foil is strong with this OP. His credulity count is off the scale.
7
Reply
Male 3,814
Lol - the SCIENCE of snow towers. i needed a good laugh, thanks Monky McTrollface
downvote city :)
7
Reply
Male 8,183
Sometimes we go out of our way to make up some elaborate scheme when in truth the reality is simpler.  Terrorists, that didn't care  if they live or died, crashed planes into buildings because they thought they were doing God's work.
7
Reply
Male 90
Even if you would buy into the idea that the government would be evil enough to murder thousands of people and start a war killing thousands more and costing trillions of dollars, I have questions.

How many people would have had to be in on the plan?

How many other people would have some knowledge?

How many foreign powers would have a lot to gain by rooting out this info and sharing it?

How many Snowdens and Assanges are out there to expose this?

If Bill Clinton couldn't hide a blowjob, how is this supposed to stay a secret?
10
Reply
Male 1,295
So some guy running at a pile of snow and driving a cardboard paper jet into it is Science?
7
Reply
Male 10,335
lockner01 No. It's not "Science", it's "SCIENCE!!"
6
Reply
Male 1,295
holygod Ahhh -- I get it now.  But can you just say "SCIENCE!!"? or do you have to say "BECAUSE SCIENCE!!"? while using jazz hands?  I think the computer voice over makes it even more legit.
7
Reply
Male 5,307
lockner01 Yes and yes, but I think you also have to say the SCIENCE part like Thomas Dolby does.
7
Reply
Male 3,707
Just more Western Media Delusions. (Those that support that the government was behind 9/11, just to be clear)
6
Reply
Male 3,707
DuckBoy87 And just in continuation of the last post regarding votes, currently the post is at -5, with everyone in the thread mocking the content.

In addition, I came in and every comment had a negative rating; I gave every comment a +1 to make up for the individual going crazy with the downvotes, except my own, because one can't do that.
9
Reply
Male 1,295
DuckBoy87 So in less than a minute it went from -5 to +6.
6
Reply
Male 1,295
DuckBoy87 And I know monkwarrior is watching this thread because he's currently trying to troll me in the 9/11 thread from 2 days ago:  The 9/11 Conspiracies: Debunking What You've Been Told .
6
Reply
Male 3,776
lockner01 wow! I commend your patience on that one.
4
Reply
Male 1,295
kalron27 thanks :)
4
Reply
Male 1,295
DuckBoy87 at one point it was down to -7
5
Reply
Male 3,814
lockner01 and now it went from 27 to 34 in the space of a page refresh. someone has way too much time on their hands
5
Reply
Male 3,707
rumham Up to 39, not a minute later
3
Reply
Male 1,295
DuckBoy87 and now up to 45
3
Reply
Male 3,707
Points seemed to have slowed down. Only at 46. But now, points are shooting up (or in the case of the one 5cats' post down) on other posts... but only on the homepage.
3
Reply
Male 3,707
lockner01 Interesting, Part 1 of the series is down to 7 points. All other posts are climbing, though, even 5cats' went from -2x to -13, but again, only on the homepage.
3
Reply
Male 41,561
DuckBoy87 Puppets! Puppets everywhere! :-)
2
Reply
Male 8,183
5cats Squrlz out!  I mean ;)
2
Reply
Male 3,814
normalfreak2 we are all Squrlz
2
Reply
Male 5,307
Again, I'll save you the five hours with a short and precise 12 page analysis from explosives and demolition experts: A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint. 

The authors spent a great deal of energy simplifying the verbiage and technical vernacular as much as possible so that it is easy to read and understand. These experts blow up (pun intended) the assertion that explosives brought down the buildings. Their explanations disproving Assertion 1 is their mic drop. In one and a half pages the main assertion of the Truthers is demolished (pun intended). 
7
Reply
Male 5,307
If my link is too long for you. Here are the demolition experts main points of their response to the assumption that The towers’ collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions:

"Close examination of these events from every video and photographic angle available does not indicate failure originating from the lowest floors, rather clearly shows each building beginning to fail at precisely the point where the respective planes struck. That is, no floors above or below the impact points ever move until the structural elements within the impact zone begin to collapse."

...

"Therefore, for explosives to be considered as a primary or supplemental catalyst, one would have to accept that either, a) dozens of charges were placed on those exact impact floors in advance and survived the violent initial explosions and 1100+ degree Fahrenheit fires, or b) while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the buildings with boxes of explosives. There is no third choice that could adequately explain explosives causing failure at the exact impact points.

The chemical properties of explosives and their reaction to heat render scenario A scientifically impossible and scenario B remarkably unlikely, as we know of no explosive compound that could withstand such force and/or heat without detaching from the columns or simply burning off prior to detonation."
5
Reply
Male 1,976
markust123 Yeah, this pretty much supports my idea of the events of that infamous day. I've discussed (or at least attempted to) this with a certain conspiracy nut on the board here (I'll bet you'll never guess who), and he, typically, chooses to completely ignore me in favor of a bunch of bullshit that makes no sense that he found on a conspiracy theorist's website. I'm looking at the fact that those buildings are engineered to hold up a (mostly) static load. When the planes hit, and the fires started, they sufficiently weakened the structure at that point that it caused the steel structural members to both expand, which weakened their connection to adjoining members, and deform. This lead to a collapse of those floors, which caused a sudden, violent dynamic load on the floors below, many orders of magnitude higher than they were engineered to support, causing them to collapse. Considering that this sudden, violent dynamic load was mostly vertical, it stands to reason that the subsequent collapse would also be mostly vertical. My favorite bit of bullshit from the many conspiracy theorist's websites is their claim that jet fuel will not burn hot enough to melt steel. They are actually completely correct about this point. However, what they repeatedly choose to ignore is the fact that NO OFFICIAL REPORTS CLAIM THAT THE STEEL STRUCTURAL MEMBERS MELTED! While burning jet fuel, indeed, will not reach a high enough temperature to MELT steel, it will reach in excess of the temperatures required to cause steel to EXPAND enough to weaken structural joints, and to DEFORM enough to cause a collapse. I'm glad that I, with my public high school education, and diploma in "industrial electrical technology" from a technical school, and a bit of firefighter training, combined with a little common sense, came to the same conclusions as a bunch of much smarter people with fancy degrees!
0
Reply
Male 10,335
BECAUSE *Snicker* SCIENCE *Snicker* *Snicker*

Oh well, the pile of snow has me sold. Except for the part where their "controlled demolition" sent out a visible explosion at the base, yet nothing like that was visible on the towers. Weird.
5
Reply
Male 3,707
holygod Not to mention that a building is, more or less, hollow to accommodate people working in it; that buildings don't have a single '2x4' going straight through the center and nothing else; and that heated air expands, and if in airtight enclosure (which a skyscraper is aimed to be) bursts, much like an over expanded balloon.

But hey, we're the sheeple because we don't take amateurs seriously.
6
Reply