• U. of Minnesotastan bans 9/11 memorial because it would be offensive to

    From Byker@1:229/2 to All on Tuesday, September 12, 2017 15:59:40
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.liberalism, alt.politics
    XPost: mn.general
    From: byker@do~rag.net

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aJeUrrnZGc

    The University of Minnesota had a resolution to honor the victims of 9/11
    each year rejected by the student government, with some students fearful the measure could offend Muslims and foster ‘Islamophobia.’

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)
  • From Siri Cruise@1:229/2 to Byker on Wednesday, September 13, 2017 07:46:50
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.liberalism, alt.politics
    XPost: mn.general
    From: chine.bleu@yahoo.com

    In article <4pudnYxA4fwm1yXEnZ2dnUU7-RfNnZ2d@supernews.com>,
    "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> wrote:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aJeUrrnZGc

    The University of Minnesota had a resolution to honor the victims of 9/11 each year rejected by the student government, with some students fearful the measure could offend Muslims and foster ‘Islamophobia.’

    It's been awhile since my university days, so I don't know how much of the criticism is valid. But it does sound like schools are spending too much time shutting down arguments instead of teaching how to make valid, rational arguments.

    --
    :-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
    'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
    Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
    Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)
  • From Topaz@1:229/2 to All on Wednesday, September 13, 2017 16:58:51
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.liberalism, alt.politics
    XPost: mn.general
    From: mars1933@hotmail.com

    CIA insider tells 9/11 truth. Time to re-examine your World-view,
    America!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFoarqaNjL8

    The sudden, complete, straight down at near free-fall speed collapse
    of steel framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes,
    is the SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's few small
    fires and superficial debris damage could not account for this
    collapse, which had all the earmarks of controlled demolition by
    explosives. Videos clearly show this. Such demolitions take many days
    or weeks to set up - not the few hours between the plane "attacks" and
    the collapse. The explosives therefore had to be put in place
    BEFOREHAND. This lends credibility to the use of previously placed
    explosives to bring down the towers as well, which like the badly
    damaged and fire-gutted Deutchbank building would probably have
    remained standing.

    Propaganda shills, disinformationists, and those in psychological
    denial still insist the collapse of WTC 7 could not be what it
    obviously was, and they employ often ludicrous rationalizations and fabrications, elaborate lies, and infantile ad-hominem attacks to
    defend their indefensible position. The REAL terrorists are desperate
    to cover up their mass-murderous crime of the century - the permitting
    if not perpetration of, and subsequent political and economic
    exploitation of the fully preventable 9/11 disaster.

    Could Bin Laden have somehow totally incapacitated NORAD - the world's
    most sophisticated aerospace defense system - on that horrible
    morning? I don't think so!

    There is evidence of an INSIDE JOB even more clear and indisputable
    than the explosive demolition collapse of building 7 and the standing
    down of NORAD. Many very small HUMAN BODY FRAGMENTS have been found on
    the roofs of nearby buildings. These were too far away to be from
    jumpers from the towers. If the towers simply collapsed from damage
    and fire alone, what blew these bodies to smithereens and sent the
    fragments flying for considerable distances? The plane impacts did not
    have the explosive brisance (shattering force) necessary to do this -
    only HIGH EXPLOSIVES can blow bodies to tiny bits and throw them such distances.

    So - who can credibly account for these body fragments, other than
    their being the result of high explosives being detonated in the
    towers?


    The following article proves, using the inviolate laws of physics, the
    falsity of the government's propaganda explanation for the World Trade
    Center building collapses:

    SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE - GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK

    On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade
    Center (WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent
    people. Videos of the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for
    days. About 5 hours after the towers fell, WTC building 7 also
    collapsed suddenly, completely, and straight down at near free-fall
    speed. This steel-framed building was not touched by the planes that
    struck the towers, and had sustained relatively minor debris damage
    and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily damaged remained
    standing.

    In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan
    Reynolds, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert
    Gates stated, "The American people know what they saw with their own
    eyes on September11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government
    conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale."

    We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's
    tale that's "beyond the pale!"

    Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
    phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics,
    and the emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have
    stymied objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of
    authoritarian assertions?

    The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told
    us that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now
    referred to as a "pancake collapse". According to the government
    claims, the plane crashes and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet
    fuel is NOT exotic) fires heated the UL-certified structural steel to
    the point where it was significantly weakened, which is very difficult
    to believe, never mind repeat in an experiment. Even with massive
    fires that incinerate everything else, the steel frames of such
    buildings generally remain standing.

    According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical
    evidence was quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly
    caused part of the tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the
    tower, which, we've been repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain
    reaction of the lower floors sequentially, one at a time, yielding to
    the weight falling from above.

    There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the
    observed facts

    * It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical
    steel core columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the
    next.

    * The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to
    gravity
    alone.

    This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from
    the air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the
    tower. Those undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered
    resistance thousands of times greater than that of air. Those lower
    stories, and the central steel core columns, had successfully
    supported the mass of the tower for 30 years despite hurricane-force
    winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.

    Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the
    way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively without friction
    as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing
    the fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute?

    What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers
    could not have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower
    stories, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is
    shown to be physically impossible!


    So WHERE DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?

    Conclusions

    In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the
    observed duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more
    of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met

    * The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero
    resistance to the collapse.
    * The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any
    expenditure of energy.
    * The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by
    magic.

    None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible,
    conditions can be accounted for by the official government theory of
    9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to
    prop up this official myth of 9/11.

    The Bottom Line


    It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the
    WTC collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the
    plane impacts.

    The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that
    the towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but
    rather they came down because something else was causing them to
    disintegrate.

    So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
    story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates'
    other premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is
    left to you to decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly
    incorrect presumptions, is also flawed.

    The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, also
    collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day.

    http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192

    No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever
    collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel
    columns

    Understanding the full truth of 9/11 seems to require two separate
    awakenings.

    The first, awakening to the fraudulence of the "official 9/11 story,"
    is a pretty simple brain function and only requires a little study,
    logic or curiosity. We can help a lot with that part here and it's a
    major purpose of this site.

    The second step, however, consciously confronting the implications of
    that knowledge--and what it says about our media, politics and
    economic system today--is by far the harder awakening and requires an
    enormous exercise of nerve and heart. (As the Chinese say, "You cannot
    wake up a man who is pretending to sleep.") In other words, this part
    of the journey depends more on character than on maps and evidence so
    we can't help you much here, except to point out inspiring heroes and
    heroines who have courageously faced that truth, spoken out, and
    survived...



    www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

    http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)