Reddit: I am back after a year. This is what I learned about myself and 911
by texdeveloper
I got burned out discussing the topic, I kind of just did not want to debate about it any more. I knew the falls were impossible for all three buildings, that the official story made no sense. I got tired of people online trying to answer my questions with dogmatic and unquestioning replies; talking to me like I had shitted in the house of the lord. (yes, I have issues, but bear with me).
In my real life, people would just rather not discuss this topic much. A lot of people express curiosity when I start talking, but most rather forget about it soon enough. The combination of online hostility and real world indifference made me want to not deal with it much for the past year. I think I stopped reading the stuff in this sub because of all the troll accounts here a year ago. So they won, sort of.
But I cannot stay away from this topic. This lie is making my country sick. I was reading about the white rose movement in Germany in world war 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose . I am not saying the United States is a totalitarian government or that I will be shot for speaking my mind. But I cannot stand by while most of my country cheerily still drowns itself with stupid propaganda and lies about this subject. Reading about the white rose movement inspired me tonight. I started commenting on other threads about 911. I think I could ignore 911 if the denial of it were not so pervasive; but it is, and almost every American has been affected by these lies. I think I could ignore 911 if everyone just forgot about it. But every day on reddit there is some nutcase proclaiming how nutty 911 conspirators are, and then any real replies to it are downvoted. Its unhealthy. It teaches kids not to think, it shows the political process as so far gone as to be pathetic.
I have no clue what I am going to do, though.
Thanks for reading. It just seemed appropriate to post this here, given how much time I used to spend in this sub a while back. If this sub is like I remember it, there will be maybe 1 or 3 upvotes, with perhaps a couple of decent responses and perhaps two or so demented ones; but I was writing this just to get this off my chest, not really for the upvotes or comments -- although comments are of course appreciated.
http://www.reddit.com/r/911truth/comments/2zbq21/i_am_back_after_a_year_this_is_what_i_learned/
For some of us, it is tough to watch as the US descends into fascism based on lies. Others- not so much.
= new reply since forum marked as read
When floors above are intact? No windows blown out, no explosions like the ones the firemen were saying that were happening. But hey, they're just stupid firemen who don't know what they're talking about. They're talking out their asses. Planes traveling at sea level speeds can NOT penetrate steel and concrete and leave NO debris on the ground below. Not one wing popped off, no tail end sticking out, and not a lot of noise either being that close to the ground.
NIST report shows us this silly cartoon of the "pancake" collapse and have the nerve to show the steel columns still standing. If that were the science, wouldn't there be 50 stories of debris around those columns. Was that the end result at ground zero? That's the science you trust? 10 stories a second due to fire. 
No, the firemen certainly aren't stupid: They know full well that not all explosions are caused by explosives and they certainly know that lots of stuff explodes in fires. I don't doubt that they are also smart enough to know that not everything that sounds like an explosion really is an explosion, anyway. As for the jet fuel explosions in the elevator shafts, read this: http://www.911myths.com/html/jet_fuel.html
Despite the disingenuous quote mining you've been reading on "truther" sites, there isn't a single published account from a fireman who was actually there who endorses the idiotic "controlled demolition" theories.
> Planes traveling at sea level speeds can NOT penetrate steel and concrete and leave NO debris on the ground below. Not one wing popped off, no tail end sticking out, and not a lot of noise either being that close to the ground.
At those impact speeds, wings don't "pop off," they're reduced to confetti, and it's beyond silly to expect to see a tail sticking out. You seem to have no concept of how much energy and momentum those collisions involved. You also seem to base a lot of faulty conclusions on things you haven't seen, but then it turns out you haven't looked very hard. In photos like this one taken before the collapse, except for the aluminum column sheaths it's impossible to distinguish plane debris from building debris. But it is possible to discount your hand-waving claims of "NO debris on the ground below":
Your imagination about what the impact did or didn't sound like is equally irrelevant.
> NIST report shows us this silly cartoon of the "pancake" collapse and have the nerve to show the steel columns still standing.
No, you're confused; the NIST report shows no such thing; you're thinking of an early Nova show on PBS, which was before the NIST report was finished. However, from the evidence in the rubble, we do know that the predominant failure mode was indeed floor structures stripped from columns. But there is no logical reason to expect the columns to remain standing for very long. Having lost the lateral restraint provided by the floor structure, most of them were simply pushed over by the falling debris. But after the main collapse, there were in fact "spires" of core column left standing for a few seconds. Those quickly collapsed under their own weight, however, because they had no lateral stability to resist buckling:
> That's the science you trust? 10 stories a second due to fire.
Your sloppy math aside, the science that explains the speed of the collapses is called the Conservation of Momentum Law. The "science" that supposes the collapse should have happened slowly is called "imaginary physics," a.k.a. "truther science." A little actual thought should give you a clue why the collapse was "near" free-fall: because it mostly was free-fall after floor structures were stripped from columns, which took a few milliseconds each. Even in cases where columns were buckled, the speed of that buckling was dictated by the conservation of momentum. Each such collision slowed the collapse a little, but Newtonian physics says that the total momentum should have increased throughout the entire collapse, and that's exactly what we see. The collapses actually proceeded at about 2/3 the acceleration of gravity, and that other 1/3 represents the energy that was absorbed in destroying the structure -- a considerable amount, but only a fraction of the total energy available. Yes, this is science I trust because it's firmly based in well established physics, and anyone who tells you differently simply doesn't know what he is talking about or is lying.
As the direct result of getting "educated" on "truther" sites, you simply don't know enough about the events of 9/11 to have a well-formed opinion about what happened.