# Another Year And The Ones Who Were Involved In 911



## Penelope (Sep 11, 2014)

Are probably laughing. The neocons and Zionist  in our gov and Israel. Congrats. Job well done, one we know the ignorant Muslims would never have access or means available to do.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 11, 2014)

Penelope said:


> Are probably laughing. The neocons and Zionist  in our gov and Israel. Congrats. Job well done, one we know the ignorant Muslims would never have access or means available to do.


13 years later and guys like richard gage have made millions on your ignorance and fear.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 11, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Are probably laughing. The neocons and Zionist  in our gov and Israel. Congrats. Job well done, one we know the ignorant Muslims would never have access or means available to do.
> ...


 
You can't get much greener than gullibility. Its one infinitely renewable resource.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 11, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Are probably laughing. The neocons and Zionist  in our gov and Israel. Congrats. Job well done, one we know the ignorant Muslims would never have access or means available to do.
> ...



Not her fear ... just her ignorance and hatred.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 11, 2014)

9/11/2001 was a terrorist attack, however are we quite certain of the identity of the terrorists?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> 9/11/2001 was a terrorist attack, however are we quite certain of the identity of the terrorists?


yes "we" are, you on the other hand when confronted with that reality go batshit...


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 12, 2014)

When 'nuff people get it, and begin to protest, Like with the Viet Nam fiasco, WE THE PEOPLE managed to make Congress do what we wanted and that is a good thing.
The issue with 9/11/2001 is that its like having a tapestry & just pull one thread, and distort the design, and so it is with society, that one thread is the LIE of 9/11/2001, 
we NEED to, in order to restore the proper functioning of logic and common sense, address this issue.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> 9/11/2001 was a terrorist attack, however are we quite certain of the identity of the terrorists?



We're certain enough. Remember, Spammy....the


n0spam4me said:


> When 'nuff people get it, and begin to protest, Like with the Viet Nam fiasco, WE THE PEOPLE managed to make Congress do what we wanted and that is a good thing.
> The issue with 9/11/2001 is that its like having a tapestry & just pull one thread, and distort the design, and so it is with society, that one thread is the LIE of 9/11/2001,
> we NEED to, in order to restore the proper functioning of logic and common sense, address this issue.




The obvious problem with your narrative is that the heyday of truthers is long past. Interest in their conspiracy peaked in about 2006....and has declined ever since. Why 2006? That was the year that rational people started making a concerted effort to debunk the silly, silly shit truthers were saying with better evidence, better reasoning, and better logic.

You and your ilk are now a punchline. Mostly because you ignore anything that contradicts your theory, never question your own beliefs, and fail so completely the old 'Occam's Razor' test.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 12, 2014)

> we NEED to, in order to restore the proper functioning of logic and common sense, address this issue.



You don't use logic or common sense. For example, you insist that no hijacked planes hit the WTC 1 and 2....and that all 43 videos of the impact are faked. Including every live feed from every news network. But that's just stupid. As it would expand your conspiracy to involve every media outlet, every eye witness in NY, every camcorder. And of course, that means that all the pictures of debris had to be faked. And their airlines would have had to have been on it. And all the family of the passengers on the flights. Increasing the number of folks that would have to be in on the conspiracy by orders of magnitude.

And yet 13 years later these thousands and thousands and thousands of co-conspirators all maintained perfect secrecy? That's ridiculous. For crying out loud, we couldn't keep the atomic bomb secret for more than 7 years. And that was developed on a secure facility. Even the NSA's greatest secret was blown wide open in less than 10 years, despite being in the middle of no where.

This happened in broad day light in one of the most heavily populated cities on earth with the entire world watching.
*
Twice.*

There's absolutely no way your fantastically elaborate, wildly complicated conspiracy could have been kept under wraps. Yet in defiance of logic or common sense, you cling to your absurd little conspiracy. What you've never been able to do is give us a good reason to ignore what you do.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 12, 2014)

None of this would have happened if we only listened to the truthers


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> 9/11/2001 was a terrorist attack, however are we quite certain of the identity of the terrorists?


 yep,those terrorists would be Bush,Cheney,Clinton,Rumsfield,Rice,Powell,Silverstein,gen Myers, CIA people and the mossd for starters.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 12, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11/2001 was a terrorist attack, however are we quite certain of the identity of the terrorists?
> ...



Wow. That's quite a list. Anyone else you'd like to add? I'd be curious to see just how ludicrously large and insanely complicated your conspiracy actually is.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> When 'nuff people get it, and begin to protest, Like with the Viet Nam fiasco, WE THE PEOPLE managed to make Congress do what we wanted and that is a good thing.
> The issue with 9/11/2001 is that its like having a tapestry & just pull one thread, and distort the design, and so it is with society, that one thread is the LIE of 9/11/2001,
> we NEED to, in order to restore the proper functioning of logic and common sense, address this issue.


VIETNAM is one word and I have serious doubts you know anything about it.
also, it's a completely false comparison ...


----------



## daws101 (Sep 12, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11/2001 was a terrorist attack, however are we quite certain of the identity of the terrorists?
> ...


you forgot all the people it took to set up shanksville and the pentagon...


----------



## Skylar (Sep 12, 2014)

daws101 said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



Lets not forget all the 'crisis actor' witnesses by the thousands, all the folks on I-395 that had to be silenced or coersed, the passengers on the planes, the airlines, all major media outlets who 'faked' their coverage, the ASCE who was complicit after the fact, the NIST, the FAA......the list is pretty extensive.

And perfect secrecy, huh?


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 12, 2014)

How many people, KNOW deep in their hearts that something is very wrong here, but simply go along to get along, because the consequences of not going along are very serious.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> How many people, KNOW deep in their hearts that something is very wrong here, but simply go along to get along, because the consequences of not going along are very serious.


if you insist on proselytizing we have a section for that.
otherwise stfu...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> How many people, KNOW deep in their hearts that something is very wrong here, but simply go along to get along, because the consequences of not going along are very serious.


the ones that still defend the offical version here are paid trolls for the government sent here to derail threads on truth discussions about government corruption such as this,obamas fake birth certificate,ect,ect .they give it away by making up outright lies like the one predfan made that steel does burn fire for example.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> How many people, KNOW deep in their hearts that something is very wrong here, but simply go along to get along, because the consequences of not going along are very serious.



Ah, when the facts fail you, you ask us to 'feel' the conspiracy and just believe.

Odd, the longer I talk to Truthers the more their rhetoric sounds like religion.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 12, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > How many people, KNOW deep in their hearts that something is very wrong here, but simply go along to get along, because the consequences of not going along are very serious.
> ...



Or, folks who have reviewed the Truther conspiracy explanation and found it doesn't match the facts, its needless and fantastically elaborate, utterly unrealistic, is contradicted by overwhelming evidence.....and is just an awful explanation of the events of 911.

But since we don't ape your conspiracy, we're part of it now too, huh?

Smiling...how's that working out for ya?


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 12, 2014)

Religion doesn't depend on physical evidence & facts/logic.
the facts support a very different story than the 19 radical hijackers using airliners as weapons.  Also, WHY is 9/11/2001 the most poorly documented disaster in history?
where are the documentary pix of the airliner crash sites, I'm not talking about a few random snap-shots, I'm talking documentary photographs .... & how many here understand the difference?

You don't want to be labeled one of those "Truther loons" no?
so you have to defend the official story .... no matter what ....


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 12, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Religion doesn't depend on physical evidence & facts/logic...QUOTE]
> 
> Which is, I believe, Skylar's point. "Truthers" reject physical evidence, facts and logic.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 12, 2014)

Given that 9/11/2001 is the most poorly documented disaster in history,
the people who support the 19 radical hijackers story are closer to being religious fanatics because they believe in what they have not seen.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 13, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Religion doesn't depend on physical evidence & facts/logic.



*You're not using logic. *You're asking us to 'feel' and 'believe'. Your story is ludicrous complicated and insanely elaborate....and backed by no physical evidence.

Where were your bombs? Your theory requires about 50,000 of them in the WTC 1 and 2 alone. Yet there were none ever found. Not before, not during, not after. Not an inch of blasting wire, not a singe charge, nothing. ANd its not like the Port Authority Bombsquad and their bomb sniffing dogs would have missed 50,000 charges set to bring down the building.

*Your theory is pristinely void of physical evidence. *Which might explain why you're now asking us to 'feel' that you're right. Since you clearly don't have the evidence to factually establish your claims.



> where are the documentary pix of the airliner crash sites, I'm not talking about a few random snap-shots, I'm talking documentary photographs


I've shown you entire galleries of images of plane debris documenting the crash compelling enough to be accepted as evidence in a criminal trial. *You ignored every single one. *Along with every video of the south tower impact. All 43 videos.

You've ignored everything that contradicts you; every picture, every report, every video, every eye witness, every piece of evidence that doesn't ape your conspiracy. But why would anyone interested in the truth ignore what you do?

Sorry, Spammy.....but you want your conspiracy to be true more than you want the truth. That's why you ignore so much overwhelming evidence in favor of a convoluted conspiracy so ludicrously complicated and insanely implausible as to render it a punchline. And of course, backed by jackshit as far as evidence.



> You don't want to be labeled one of those "Truther loons" no?
> so you have to defend the official story .... no matter what ....




More accurately, the truther story doesn't hold up. Its just an awful explanation. I mean fire proof, invisible explosives that demolish a building _in silence_ without actually damaging any girders and leaving no trace?

C'mon. Even you have to realize how stupid that sounds.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 13, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Given that 9/11/2001 is the most poorly documented disaster in history,
> the people who support the 19 radical hijackers story are closer to being religious fanatics because they believe in what they have not seen.


Says the guy that ignored every picture of debris, every video, every eye witness, every piece of physical evidence, every report, every piece of testimony that contradicts you....
_
....all because they destroy your theory. _

Its clearly not the quantity of evidence that's the issue. Its that you ignore anything that doesn't ape your conspiracy. And what you ignore is huge. You actually ignored every of 43 different videos of the south tower impact, dismissing every single one as fake.

Every. Single. One.

You can't teach that kind of willful ignorance. Its something you're either born with, or you're not.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 13, 2014)

Skylar said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Religion doesn't depend on physical evidence & facts/logic.
> ...



Or perhaps he just doesn't and you've already established the most likely reason:
"Truthers" need their conspiracy theories to be true more than they want the truth.
That's why they ignore so much overwhelming countering evidence in favor of convoluted conspiracy theories so ludicrously complicated and insanely implausible as to render them a punchline.
And of course, backed by jackshit as far as evidence. Of course.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 13, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Given that 9/11/2001 is the most poorly documented disaster in history,
> the people who support the 19 radical hijackers story are closer to being religious fanatics because they believe in what they have not seen.



But we've seen plenty. The fact is you ignore or reject all evidence in order to cling desperately to your infinitely improbable, virtually impossible and totally baseless conspiracy scenarios. Carry on!


----------



## daws101 (Sep 13, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > How many people, KNOW deep in their hearts that something is very wrong here, but simply go along to get along, because the consequences of not going along are very serious.
> ...


ah handjob, that's fire burns steel!


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 13, 2014)

Major question here, about those building collapse events,
should it be that under the influence of asymmetrical damage + fire,
the buildings would "collapse" in the manner that they did?
WHY?


----------



## Skylar (Sep 14, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Major question here, about those building collapse events,
> should it be that under the influence of asymmetrical damage + fire,
> the buildings would "collapse" in the manner that they did?
> WHY?



Why do you keep ignoring the holes in the bomb theory?


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 14, 2014)

the alleged holes in the bomb explanation of what happened are really not.
problem with the NIST report is that they say, the only way to use explosives would be to use an explosive charge that would be so loud as to be totally obvious, however there are all sorts of different kinds of explosives and all sorts of different ways to use said explosives, if there were not one huge blast but half dozen smaller explosions to accomplish the same thing but not create the single huge boom.
the fact is that the allegation that is, asymmetrical damage + fire did what was observed on 9/11/2001 is totally lost in space!


----------



## Skylar (Sep 14, 2014)

> the alleged holes in the bomb explanation of what happened are really not


'..are really not"? That's it? Just staight up naked denial that any such problems exist? 

The fact that the building fell in silence...and _there's no such thing as silent explosives_.......*you ignore.*

The fact that the building was on fire, and there's no plausible system of explosives that can operate while on fire.....*you ignore.*

The fact that the FDNY had been measuring the building's slow structural failure for hours, measured its leaning, bulging, buckling and predicted its structural failure by *hours*....*you ignore.*

The fact that there were no cut girders, despite cutting being the method explosive demolition destroys a girder.....*you ignore.*

The fact that there was no evidence of explosive demolition, not a single charge, not an inch of blasting wire, absolutely nothing to support your bomb theory.....*you ignore.*

The fact that there was no residue of explosives found in dust samples taken from the WTC plaza....*you ignore.*

The fact that the WTC plaza had already been swept for bombs by the Port Authority Bomb squad, with bomb sniffing dogs. And they found absolutely no bombs of any kind...*you ignore. *

Why? Why would any rational person, why would anyone genuinely interested in the truth ignore these huge, conspiracy killing holes in your theory?


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 14, 2014)

Skylar said:


> '..are really not"? That's it? Just staight up naked denial that any such problems exist?
> 
> The fact that the building fell in silence...and _there's no such thing as silent explosives_.......*you ignore.*



Look up "sound evidence for demolition" on youtube ..... & Think.

have a nice day.

: )


----------



## Skylar (Sep 14, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > '..are really not"? That's it? Just staight up naked denial that any such problems exist?
> ...



Let me think. If you had evidence, would you have presented it? Of course. Why then are you insisting I go look something up on youtube, insinuating it answers all the questions you can't? *Let me think.....because you can't actually resolve any of the holes in your theory.*

Since you can't resolve any of the holes in your conspiracy, why keep clinging to it? And why do you refuse to question your conspiracy and ignore all the theory killing holes its riddled with? Like...

The fact that the building fell in silence...and _there's no such thing as silent explosives_.......*you ignore.*

The fact that the building was on fire, and there's no plausible system of explosives that can operate while on fire.....*you ignore.*

The fact that the FDNY had been measuring the building's slow structural failure for hours, measured its leaning, bulging, buckling and predicted its structural failure by *hours*....*you ignore.*

The fact that there were no cut girders, despite cutting being the method explosive demolition destroys a girder.....*you ignore.*

The fact that there was no evidence of explosive demolition, not a single charge, not an inch of blasting wire, absolutely nothing to support your bomb theory.....*you ignore.*

The fact that there was no residue of explosives found in dust samples taken from the WTC plaza....*you ignore.*

The fact that the WTC plaza had already been swept for bombs by the Port Authority Bomb squad, with bomb sniffing dogs. And they found absolutely no bombs of any kind...*you ignore. *

*What person genuinely interested in the truth would ignore any of these facts?* And why do you, who claims to seek the truth, ignore all of them?


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 14, 2014)

The reference to a youtube video was to get the benefit of some research that was done into the whole idea that WTC7 fell in total silence, really it did not and there are audio tracks of video from the day that prove beyond any doubt that there were explosions to be heard right before WTC7 "collapsed"  ..... The facts are there, are you interested in the TRUTH?


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 18, 2014)

Penelope said:


> Are probably laughing. The neocons and Zionist  in our gov and Israel. Congrats. Job well done, one we know the ignorant Muslims would never have access or means available to do.




Is Penelope claiming that muslims do not know how to hijack airplanes?

My all time fave logic islamo Nazi pigs employ is    
"we could not have done that----we are all too stupid"  
On alternate days-----islamo Nazi pigs INVARIABLY DECLARE---
            OURS IS THE BESTEST CULTURE IN ALL OF HUMAN 
               HISTORY  (from adolf to Osama)


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 18, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Are probably laughing. The neocons and Zionist  in our gov and Israel. Congrats. Job well done, one we know the ignorant Muslims would never have access or means available to do.
> ...



If I may stick my oar in...... It really doesn't matter if Al CIAda  had the ability to hijack an airliner, the REAL question here is WHY are events that most certainly constitute violations of the laws of physics, being sold to the AMERICAN public as things that happened because some radical SOBz hijacked airliners.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 18, 2014)

none of  it  VIOLATES THE LAWS OF  PHYSICS-----ask  Sir Isaac Newton----
    stuff falls down-----gravity


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 18, 2014)

Have you actually examined the crash of the alleged "FLT77" & "FLT175"
How is it that these aircraft did was was alleged by the mainstream media?


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 18, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Religion doesn't depend on physical evidence & facts/logic.
> the facts support a very different story than the 19 radical hijackers using airliners as weapons.  Also, WHY is 9/11/2001 the most poorly documented disaster in history?
> where are the documentary pix of the airliner crash sites, I'm not talking about a few random snap-shots, I'm talking documentary photographs .... & how many here understand the difference?
> 
> ...




  " No matter what'        I do not need the  "official story"----I 
    I witnessed  it.         One plane----then   well maybe about 15
    minutes later (I did not time it and do not know the "official timing)---
    then the  second plane.      BIG EXPLOSION----I saw that explosion---
    way  up-----at the top part of the building---then the fire--the smoke---
    AT THE TOP-------the lower part remained stable------unlike a controlled
    demolition-----no billows of smoke until the collapse------the energy of the
     fall------ask   Sir Isaac Newton--------just like the apple on his head


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 18, 2014)

First of all, there are controlled demolitions that start out near the top of very tall buildings.
and also, in the case of WTC1, & 2  WHY should all of the mass, stay centered on the building rather than loose mass over the side of the tower?  The "fall" was said to have taken the path of most resistance, this doesn't make any sense at all.  Think about it.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 18, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> First of all, there are controlled demolitions that start out near the top of very tall buildings...



You know you "forgot" to post something which supports that claim but I won't hold my breath.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 18, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, there are controlled demolitions that start out near the top of very tall buildings...
> ...



You guyz never post links for me, so why should I ...... The fact is that you can look up Controlled Demolition on the web and find a multitude of references that cite tall building demolitions starting near the top.  also, my other point in my previous post was about all that mass staying centered over the as yet undamaged part of the tower(s) and not sliding off, heavy magic? what?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 18, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



And you know what part of whatever building you are referring to was undamaged at any point on 9/11 or are you assuming you actually know something ... again?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 18, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



Dozens of links have been posted as part of a thorough demolition of your absurd CTs. At this point all you have left is to squirm when asked to support your absurdities and lie about all that has been provided in support of your personal demolition.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 19, 2014)

Have a link to a discussion of how much heat could be expected from the jet fuel.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 19, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Have a link to a discussion of how much heat could be expected from the jet fuel.


(SNICKER)..these guy gotta quit making unintendedly comic videos about 911.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 19, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



In demolitions-----the TOP  collapses because demoltions are accomplished thru
IMPLOSION------caused  by an explosion at the base.      gee       did you manage to graduate high school?.     The WTC towers did not implode-----they BURNED-----AND --
BURNED  AND BURNED AND  BURNED---
and the metal  frame buckled  and then the buildings collapsed-----down----straight down
---gravity-----the force that brought an apple
onto the head of  Sir Isaac Newton   (that creep who invented calculus)


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 19, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Have a link to a discussion of how much heat could be expected from the jet fuel.




did you manage to pass HIGH SCHOOL? 

when you do a barbecue------are you cooking
the meat from the energy contained in the match that you used to light the newspaper ---that ignited the  CHARCOAL?-----or is it
the ENERGY CONTAINED IN THE CHARCOAL---------ya jerk?


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 20, 2014)

"when you do a barbecue------are you cooking
the meat from the energy contained in the match that you used to light the newspaper ---that ignited the CHARCOAL?-----or is it
the ENERGY CONTAINED IN THE CHARCOAL---------ya jerk?"

Therefore the WTC was filled with CHARCOAL and melted as does the barbecue that you cook on..... or?

Really.......(?)


----------



## 9/11ICONN (Sep 21, 2014)

Hello everyone! I am doing a class project. I am very interested in 9/11 and what did really happen? I know we may never find the "real" answer but I am interested in what everyone thinks/believes. I'm still unsure in what to believe or think..please everyone reply!


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 21, 2014)

9/11ICONN said:


> Hello everyone! I am doing a class project. I am very interested in 9/11 and what did really happen? I know we may never find the "real" answer but I am interested in what everyone thinks/believes. I'm still unsure in what to believe or think..please everyone reply!



OK, Class project, I don't know if its for High School, or College, & really it shouldn't be an issue one way or another.
First of all, I most strongly recommend looking at any of the videos that show the south wall of the south tower being struck by what is allegedly "FLT175"  however, look at the "newsreel" and make up your own mind.
also check out the video of WTC7 "collapsing" and again I simply urge you to use what you learned in Science 101 to come to a conclusion about what really happened.

There will be people who post to this forum who will tell you, like its an absolute, that 19 suicidal Arabs hijacked airliners and crashed said airliners .... and that is that, don't question the official explanation.  OH well, my take on things is QUESTION EVERYTHING! ask questions, DEMAND ANSWERS,  I'm the cat who asked a congressman "WHY did the worlds greatest military power fail to defend even its own HQ?" and all he could say is "I have no idea..... "
WE THE PEOPLE have been lied to and ripped off big time!
if the next generation actually works out the logic and gets it. then its up to the next generation to work for change and that includes demanding the prosecution of the real perpetrators.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "when you do a barbecue------are you cooking
> the meat from the energy contained in the match that you used to light the newspaper ---that ignited the CHARCOAL?-----or is it
> the ENERGY CONTAINED IN THE CHARCOAL---------ya jerk?"
> 
> ...



go back to your high school chemistry textbook and look up     "endothermic"   and
"exothermic"  -----did you pass high school geometry?      Way back when I was in college---I paid my tuition tutoring dull kids like you thru high school geometry.

also review the concept of  HIGH ENERGY BONDS  ----------even an understanding of
why   FATS  contain more "calories"  than do
sugars----would help a jerk like you.     
BTW----PLASTICs are organic materials and
consist of molecules -----POLYMERS----huge molecules with very high energy bonds.    Once their  FLASHPOINTS  are attained and
they BURN-----the energy output  (HEAT)  is
HUGE--------got that jerk?   

              sheeeeeesh------I was a simple biology major and even I know this basic
stuff-------don't ask me about the calculus----
its been MANY DECADES------and I don't
believe anything ever gets to infinity no less
"approaches"  it


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 21, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > "when you do a barbecue------are you cooking
> ...



"got that jerk?"  Nothing like a bit of attitude,  and really it doesn't matter if I was the character thrown out of Chemistry for being a FREE RADICAL ( can U dig Mario Savio ....or? ) what is important here is the fact of the "total collapse" of WTC 1 & 2 is a factor, why "total collapse" and why so uniform in the destruction on the way down? the alleged airliner crash would have created asymmetrical damage so the tower may well have tipped toward the damaged part. but instead, the tower "collapsed" straight down.  that is through the path of most resistance. whats up with that?

what you allege is that there was sufficient plastic materials in the WTC tower(s) and indeed said materials could be raised to such a temperature such that they would ignite and supply fuel to the fire ( if that is even possible ) Check out UL listings for flammability of standard office furnishings. EVERYTHING is included in the "office furnishings" that is the carpet, cubicle walls, etc..... all of the stuff that normally inhabits office space.... ( space .... the final frontier .... )

The fire was only the first stage of what is alleged to have happened, then we get to the really interesting part that is the "COLLAPSE"  why did the taxpayer funded report on the subject state "total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation"  REALLY?
to do what was accomplished that day, it takes not only available energy, but FOCUS of said energy, otherwise its not going to happen.


----------



## 9/11ICONN (Sep 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> 9/11ICONN said:
> 
> 
> > Hello everyone! I am doing a class project. I am very interested in 9/11 and what did really happen? I know we may never find the "real" answer but I am interested in what everyone thinks/believes. I'm still unsure in what to believe or think..please everyone reply!
> ...


Yeah it doesn't seem to link that our defenses could not stop them! And the fact they said airplanes could not make the buildings collapse like that opens a lot of questions...


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



Not hard to understand---the towers were not thrown down by the impact of the planes----
(it is possible that the terrorists has HOPED
that would be the outcome---but it was not)
The planes went thru what was ---compared to the mass and velocity of the planes----a
PENETRABLE STRUCTURE---they just put
big HOLES  in the PENETRABLE MASS which were the towers-----but also----started
FIRES    (google words like combustion,
flash point,  exothermic, ----LEVELS OF HEAT RELEASED WHEN PLASTICS BURN---etc.    It was not the burning fuel that
destroyed the buildings-----it was the burning
high energy polymers  (plastics)  that did it
in-----the intense heat created  (another word
for you  "metal fatigue"").    The metal frame of the buildings   (the towers depended on metal framing )  became so over hot that they buckled----and when  DOWN    (gravity)----the  weight of the buildings could not be sustained by the weakened metal framing,''

down----like the apple that fell on sir Isaac newton's head------because the stem of the
apple could no longer sustain its attachement to the tree against the force of  GRAVITY


----------



## 9/11ICONN (Sep 21, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


I'm almost sure the planes could not have done all of the collapsing. No way a plane could do that. And isn't that scary if those buildings can't take the plane crashing..


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 21, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



To achieve what was observed on 9/11/2001 that is the "collapse" of WTC 1 & 2
every bolt & weld in the building would have to break right on time as if on a schedule,
because if they didn't  the building "collapse" event would not have resulted in the total destruction of the towers.


----------



## Andylusion (Sep 21, 2014)

Penelope said:


> Are probably laughing. The neocons and Zionist  in our gov and Israel. Congrats. Job well done, one we know the ignorant Muslims would never have access or means available to do.



How is it that every moron with a conspiracy theory, always ends up blaming Jews?   Is there some default to "Jews did it" for conspiracy theories that don't have a specific cause?

"Something happened, and we believe someone other than the official explanation did it"

Ok.....  and who do you think?

"Well we don't know.... so... therefore....   JEWS DID IT! ZIONISM!!! GAH ISRAEL!!!"

Ok...... you are a nut job, got it.


----------



## Andylusion (Sep 21, 2014)

9/11ICONN said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



Yeah, there's something wrong when the companies intentionally design, and openly say they were designing the building to take multiple full collision by the largest planes in existence...  and amazingly both buildings, get knocked down by a single plane each, which were smaller than the planes the designers had in mind.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 21, 2014)

Let me guess-----you had trouble with high school chemistry and geometry too. -------

  uhm   I am addressing      9-11 jerk


----------



## 9/11ICONN (Sep 21, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> Let me guess-----you had trouble with high school chemistry and geometry too. -------
> 
> uhm   I am addressing      9-11 jerk


Are you talking about me?! What do they have to do with anything?! And if there is this much question about what really happened...what the world/news any media has told us it's the truth! Because if it was the truth there wouldn't be any questioning...and what do you believe. Irosie91


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 21, 2014)

Androw said:


> 9/11ICONN said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 21, 2014)

9/11ICONN said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Let me guess-----you had trouble with high school chemistry and geometry too. -------
> ...



OK----that which was reported must be false---because lots of jerks dispute it.       sure. 

uhm......   It is clear to me that you are not a
JESUIT.      

I believe what I saw-----the planes hit----the buildiings were struck way up high---near the top.     Smoke billowed up to the heavens for
a LONG LONG TIME   (I did not time it-----
I simply watched----maybe an hour)    Where there is SMOKE there is FIRE-----what is there to burn in those buildings------LOTS OF 
PLASTICS----now be a good boy and learn
just what a  plastic is-----then you will understand why the fires became SO HOT---
that they were self sustaining on very HIGH ENERGY polymers   (feel free to ask questions)


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 21, 2014)

9/11ICONN said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Let me guess-----you had trouble with high school chemistry and geometry too. -------
> ...




I have observed that people who cannot do high school geometry-----have trouble with all sorts of simple stuff in "science" and seem to
just REJECT  simple facts of the physical world.    My guess is that you probably avoided  the study of  Physics 101  altogether.       In my university there were
special classes for people who reject science---- but have to fulfull "requirements"--
    PHYSICS FOR POETS

Food science is a very interesting field----some people who see themselves a CHEFS----cannot do the "ORGANIC CHEMISTRY"----
so they have special  "organic chemistry for poets".       I bet ALTON BROWN  did the
real organic chemistry-----he would understand why the world trade center BURNED SO HOT--------but I am not so sure that  "betty crocker"   would


----------



## Pennywise (Sep 21, 2014)

Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is beyond disturbing and makes no sense unless you take into account the context of our business with them and how that relates to the entire region.

We buy terrorists oil to prevent Saudi Arabia and the rest from a full scale war with Israel. We fund the Israeli army and fully support the Zionist cause because *americans whose first allegiance is to Israel control American foreign policy, and have since the end of WW2, with an ever increasing choke-hold on the leaders of both major parties, regardless of who sits in the White House.

We have all the natural resources we need to fully sustain our economy with energy. We are not in the business of Saudi oil because it's cheap, it's cheap enough to keep American people at bay, but no bargain. We are suckers, the lot of us. Some of us woke up to this, while the rest still believe the news that comes from the idiot box, no matter what the channel.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 21, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> 9/11ICONN said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



Its grossly poor debating style to keep addressing an opponent as "jerk"  or "boy"
Please do feel free to look up specifications for UL listed office furnishings ALL of the stuff that normally inhabits office space has some sort of fire rating and has been tested to know what its properties are.  The idea that there would be mass quantities of materials that obviously failed fire code specification and yet some how managed to get included in the stuff inside the tower, and in the case of the north tower, ALL of the fuel that contributed to the destruction of the tower would have had to have been in the upper 17 stories exclusively.  

You seem to allege that you know so much about the sort of heat possible from burning plastic, yet know not about UL fire rated office furnishings (?) ...... what?


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 21, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is beyond disturbing and makes no sense unless you take into account the context of our business with them and how that relates to the entire region.
> 
> We buy terrorists oil to prevent Saudi Arabia and the rest from a full scale war with Israel. We fund the Israeli army and fully support the Zionist cause because *americans whose first allegiance is to Israel control American foreign policy, and have since the end of WW2, with an ever increasing choke-hold on the leaders of both major parties, regardless of who sits in the White House.
> 
> We have all the natural resources we need to fully sustain our economy with energy. We are not in the business of Saudi oil because it's cheap, it's cheap enough to keep American people at bay, but no bargain. We are suckers, the lot of us. Some of us woke up to this, while the rest still believe the news that comes from the idiot box, no matter what the channel.



you are clueless.     Of course we buy oil from
Saudi Arabia-----them is the persons who got it.      The fact that we buy oil from Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with Israel.    If you want to believe that JOOOOOOOOOOOS 
      *********CONTROL***********
fine with me.     Persons with such delusions
are always FRIGHTENED.    Do you also believe that black males incessantly seek to rape white girls?     Were you a timid child?


----------



## 9/11ICONN (Sep 21, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> 9/11ICONN said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


Ok...so you are saying it's possible for the planes to do that? The plane seemed very small to do that much impact..not at all saying I'm right just seems a little odd.


----------



## Pennywise (Sep 21, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> > Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is beyond disturbing and makes no sense unless you take into account the context of our business with them and how that relates to the entire region.
> ...


The only thing that frightens me about this is that our sovereign nation has been bought and paid for by the usual suspects.

Use what little grey matter resides in that thing you call a skull. If not for Israel, there is no reason for us to be in the M.E. We have plenty of energy to tap on our own land.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11ICONN said:
> ...



at what point did I state that the plastics "FAILED"  to attain  UL standards?    

I will help you--------anything that CAN burn---
will burn if it is subjected to a SUFFICIENT
"""FLASH POINT""""    temperature.   
UHM-----UL  is for electronic devices and fire safety devices----as a test for JUST HOW FLAMMABLE they are--------under ordinary
use and in the case of fire prevention stuff----
how well they  prevent or retard the spread
of fire.       That's all---the stuff has to pass
the PARAMETERS of the tests.    The tests do not prove that NOTHING CAN EVER HAPPEN ---that NO HEAT CAN BURN 
THE ITEM UP --------everything of an organic
nature CAN SUSTAIN COMBUSTION ---if sufficiently heated<<<< that's what happened-----the stuff was not tested for large plane crash,  jet fuel fires------certainly the plastic furniture was not----the doors were-----the tons of simply wood pulp paper was not       SHEEEEESH----learn something
about  COMBUSTION   ---think organic ----
carbon/hydrogen bonds


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 21, 2014)

9/11ICONN said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11ICONN said:
> ...




DO ALL WHAT?     ---fire did it      The
IMPACT  of the planes did not bring the
towers down-----however I do believe that
it is possible that the terrorists thought it
might ---<<  I do not know if they were also
"chemistry compromised"

do you know what a tiny little nuclear bomb
can do?

do you know what a single bullet to the brain
can do?   ----I saw a case of a  22 ---deep in
they substance of the brain-----on C-T scan the brain looked fine----just a tiny metal object right in the center----the kid was young and
healthy looking  ---about 25 years old----tiny
metal pellet in the center of his brain-----he was   "brain dead"      (by Harvard criteria)----
His parents could not believe that tiny little
metal object could cause so much damage----do you know what caused the damage?---
not the penetration-----THE HEAT!!!!!


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 21, 2014)

"certainly the plastic furniture was not"

To address this bit, are you alleging that there was some outrageous quantity of plastic furniture in the WTC and that said furniture had added fuel to the fire because it was not UL fire-rated?  or an even more far-fetched allegation being that said furniture was fire-rated but that the jet fuel fire burned so hot as to cause fire-rated materials to burst into flame and add significant fuel to the fire. 

May I address an additional point here in that in the case of the North Tower, the first 4 seconds of the "collapse" event the roof line remained very nearly level and the antenna on top was still within 15 deg of vertical, this is a VERY good trick given the asymmetrical damaged by the alleged aircraft crash.  never mind the serious heat that would have to be applied, but there is also the factor of focus, if the energy involved was not focused, then why should we have seen the result as documented on video?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 21, 2014)

Penelope said:


> Are probably laughing. The neocons and Zionist  in our gov and Israel. Congrats. Job well done, one we know the ignorant Muslims would never have access or means available to do.


The hijackers are dead the master mind was captured the one who financed it is dead  and a few others involved are either dead or captured.
And Bin Ladin wasn't one of them.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 21, 2014)

9/11/2001 was most certainly a terrorist attack,
are we quite certain as to WHO the terrorists really are?
Think about it...........


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 21, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> 9/11ICONN said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


I work with steel all the time it's melting point is around 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit
JP 4 jet fuel  only get's to 1500 degrees tops


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 21, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11ICONN said:
> ...




for a person who works with steel---you are quite stupid.      I will tell you a steel story----
my hubby depends on a STEEL brace for his
completely paralyzed right lower extremity----the STEEL BRACE of fine swiss construction------depends on a  STEEL PIN---
----every once in awhile----the STEEL PIN----
breaks and hubby is on the floor.      who said that the steel MELTED?.     The steel --in its over heated state----with all the other stuff around it breaking and falling and banging around-----GAVE WAY----metal fatigue---


----------



## 9/11ICONN (Sep 21, 2014)

J


bigrebnc1775 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11ICONN said:
> ...


I did do a little more research and some do believe fire is the reason for the collapsing. But how did the south tower fall first when it wS the second to get hit..


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 21, 2014)

9/11ICONN said:


> J
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




your question is far too stupid to address ----its like asking----how did that forest fire get started FIRST----by the second cigarette flung at that second tree


----------



## 9/11ICONN (Sep 21, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> 9/11ICONN said:
> 
> 
> > J
> ...


Ok first off idk who the heck you are talking to like that but I'm just trying to get information on this for school not because this is my life! So be respectful to others. Thanks.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 21, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


oh so your husband works with steel but not you?
You've never had first hand experience cutting steel?
Steel burns a little over 1700 degrees
JP 4 hottest point is 1500 degrees
Let's talk about what was on hand at the time and not nuclear bombs.which had nothing to do with the attacks.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 21, 2014)

9/11ICONN said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11ICONN said:
> ...



OH    school-----it always helps me when trying to
COMMUNICATE    to know a "level of education"---is  "school"  highschool???------
are you over 12 years of age?


----------



## 9/11ICONN (Sep 21, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> 9/11ICONN said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


Barely. So another question why couldn't fema go through the debri why was it shipped over seas for recycling there. Why was controlled demolition in control?!


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 21, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



no---my husband WALKS on steel-----
   and it BREAKs  NOW WHILST SUPPORTING
   HIS   145 lb body weight.      The issue of the
   collapse of the world trade center towers had
   nothing to do with    BURNING STEEL


bigrebnc1775 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 21, 2014)

9/11ICONN said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11ICONN said:
> ...



you are doing double talk


----------



## 9/11ICONN (Sep 21, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> 9/11ICONN said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


How so? Just wanting people's opnions..and you seem to know all the answers. Who's a better person to ask or am I suppose to open a new conversation?


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 21, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



This metal fatigue story is fine as far as it goes, but exactly what is the time-line here what is the mean time between failure(s)?

My major beef with the "fire brought down the towers" story is the fact that the towers came straight down, that is every bolt & weld failed exactly on time as if it had a schedule because if it didn't fail right on time, the upper mass would have to tip and in so doing would shift its center of gravity and lead most certainly to dumping mass quantities of rubble over one side to the exclusion of the others and leading to the end of the "collapse" action.  The official report on the subject states "total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation"  however I disagree.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 21, 2014)

This metal fatigue story is fine as far as it goes, but exactly what is the time-line here what is the mean time between failure(s)?

My major beef with the "fire brought down the towers" story is the fact that the towers came straight down, that is every bolt & weld failed exactly on time as if it had a schedule because if it didn't fail right on time, the upper mass would have to tip and in so doing would shift its center of gravity and lead most certainly to dumping mass quantities of rubble over one side to the exclusion of the others and leading to the end of the "collapse" action.  The official report on the subject states "total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation"  however I disagree.[/QUOTE]


your  "too much symetry"    complaint does not impress me inview of the LONG period of time that the  BURNING up top lasted.    You keep harping on the housewife intuition concept that the fall happened because of the    IMPACT-----the fall CLEARLY did not happen because of the IMPACT----the building stood  "apparently firm"  for a very long time----whilst the fires spread thruout 
  I did not time    the situation but it was at
  least more than an hour-----I was busy----
  I was filling jars and pots with water

vitually nothing was  "FALLING off the buildings nor were they listing over to one
side       ONLY PEOPLE were falling off----not
various floors of the building----"rivets"  have nothing to do with the situation-----It is obvious that the frame was VERY strong and until the point when it just could not bear up
any longer  ------that is not how controlled
implosion works----controlled implosion shows SIGNS OF IMPLOSION


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 21, 2014)

The south tower had 59 min between the alleged airliner impact and the "collapse".
the jet fuel was said to have burned off in the first few min, therefore all that was possible to contribute to the towering inferno was office contents and given that the designers of the structure wanted to insure that the elevator shafts & central core could not function as a chimney, the fires inside the building were oxygen starved and the dark smoke confirms that fact.  oxygen starved fires will be cooler than fires that have plenty of oxygen.
The major problem here is the fact that the alleged airliner crash damage was asymmetrical in nature and the "collapse" was straight down, how is that accounted for?
Note that in the case of the North Tower, the first 4 seconds of the "collapse" event look very neat and tidy with the antenna on top of the building deflecting less than 15 deg.

"the fall happened because of the IMPACT"  When ever did I say that I believed the alleged airliner impact was a contributing factor, the statement that I have made on this subject is if indeed there was an airliner crashed into the WTC, then the damage by the very nature of the event would have to be asymmetrical and that should then lead to an asymmetrical "collapse"  event ...... logical .... no?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> How many people, KNOW deep in their hearts that something is very wrong here, but simply go along to get along, because the consequences of not going along are very serious.


Classic tinfoil hatism – there's a conspiracy to keep the conspiracy a conspiracy so no one knows there's a conspiracy.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 21, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > How many people, KNOW deep in their hearts that something is very wrong here, but simply go along to get along, because the consequences of not going along are very serious.
> ...



Very serious evidence for "conspiracy"
Note the video of the alleged "FLT175" aircraft shows an image of an aircraft that covers its own length in 11 frames of video while in air, and also again 11 frames of video to disappear inside the tower, exactly how is that done without suspending the laws of physics?  Note also that WTC7 is seen descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec and the roof-line stays level while its descending - - - Can U say CONTROLLED DEMOLITION?
There is very serious evidence for what I'm saying here.
the psychological warfare that the mainstream media is pushing 
prevents so many people from even examining the evidence.
sad really.......


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 21, 2014)

Skylar said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


Correct.


Those who don't buy into the conspiracy are part of the conspiracy to keep the conspiracy a conspiracy so no one knows there's a conspiracy.


----------



## 9/11ICONN (Sep 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


Well the fact that only controlled demolition was the only ones allowed for clean up says a lot and that they shipped the debri over seas for recycling...why? And wouldn't let fema in...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 21, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


Your husband walks on steel and it breaks?
That is total bull shit.
In order for steel to melt there must be an increase of temperature for that to happen JP 4 doesn't cause the temperature to rise high or hot enough to melt steel
If that was the case a jet engine would engulf in flames  because the casing of the engine is  made of alumina 
You are full of shit.
You do realize inside a building the metal is cover in fire proofing?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 21, 2014)

9/11ICONN said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11ICONN said:
> ...



All of the "debri" was not shipped "over seas," why would FEMA go through it and what "controlled demolition" are you referring to?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 21, 2014)

9/11ICONN said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Let me guess-----you had trouble with high school chemistry and geometry too. -------
> ...



In fact, the truth is often questioned and often by those with an agenda which does not include the truth.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 21, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11ICONN said:
> ...



So who here is claiming steel melted at the WTC on 9/11/2001?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 21, 2014)

9/11ICONN said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11ICONN said:
> ...



Uh-huh. So you wander onto a 9/11 conspiracy theory thread looking for knowledge? Methinks you are full of something.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 21, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Pennywise said:
> ...



You know, I'd like to believe you aren't as dim as that tidbit makes you seem but the only alternative is to believe you're a dime-a-dozen Jew-hatin' jackass in which case you are just as dim as your post makes you seem.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 21, 2014)

9/11ICONN said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11ICONN said:
> ...



Is it possible for planes to do what?


----------



## 9/11ICONN (Sep 21, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> 9/11ICONN said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


----------



## 9/11ICONN (Sep 21, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> 9/11ICONN said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


Most of the steel was taken away right away..and I'm sure there could have been research done to see exactly how the buildings feel since there is a lot of question about that. And whoever was in controlll of this. The government..who ever I am unsure at this point who I think...I just don't think what the "truth" is the truth there is more to it​


----------



## 9/11ICONN (Sep 21, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> 9/11ICONN said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


To take down the building to cause them to collapse...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 21, 2014)

'Its grossly poor debating style to keep addressing an opponent as "jerk" or "boy"'


That would be true if this were a 'debate.'


It's not.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



And what YOU allege is that no planes were hijacked on 9/11/2001. Try to focus: no evidence of explosives or accelerants (other than thousands of gallons of jet fuel) were found, none of a controlled demolition, and fully 13 years later not a whisper from any of the millions of co-conspirators necessary to perpetrate any of your foiled-hatted theories.
Case closed.


----------



## whitehall (Sep 21, 2014)

Investigators dug up iron clad evidence about the jihad terrorists. Is there something else? Should we be looking at a Clinton conspiracy?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 21, 2014)

Androw said:


> 9/11ICONN said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



Half truths and outright lies. Neither building was designed to withstand a few hundred mph direct hit by planes freshly loaded with thousands of gallons of jet fuel and the planes that hit WTC 1 & 2 were considerably larger than those in operation when the buildings were designed in the 1960s.
I often find amusing the lies told by those determined to pass off their pseudo-science as facts.
Nutty 9-11 Physics


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 21, 2014)

9/11ICONN said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11ICONN said:
> ...



The planes that slammed into WTC 1 & 2 on 9/11/2001 did not bring down any buildings and no knowledgeable person would make so silly a claim.
You say you are logged in to an obscure conspiracy theory forum to get an education on what happened that day. That's ridiculous. I call fraud.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 21, 2014)

9/11ICONN said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11ICONN said:
> ...



It took months to untangle and remove all the "debri" and the gov't and the non-gov't agencies charged with investigating sifted through it for months. If you were truly here to learn something you would not be posting thoroughly discredited 9/11 CTBS. I say you are a fraud hiding behind your "research" ploy. Come on out of the closet and state your true agenda.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 21, 2014)

how to win friends ( etc..... ) call out others as frauds and hurl insults........ 

Thank U ever so much


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> how to win friends ( etc..... ) call out others as frauds and hurl insults........
> 
> Thank U ever so much



Enjoy some music with that whine, Princess:


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 21, 2014)

Just to address this "Nutty 9-11 Physics" 
Please do note that this page mentions WTC7 but never properly addresses the issue.
The fact is that the 47 story building was seen descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec
and at the time the roof-line remained horizontal and the building kept its shape, and this was allegedly the product of asymmetrical damage & fire..... 
Also the fact of total destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7 is significant in that anything totally destroyed is clearly an indication of planning on somebodies part in order to make it happen as it did, accidents most often result in damage, but not destruction, to have 3 steel framed skyscrapers completely destroyed that day is a bit much statistically speaking.
Also Please do examine the video of the alleged "FLT175" striking the south wall of the south tower ( any one of them that actually shows the south wall, not obscured by the north tower ) ..... can you honestly say that this looks exactly as you would expect an airliner crash to look?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Just to address this "Nutty 9-11 Physics"
> Please do note that this page mentions WTC7 but never properly addresses the issue.
> The fact is that the 47 story building was seen descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec
> and at the time the roof-line remained horizontal and the building kept its shape, and this was allegedly the product of asymmetrical damage & fire.....
> ...



OK so we have the opinion of one of America's preeminent professors of Natural and Applied Sciences (physics) who says the 9/11 CT Movement is a mishmash of "pseudoscience" which, when confronted with real science crumbles faster than the WTC 2, and then we have you who claims "no planes were hijacked on 9/11/2001." Let's see ... who to believe? Woo, this is a real tuffy.


----------



## 9/11ICONN (Sep 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


You don't think the hijackers were controlled?


----------



## 9/11ICONN (Sep 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> 9/11ICONN said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


My agenda? Just to see what others think..I'm aware we will probably never find the answer we want..but I do strongly believe there is more to this then what we think..


----------



## 9/11ICONN (Sep 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> 9/11ICONN said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


So you don't think I am doing this for school? And yeah I don't think the planes caused the buildings to fall...that's my point..why are people so rude?


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 22, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Just to address this "Nutty 9-11 Physics"
> Please do note that this page mentions WTC7 but never properly addresses the issue.
> The fact is that the 47 story building was seen descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec
> and at the time the roof-line remained horizontal and the building kept its shape, and this was allegedly the product of asymmetrical damage & fire.....
> ...



your idiot rant is meaningless ----it depends on  MEANINGLESS conjecture

"asymmetric fires"      that's a good one.   How does an intense fire going on for
an hour remain "ASYMETRICAL"?     I light candles with my right hand----approaching from the right side of the wick----somehow the candles BURN symmetrically----from the top down-----they do not lean to the right or left.      ---just top to bottom-----like the fires of
the world trade center-----FROM THE TOP---
down.      Gee---it was not even windy that day----why would the fire be  "asymmetrical"? ---It is true that I have seen asymmetry in fires-------as a result of barriers or wind.   The whole towers were made of the same stuff

"does the crash look like you would EXPECT a crash to look"?   <<<another example of
brilliance.  ------I did see the second plane hit---but had no PRIOR  experience with such
events-----In fact I do not recall such an event
in history


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 22, 2014)

9/11ICONN said:


> [
> 
> It took months to untangle and remove all the "debri" and the gov't and the non-gov't agencies charged with investigating sifted through it for months. If you were truly here to learn something you would not be posting thoroughly discredited 9/11 CTBS. I say you are a fraud hiding behind your "research" ploy. Come on out of the closet and state your true agenda.




My agenda? Just to see what others think..I'm aware we will probably never find the answer we want..but I do strongly believe there is more to this then what we think..[/QUOTE]


right   "con  n"       "we"  will never find the
answers  YOU WANT.  -----keep up the good work------Goebbels would be proud of you


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 22, 2014)

9/11ICONN said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



what does "the hijackers were controlled"  mean.     To answer your question re burning plastic-----YES!!!!     the world trade center towers were CHOCK FULL of plastic and they burned producing INTENSE heat-----
and sustained more and more combustion of
polymers with high energy bonding ----VERY EXOTHERMIC  

try melting plastic over a burner on your stove and then sticking your finger in the melted plastic    ****DON'T DO IT!!!!!     damned hot----in fact the plastic will -----eventually ignite.

why?   because cooking gas burned HOTTER than jet fuel?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

9/11ICONN said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



You feel the need to reopen a case I just closed?
OK ... how's this: your fellow con theorist says "no planes were hijacked on 9/11/2001," therefore under his particular CT there were no hijackers to control.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

9/11ICONN said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11ICONN said:
> ...



Because you could have read this or any of a half dozen threads on the subject here and learned what people think and why. You wanted to spread your particular CT gospel but you wanted kid-glove treatment. As for your "doing this for school" business? Even if it was a psyche lesson - which obviously it is not - you'd do better just to read and then engage posters on their motivations. No, I believe you are a fraud. You will find at least as much BS on a message board as you will facts and as already noted you clearly aren't here to learn but rather to spread.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> 9/11ICONN said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...




My take on  con (n)   is ----he can't be a high
school student-----because those kids get
GENERAL SCIENCE       which he seems to have either forgotten----or never bothered to
learn-----but even if he did not learn it well----
if he were a high school student ---the basics
would still be fresh in his mind.     If he is a college boy-----he should try to find a nice
occupational training program


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

9/11ICONN said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11ICONN said:
> ...



You mean we will never find the answers YOU want and perhaps that is because you aren't after the truth but rather validation for your own preferred conclusions.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> 9/11ICONN said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



sayit-----so it seems-----I wonder if  "con(n)  would be willing to SHARE  his actual theories-------rather than just dimissing 
  "the official account" 

CONN--over to you.        I should add that 
by the day after the event----since I lived and worked at that time in a part of the world-----
chock full of muslims----I heard the  MUSLIM 
ACCOUNT.       They had the whole thing tied
up with a pink bow long before the smoke cleared


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11ICONN said:
> ...



It's of no significance. The whole babe-in-the-woods routine is clearly a cover for "we will probably never find the answer we want" (read: the answer HE/SHE wants).


----------



## Pennywise (Sep 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



Why are we involved in the Middle East, professor?

Talk about dim.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 22, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Pennywise said:
> ...




WE  live on the planet earth------your fellows were asking the same question about your
hero   "adolf"   in  1938-----and had the SAME answer you and your fellows profer.     I read your literature as a child----circa 1960----in old tattered pamphlets that littered my erstwhile Nazi town.    If your question revolves around the OIL issue-----you are right---rich Texan oil men do like to buy from
Saudi Arabia.          OIL is big business and businessmen like to get the best deals they can.      Soy beans are very easy to grow----
they grow in the USA   ton after ton----we ship them to CHINA---just to get the processed and packed up-----because it is the cheaper way to go.     Soybean growing
is NOT  a Zionist business------my grandfather  was a tailor and my dad a
watchmaker   (but that was before the cheap
china stuff flooded the market)


----------



## Pennywise (Sep 22, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



You people have Nazi Tourette's. What answer is it you have deluded yourself into foisting upon me? My answer is simple- get the US out of the M.E. and stop funding Israel. Surely the great and magical Zionist Regime can take care of themselves at this point.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 22, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Pennywise said:
> ...




what is  "Nazi tourettes"??      I will help you---GIES DE LA TOURETTE---was a student of the famed   CHARCOT ------he described a  SYNDROME----which involves tick like
verbalizations    ------as a syndrome it is considered within the CONSTELLATION of 
MOVEMENT disorders because like other
movement disorders it involves dysfunction of the BASAL GANGLIA     (of which even the substantia nigra----is functionally a part)   ----
now do you understand?       You should avoid using words that you do not understand---it makes you appear to be very stupid.      Islamo-nazisms generally consist of words that islamo Nazis cannot define


----------



## Pennywise (Sep 22, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



Again, the Nazi Tourette's. Try discussing the subject without the juvenile Hitler references, if you are capable. If you aren't, STFU and stop making an ass of yourself.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 22, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Pennywise said:
> ...



Again----you said expressed nothing of your own----just the STEREOTYPICAL islamo Nazi shit         Every profession and avocation has a LINGO------I know the islamo Nazi lingo because I read your stuff way back----starting before 1960---when I was just a little kid.    -----at that time  ----your fellows had not yet come up with the use of the term 
"Tourette's" ----because the term "tourettes"  was not yet a gutter word----Tourette's dates way back to about the time of the turn of the  19th --20th century----but once it hit the gutters----you and your fellows picked it up.
Some tihngs never change


----------



## Pennywise (Sep 22, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



You have serious issues. No joke. Seek professional help.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Pennywise said:
> ...



See if this registers on your radar, Princess: OIL.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 22, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Pennywise said:
> ...



what serious issues?     Your find my erudition in  the history of psychiatry and neurology an  "Issue"???      The history of the development of psychiatry and neurology in the 19th and 20th centuries is very interesting


----------



## Pennywise (Sep 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



We don't need the oil. The oil is a ruse to keep us saving the Zionist's asses from full scale war with the arabs.


----------



## Penelope (Sep 22, 2014)

Name calling is just another tactic they use to try and shut you up I'm finding. This is really my first exp. with it , on this message board  (I've only been on a Christian forum before this)  and I find it quite puzzling, when someone disagrees with ones opinion they resort to the childish game of name calling and dirty language.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 22, 2014)

[QUOTE="Pennywise, post: 9841515, member:

We don't need the oil. The oil is a ruse to keep us saving the Zionist's asses from full scale war with the arabs.[/QUOTE]

    WOW  pennyjerk-----you finally came up with an islamo Nazism that I have never before encountered.      It beats the famous 
   ZIP code conspiracy-----   for control of the
       WORLD----locate all persons for the
       massive Zionist thing-----
      Z ionists  I n  P ower  <<early 1960s


----------



## Pennywise (Sep 22, 2014)

Penelope said:


> Name calling is just another tactic they use to try and shut you up I'm finding. This is really my first exp. with it , on this message board  (I've only been on a Christian forum before this)  and I find it quite puzzling, when someone disagrees with ones opinion they resort to the childish game of name calling and dirty language.



They show their weakness when they do it. They say "Nazi" like others say "racist". It's an attempt to shut people up but it only works on people who give a fuck what others call them.


----------



## Pennywise (Sep 22, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> [QUOTE="Pennywise, post: 9841515, member:
> 
> We don't need the oil. The oil is a ruse to keep us saving the Zionist's asses from full scale war with the arabs.



    WOW  pennyjerk-----you finally came up with an islamo Nazism that I have never before encountered.      It beats the famous
   ZIP code conspiracy-----   for control of the
       WORLD----locate all persons for the
       massive Zionist thing-----
      Z ionists  I n  P ower  <<early 1960s[/QUOTE]


We don't need the oil, so there is no reason for us to be there, other than saving the weak Jews from slaughter by the arabs.


----------



## Penelope (Sep 22, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Name calling is just another tactic they use to try and shut you up I'm finding. This is really my first exp. with it , on this message board  (I've only been on a Christian forum before this)  and I find it quite puzzling, when someone disagrees with ones opinion they resort to the childish game of name calling and dirty language.
> ...



Right, I am not here to seek approval from others, just to discuss and debate.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 22, 2014)

to what "name calling"   and  "dirty words"  do you refer,    Penelope?         when I was a kid----
long ago-----in the 1950s----my mom would not
allow the word  "n*gger"  ------to me it was one of the most DIRTY words in existence.    She was so sensitive to it that she STOPPED  a playmate from   "eeenie meeeni mieneee mo---
catch a "n*gger by the toe"    My playmate was SO Christian that she took me to her sunday school classes ----and made a paper
cross for me in case I should encounter  "the
devil" -----nice kid-----just aculturated a bit unlike me       She used the   "N"  word very freely and with disdain.     (I was horrified--
but she also thought a bunny brought her jelly beans--so I coped)    One day I said the word
"HELL"-----she cried and ran to her mother to
report my  "dirty word"


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Pennywise said:
> ...



OK, remove your blinder and your ear muffs and listen up:
We operate in a GLOBAL economy. There is no way around it. We need our foreign trading partners and that global market just as they need us. Yeah, we get "only" 8% or so of our oil from Mideast sources but the rest of the world needs that oil not only to lubricate business but to keep an unimaginable catastrophe from befalling much of the world that would eventually land here as well. Unless you would have us return to the 18th Century you will have to face the fact that oil makes our world go 'round. Believe it or not, not everything is about Israel or the Zionists.


----------



## Pennywise (Sep 22, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> to what "name calling"   and  "dirty words"  do you refer,    Penelope?         when I was a kid----
> long ago-----in the 1950s----my mom would not
> allow the word  "n*gger"  ------to me it was one of the most DIRTY words in existence.    She was so sensitive to it that she STOPPED  a playmate from   "eeenie meeeni mieneee mo---
> catch a "n*gger by the toe"    My playmate was SO Christian that she took me to her sunday school classes ----and made a paper
> ...



Of course the little christian girl was a racist. Jews are too wonderful to use words like n*gger, right?

Psychiatry is your friend, Ms Looney Tunes.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

Penelope said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



Camel crap. Your aversion to facts and insistence that all world events are somehow connected to some "Global Jewish Conspiracy" exposes what you are and why you are here. You fool absolutely no one.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 22, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Name calling is just another tactic they use to try and shut you up I'm finding. This is really my first exp. with it , on this message board  (I've only been on a Christian forum before this)  and I find it quite puzzling, when someone disagrees with ones opinion they resort to the childish game of name calling and dirty language.
> ...



wrong again     "NAZI"   is the term I use because I read your literature as a child ----
and as I grew up and encountered MORE of you-----I began to understand that you are
ALL ADHERENTS of the same ideology   

On examination of the history of  "NAZISM"---
it all comes together since the stuff you
"KNOW"   was authored by Nazi war criminals who found refuge in Syria and Egypt and who continued to write.     Their
stuff was both published in the USA---
and became part of the school curriculum in
Muslim countries----<<<all the SAME STUFF.

from the 1930s  thru the latter half of the 20th
century--------the same people writing the same stuff-----one of them was ARIBERT HEIM          I read it as a child and HEARD it
from the mouths of young medical school graduates from PAKISTAN----newcomers to the USA ----circa 1970----and have been hearing it and reading it since.     Same stuff---with minor updates in order to make it seem
timely


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Pennywise said:
> ...




"Global jewish conspiracy"  is so much a part of the islamo Nazi ideology that it shows up in
MOSQUES       and on the lips of muslim children -----in 3rd world countries


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

Penelope said:


> Name calling is just another tactic they use to try and shut you up I'm finding.



Except no one here is trying to shut you up. If you are feeling embarrassment it's because you are one.


----------



## Pennywise (Sep 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Pennywise said:
> ...



There is no global conspiracy, there is reality, to wit- Israel only exists for Jews, Israel only survives because of the US, the US buys arab oil to keep relative peace to protect the Jewish State.

You don't need some great secret star chamber to make that happen. All you need is endless "holocaust" recollections to support the Zionist cause for Israel to be, and for the US to back Israel no if's, and's or but's. It's not magic.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Name calling is just another tactic they use to try and shut you up I'm finding. This is really my first exp. with it , on this message board  (I've only been on a Christian forum before this)  and I find it quite puzzling, when someone disagrees with ones opinion they resort to the childish game of name calling and dirty language.
> ...


 
Or perhaps you just aren't bright enough to reject your own bigotry.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



And in the posts of the Penelopes and Pennywises here.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...




sayit----it is obvious you never read the islamo Nazi propaganda----the whole UNIVERSE is controlled by a  ZIONIST 
CONSPIRACY.       When I was a child and
read their stuff in my little very Christian
semi urban semi suburban town-----I thought
it was a  kinda   naïve  ----backwoods moonshine soaked thing.    Then I encountered young educated muslims----from many different lands-------they get fed these ideas from infancy and believe them like four
year old Christian kids believe in the easter bunny


----------



## Pennywise (Sep 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



Once again, your attempts fall on deaf ears. A lot of people are waking up to the bullshit that has been sold as Gospel to Americans for 70 years. I once fully supported Israel myself.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Name calling is just another tactic they use to try and shut you up I'm finding.
> ...



good point       so far did anyone tell  Penelope to  "shut up"??


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 22, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Pennywise said:
> ...



ROFMAO----com'on-----you can think of something a bit more original that  THAT ONE!!!11


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



Uh-huh ... and your "reality" is that there is a "Global Jewish Conspiracy." Time for a reality check, Princess, and perhaps another visit to a mental health professional.


----------



## Pennywise (Sep 22, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



You say it every time you call us Nazi, but we don't care what you call us.


----------



## Pennywise (Sep 22, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Which part is funny?


----------



## Pennywise (Sep 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



There is no conspiracy. Are all Jews as stupid as you?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Or at least a bit more honest.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Pennywise said:
> ...




Yeah, OK. Beneath your Jew-hatin' veneer is a former Israel supporter. Got it!


----------



## Penelope (Sep 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



So I'm now a bigot as I don't align with your views. I see, another nice colorful name.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Pennywise said:
> ...



I'm well aware of that. Perhaps you could explain it to your comrade, Pennelope, rather than feed her paranoia. BTW, what makes you think I'm Jewish, Adolph?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

Penelope said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Pennywise said:
> ...



Jew-hater, Nazi, bigot ... all the same. You fool no one and your "Christian" pretention is downright laughable. Perhaps you meant Christian Identity?


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 22, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



what does  "NAZI"  mean to you?  ------it is actually ---simply an ideology-----which advocates intense NATIONALISM------
mixed --with  "socialism"     and includes
a concept that  ----jews are screwing everything up------ 

Baathism is intense ARAB NATIONALISM----
and includes the  "jews screw things"  idea---
---therefore it is   NAZISM  

there are several such movements historically---I would define  CONSTANTINE as a  NAZI------he was the first emperor of the holy roman empire  ----and was INTENSELY
nationalistic------in fact,   he invented what came to be known as the NUREMBURG LAWS-----he sowed the seeds of the BLOSSOMING OF GENOCIDE-----the inquisition was based on his system of
"law" ----was were the concentration camps---
and the many genocides inflicted by muslims---including the very recent----Armenian genocide,   Biafran genocide---and even the genocide in  east Pakistan---and sudan.      You find it wrong to refer to intensive nationalism associated with genocide   NAZISM  <<<  it is actually a fairly
accurate translation


----------



## Pennywise (Sep 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



So people who think the US should stay out of Israeli affairs are just "jew-haters"? Talk about a worn out simpleton's mantra.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 22, 2014)

"OK so we have the opinion of one of America's preeminent professors of Natural and Applied Sciences (physics) who says the 9/11 CT Movement is a mishmash of "pseudoscience" which, when confronted with real science crumbles faster than the WTC 2,"  

Will somebody please name this PREEMINENT professor?


----------



## Penelope (Sep 22, 2014)

Well I I'm in agreement with Pennywise on this issue , and I don't find him/her paranoid.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



It isn't me who claims our only interest in the Mideast is Israel. As already mentioned, you fool no one (except maybe Penelope).


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

Penelope said:


> Well I I'm in agreement with Pennywise on this issue , and I don't find him/her paranoid.


 
Of course you don't. You need allies no matter how dim-witted.


----------



## Pennywise (Sep 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



I can smell the gefilte fish from all the way over here.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 22, 2014)

[QUOTE="Pennywise,

Which part is funny?[/QUOTE]

the funny part is your parroting of a worn out hackneyed and meaningless claim -----akin to
the infamous----"some of my best friends...."


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "OK so we have the opinion of one of America's preeminent professors of Natural and Applied Sciences (physics) who says the 9/11 CT Movement is a mishmash of "pseudoscience" which, when confronted with real science crumbles faster than the WTC 2,"
> 
> Will somebody please name this PREEMINENT professor?


 
You're kidding, right? Steven Dutch was not only named but a link was provided. You really are blind, deaf and DUMB.


----------



## Penelope (Sep 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Well I I'm in agreement with Pennywise on this issue , and I don't find him/her paranoid.
> ...



Now I'm dim witted.


----------



## Pennywise (Sep 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



We have energy enough for a thousand years here in America. You are the one who isn't fooling anyone. American's die for Israel. That's sick shit.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Pennywise said:
> ...



Your sniffer seems to have a default position. Anyone who recognizes your bigotry must be a Joooo. Got it.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Pennywise said:
> ...



Once more for the Terminally Dense One:
Remove your blinder and your ear muffs and listen up:
We operate in a GLOBAL economy. There is no way around it. We need our foreign trading partners and that global market just as they need us. Yeah, we get "only" 8% or so of our oil from Mideast sources but the rest of the world needs that oil not only to lubricate business but to keep an unimaginable catastrophe from befalling much of the world that would eventually land here as well. Unless you would have us return to the 18th Century you will have to face the fact that oil makes our world go 'round. Believe it or not, not everything is about Israel or the Zionists.


----------



## Pennywise (Sep 22, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> [QUOTE="Pennywise,
> 
> Which part is funny?



the funny part is your parroting of a worn out hackneyed and meaningless claim -----akin to
the infamous----"some of my best friends...."[/QUOTE]

I was brought up in a Christian home, even though I am agnostic. My parents still send money to those "poor suffering jews" in eastern Europe that the scheister on TV sells.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 22, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



try again------the ZIONIST CAUSE and ISRAEL  existed long before your hero  adolf wrote  Mein Kampf   and,  to your delight---murdered more than a million jewish kids.

in fact----just the filth accomplished by the rapist pig in Arabia  recorded in the Koran would be enough justification.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

Penelope said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



True dat.


----------



## Pennywise (Sep 22, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


The Zionist cause does not exist if not for the largess of the US TAXPAYER.

Maybe you folks ought to grow up and move out of our basement.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > "OK so we have the opinion of one of America's preeminent professors of Natural and Applied Sciences (physics) who says the 9/11 CT Movement is a mishmash of "pseudoscience" which, when confronted with real science crumbles faster than the WTC 2,"
> ...



Really, I've never heard of this "preeminent" professor,
do tell, have you ever heard of Jonathan Cole, or David Chandler ?

The fact that the web-page cited is grossly incomplete in a number of its alleged explanations of what may have happened, if the laws of physics could have been suspended for a day.  The truly real smoking gun evidence is in the video of the alleged "FLT175" striking the south wall of the south tower and also the "collapse" of not only WTC7 but the towers also are indeed total smoking gun(s) here.
Not to mention the total fiasco that is the alleged PENTAGON hit...... really people?!?!?!


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 22, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > [QUOTE="Pennywise,
> ...



I was brought up in a Christian home, even though I am agnostic. My parents still send money to those "poor suffering jews" in eastern Europe that the scheister on TV sells.[/QUOTE]

what poor suffering jews in eastern Europe?    ----what  scheister------so you
still hold the resentments of your miserable
childhood


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 22, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



"alleged  FLT175"???     gee----I would not know----I cannot tell a chevy from a ford ----
I did see a plane hit the second tower ----it
WAS a plane---a large one

What law of physics was suspended?


----------



## Pennywise (Sep 22, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



what poor suffering jews in eastern Europe?    ----what  scheister------so you
still hold the resentments of your miserable
childhood[/QUOTE]

No resentments. There are commercials here with some weepy yarmulke wearing asshat soliciting money (shocking, huh?) for elderly Russian Jews for feed bags. It's a real tear-jerker, but I keep wondering why the ad is running here instead of in Israel.


----------



## MisterBeale (Sep 22, 2014)

Penelope said:


> Are probably laughing. The neocons and Zionist  in our gov and Israel. Congrats. Job well done, one we know the ignorant Muslims would never have access or means available to do.



That facts are, somebody is lying.  Is it the people that witnessed the event, or is it the government?


> To whom it concerns, i.e., everyone:
> In 2006 Citizen Investigation Team launched an independent investigation into the act of terrorism which took place at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.  This exhaustive three-year inquest involved multiple trips to the scene of the crime in Arlington, Virginia, close scrutiny of all official and unofficial data related to the event, and, most importantly, first-person interviews with dozens of eyewitnesses, many of which were conducted and filmed in the exact locations from which they witnessed the plane that allegedly struck the building that day.
> 
> Be forewarned: Our findings are extraordinarily shocking and frightening.  They are also deadly serious, and deserving of your immediate attention.  This is not about a conspiracy theory or any theory at all.  This is about independent, verifiable evidence which unfortunately happens to conclusively establish as a historical fact that the violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a surprise attack by suicide hijackers, but rather a false flag "black operation" involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception.
> ...


NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT - Citizen Investigation Team - 9 11 Pentagon Attack Investigation Witness Interviews

That facts are, somebody is lying.  Is it the citizens that witnessed the event, or is it the government bureaucrats?


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 22, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Do I gotta draw you a picture? Look at the famous Evan Fairbanks video and you see the same "B movie" special effect that is seen in all of the videos that alleged to document an airliner crashing into the south tower, the aircraft is not only seen penetrating the wall as would a hot knife through butter, but also by counting frames in the video, one can clearly see that the same number of frames to travel its own length in air is also the same while penetrating the wall, ergo the "aircraft" doesn't slow down at all, what, the WTC wall was made of paper?


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 22, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Pennywise said:
> ...




When I was a kid------way back circa 1960  ----the USA   provided virtually no aid to Israel----but your fellows way back then were 
INCENSED   that  jews donated money to
Israel privately     My own mom donated two dollars every year to the hospital for crippled children in Jerusalem.      Back then ----your fellows complained that it was   USA MONEY.     You guys  are AMUSING------
I was only a child when I read your stuff----mostly because I found it WEIRD---something like  MAD MAGAZINE.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 22, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Pennywise said:
> ...



No resentments. There are commercials here with some weepy yarmulke wearing asshat soliciting money (shocking, huh?) for elderly Russian Jews for feed bags. It's a real tear-jerker, but I keep wondering why the ad is running here instead of in Israel.[/QUOTE]

whatever it is that you think is running---it might also be running in Israel -----are you trying to make a point?


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 22, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



how fascinating---- tens of thousands of people in New York----and lots in New Jersey----saw it           It was a clear day----the towers can be seen by people in MANHATTAN,   BRONX,,   BROOKLYN----and also in  New Jersey    ---densely populated area on the banks of the HUDSON river.   -------- I saw it from my living room window----- ---uhm ---across a river.   Interestingly one of the best locations for
seeing it was the area of Brooklyn densely populated by   ARABS----that is ATLANTIC 
AVENUE on the bank of the  EAST RIVER.
The sight stimulated the population over there to   A HUGE CELEBRATION----and you  claim it did not occur-----it was an
animation?       gee----


----------



## Pennywise (Sep 22, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



whatever it is that you think is running---it might also be running in Israel -----are you trying to make a point?[/QUOTE]

My point is not too many years back, I would have sent money myself.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 22, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Pennywise said:
> ...



My point is not too many years back, I would have sent money myself.[/QUOTE]

oh-----how nice-----years ago---you would have wanted to feed starving jews?----but now-----you don't-----           OK 

     you need not-----there are hundreds of milliions of hungry people in the world-----
you can feed them


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 22, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



and from New Jersey somebody spots a flying object over Manhattan and can positively Identify it as a commercial airliner and not a missile? 

"The sight stimulated the population over there to  A HUGE CELEBRATION"
what "celebration"?  Please fill me in on that one......


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Pennywise said:
> ...



Ya know, sometimes I think Americans support Israel just to stick our collective thumb in the eye of Joooo-hatin' idiots.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



Sure, and I'll even use your own words:
"No planes were hijacked on 9/11/2001." - NoSpammy


----------



## Penelope (Sep 22, 2014)

You might be in for a surprise, many of us do not support Israel, and we do not want out tax dollars going there either.  Has nothing to do with hating Jews, but Israel is not a developing country nor has it had a big disaster, and the Israel and the Jews are all the time bragging how they have invented everything, so they don't need our money, Detroit needs some. Ok. Lets use our tax dollars at home, and give only to the needy, sound good.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 22, 2014)

MisterBeale said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Are probably laughing. The neocons and Zionist  in our gov and Israel. Congrats. Job well done, one we know the ignorant Muslims would never have access or means available to do.
> ...



I have seen the documentary and I can dig it ..... however I've attempted to get some of my friends to view it, and they told me that they turned it off after the first few min, because it looked like a VERY low budget movie and was not acceptable to watch because the timing & camera work was so amateurish..... oops, I don't know, maybe I have no perception of what is theatrical timing ..... or?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

Penelope said:


> You might be in for a surprise, many of us do not support Israel, and we do not want out tax dollars going there either.  Has nothing to do with hating Jews, but Israel is not a developing country nor has it had a big disaster, and the Israel and the Jews are all the time bragging how they have invented everything, so they don't need our money, Detroit needs some. Ok. Lets use our tax dollars at home, and give only to the needy, sound good.


 
Perhaps, and yet I still get the feeling that Americans support Israel just to annoy the Nazi-like jackasses among us.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 22, 2014)

{Sure, and I'll even use your own words:
"No planes were hijacked on 9/11/2001." - NoSpammy}

Zackly how is it that the above constitutes an answer to anything?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


You have nothing further to say on the subject because 
You have no experience working with or being around steel
and when you said your husband walked on steel and it broke that has got to be one of the biggest lies I have ever read in this forum that even passes obama's lies.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You are confused. I never said I worked with steel (but I have) nor do most 6ft 2in Scotch drinkin', cigar smokin' guys have husbands. I simply asked who here is claiming steel melted at the WTC on 9/11 because those who do are talking out of their butts. That clear enough?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> {Sure, and I'll even use your own words:
> "No planes were hijacked on 9/11/2001." - NoSpammy}
> 
> Zackly how is it that the above constitutes an answer to anything?



It illustrates clearly to any rational person what a useless tool you are.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > {Sure, and I'll even use your own words:
> ...



So without having ever addressed the issue
that is why should I believe that fairy tale about 19 suicidal Arabs,
you choose to be rude and post insult yet again..... 

Does anyone have any real 9/11 material to discuss 
or is this whole bit going to be insult central?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



I don't find it necessary to treat with respect the braying of any fool who claims, as you do, that "no planes were hijacked on 9/11/2001."  Frankly, your silliness is dismissible and unworthy of consideration by rational people.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



and all of this rests on your interpretation of what constitutes "rational people"
thank you ever so much for your opinion.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 22, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



All this rests on your silly "Truther" claim that "no planes were hijacked on 9/11/2001" but relax ... no one will ever confuse you with rational.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 23, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



its called failing to consider compelling evidence, have you even looked at the Evan Fairbanks video?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 23, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


THE 911 commission report suggested 90% of the collapse was due to fire.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 23, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 'Its grossly poor debating style to keep addressing an opponent as "jerk" or "boy"'
> 
> 
> That would be true if this were a 'debate.'
> ...



so if not DEBATE, what do you suggest that it is?


----------



## 9/11ICONN (Sep 23, 2014)

MisterBeale said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Are probably laughing. The neocons and Zionist  in our gov and Israel. Congrats. Job well done, one we know the ignorant Muslims would never have access or means available to do.
> ...





n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


yeah Im not sure why some feel the need to be rude or discuss anything other than 9/11 I am very interested in the 9/11 attack


----------



## 9/11ICONN (Sep 23, 2014)

was 9/11 a controlled demolition?


----------



## Penelope (Sep 23, 2014)

9/11ICONN said:


> was 9/11 a controlled demolition?



It was all set up by Israel and neocons in our USA gov (Zionist) Please read the PNAC document.  PM Bibl father foreseen MUSLIMS flying planes into the world trade towers in the early 90's. Must of been a psyche, or did he put thoughts in his sons head.


----------



## 9/11ICONN (Sep 23, 2014)

Penelope said:


> 9/11ICONN said:
> 
> 
> > was 9/11 a controlled demolition?
> ...


so what is the PNAC document? can you provide a link for me...


----------



## Penelope (Sep 23, 2014)

Here


9/11ICONN said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11ICONN said:
> ...



Here is the 90 page document. Look up all the people and see what positions they were in pre 9-11 and post 9-11. You will find all Zionist Jews and Neocons of our Gov with are Zionist as well, in other words "war mongers"

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf


----------



## daws101 (Sep 23, 2014)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11ICONN said:
> ...


 only twoofers that say melting. steel weakens and bends at 570 degrees.
*Heat*

In the investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in 2001, the failure of the structural steel has been attributed in part to the fires ignited by jet fuel that spread throughout several floors. While estimates vary, the jet fuel fires could have created temperatures as high as 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit. Research has shown that steel begins to weaken at approximately 570 degrees Fahrenheit, and that the critical temperature for failure is approximately 1,020 degrees Fahrenheit. This can vary widely with the load on top of that steel. The powerful impact of the airplanes as well as the intensity of the fire contributed to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.


Read more : What Weakens Steel eHow
.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 23, 2014)

9/11ICONN said:


> was 9/11 a controlled demolition?


no .no evidence of explosives or accelerants were found.
if you are actually doing a paper or report ,then remember speculation is not fact.
the crapspiracy theorists you are talking to on this thread can't tell the difference.
if you're bullshiting it's a totally weak performance.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 23, 2014)

daws101 said:


> 9/11ICONN said:
> 
> 
> > was 9/11 a controlled demolition?
> ...



please be so kind as to trot out the DOCUMENT that states explosives were looked for and by what means and what sampling technique & how many samples were tested.
I really wanna know. where is it?


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 23, 2014)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



National Geographic should be seriously ashamed of this farce that they promoted.
The first highly disingenuous bit about this is the fact that the piece of steel isn't connected to anything its simply a single beam that has load stacked on it and heated, however, in the case of the towers, there had been fire in parts of the tower, and no fire in other parts, the parts that had no fire would function as a heat-sink and the steel would conduct off the heat rather than raising the temperature of the single bit.
also there is a study that has been done either by UL or their British counterpart that subjected building steel to fire and did so for longer burn times than the towers experienced and the ONLY effect of this was some deformation of floor trusses but NO danger of collapse for the structure.  The other feature of this that is not being properly addressed is the fact that the towers came down in a manner that required all of the physical connections in any given floor-level to fail all at the same time, because if they did not, the mass above the as yet undamaged part of the tower, would have to tip shifting its center of gravity and dumping mass quantities of rubble over one side of the tower and stopping the action before the total destruction of the tower.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 23, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11ICONN said:
> ...


 
Did you ever play Whac-a-Mole as a kid (or for you, lately)? It doesn't seem to matter how often or completely your silliness is refuted you simply pop-up in another hole. Skylar was the latest norm to patiently destroy your silliness point-by-point and you consistently covered you eyes and ears when exposed to the light. You have demonstrated an aversion (or an allergy) to the truth all while failing to post a shred of evidence for any of your foil-hated scenarios. If your purpose here is to embarrass yourself and/or the "Truther" Movement, you have done a magnificent job.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 23, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Perhaps in your Bizarro World would a credible source like Nat Geo be ashamed of promoting facts while idiots like you strut around posting absolute BS.
Grow the fuck up, Princess (with all due respect).


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 23, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



So rather than post the DOCUMENT, you choose to blame me for being allegedly obtuse in this matter.  Thank You very much, My point here is either put up or shut-up if it is documented so as to remove all doubt in this matter, please do provide said DOCUMENT. but the fact is that I would give it 99.99% probability that it doesn't exist because no scientific testing for explosives was done.  Note that the NIST has already gone on record stating that they didn't test for explosives because they knew it would be a waste of time...... go figure!?!?!?!


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 23, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Serious problem here is the fact that people have put all too much faith in their "institutions"  Popular Mechanics lost a lot of subscriptions because they chose to publish blatant fraud.   If there is somebody with any sort of degree or anything at all that allegedly elevates what they have to say, I advise caution, fact check EVERYTHING!


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 23, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



I'm not dancing to your tune, Princess. You persistently refuse to accept that which has already been documented in this and a number of other threads to which you are subscribed here and instead you close your eyes and ears and scream "no planes were hijacked on 9/11/2001." Many have lead you patiently and courteously to water but you always refuse to drink. There's just no fixing what ails you and I'm not interested in trying.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 23, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



You "forgot" to post a link to Pop Mech's loss of subscriptions and what "blatant fraud" they published. You also failed to post anything - other than your totally valueless opinion - in support of your complaint about Nat Geo. According to you any source, other than you, is a fraud.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 23, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11ICONN said:
> ...


do your own homework there are hundreds of links to that info on this site alone.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 23, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


funny this is the same twoofer bullshit I hear every time nat geo obliterates the twoofer myth of fire can't bend steel..  
one more thing shit for brains your heat sink "theory" is a steaming pile.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 23, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## 9/11ICONN (Sep 23, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


My homework is just to talk to others about this. Get different views! I want different views I'm not sure on how much or what I believe is to be all true..


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 23, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I didn't say that fire can not heat up steel to the point that it will bend easily,  I'm saying that not only would the fires in the WTC towers have a difficult time at heating up the steel sufficiently to do the job ( note precedent office fires in skyscrapers that have burned for many hours more than the towers and were not a hazard to the structure of the skyscraper ) The fact is that the towers could not have been destroyed as was on 9/11/2001 without the application of some engineering to make it happen the way that it did.

A feature of the BIG LIE, is that prestigious institutions become subverted to the cause of supporting a corrupt dynasty rather than seeking/reporting the TRUTH, the sort of response of "how dare you question Nation Geographic" .... really people, when any institution or for that matter the President may be out-of-line,  It is our sacred duty to speak up and push back.  

The excuse that I have not provided sufficient foundation for my claims used to justify nobody producing any documentation of the search for explosives or evidence of explosives having been used, is really lame,  doesn't anybody desire the bragging rights to have said, "SEE, ... I shut-down the truther geek completely"  but you see, I've been on-line for all the years since 9/11/2001 asking lots of questions and in all that time, not once has anybody produced the DOCUMENT.  kinda makes a statement .... no?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 23, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



No.
Anyone who after 13 years is still claiming "no planes were hijacked on 9/11/2001" is simply a fool to be ridiculed.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 23, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You sir have bought the BIG LIE
wake up and smell the burnt Reichstag!

Where are the Documentary photographs? I'm not talking about a collection of snap-shots here there are methods of DOCUMENTING a disaster that obviously have not been done in the case of 9/11/2001 ..... WHY?

The problem here is that the AMERICAN public has been duped into believing what is fundamentally a "B movie" with a really bad script/story, but it serves an agenda for the public to accept the story.   Yes, 9/11/2001 was a terrorist attack, however are you very certain as to who the terrorists really are?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 23, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



And you son, are a raging idiot. Get a real life.


----------



## 9/11ICONN (Sep 23, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


So I'm not understanding your "side" you simply think that WTC 1&2 collapsed because of the planes? Ok what about 7?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 23, 2014)

9/11ICONN said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



Really? Are you just feinting ignorance or is it real?
Read this thread - not that message boards are the best source of facts - from the beginning and then come back with your "side."
Just a reminder: anyone who 13 years after the 9/11 attack on America is still claiming "no planes were hijacked on 9/11/2001" is simply a fool to be ridiculed.
Do you want to go down that rabbit hole?


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 23, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> 9/11ICONN said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



The "rabbit hole" really isn't, the cold hard facts of the scene are that what was presented to the AMERICAN public was 4 airliner hijackings that didn't happen.
we have been lied to, and its the BIG LIE, check out the psychology of manipulating the masses.... 

When I ask about the accounting for the aircraft wreckage, I'm show pix of 5 gallon buckets containing scrap metal that is alleged to have been from one of the flights but what is really DOCUMENTED about all this?

Why is it even a question as to exactly what was left after the twin towers "collapsed" where are the documentary photographs?  none were taken? why?  Photography doesn't take a great deal of time & effort these days, somebody with a camera could have simply walked ground zero soon after the North Tower "collapsed" and shoot lots of pix, but was that done, and if not why not?  the valuable evidence in the rubble pile, that is the condition of the rubble pile, the distribution of mass the sorts of things to be seen such as possibly steel beams that show signs of having been cut before the torch-work clean up operation got underway.  The fact is that ground zero was very tightly controlled until a significant quantity of rubble had been removed and disposed of and then the press was allowed in, whats up with that?
secrecy is the refuge of tyrants!


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 23, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



But it did and not only did millions of Americans see the towers collapse, our oldest and largest national engineering society - the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE) - determined that the aircraft impacts caused "extensive structural damage, including localized collapse" and that the resulting fires "further weakened the steel-framed structures, eventually leading to total collapse."
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) - an organization of prestigious engineers - conducted a more detailed investigation which included consulting outside engineering entities and was completed in September 2005. The NIST investigators did not find anything substandard in the design of the WTC towers, noting that the severity of the attacks and the magnitude of the destruction was beyond anything experienced in U.S. cities in the past. They also emphasized the role of the fires and found that sagging floors pulled inward on the perimeter columns: "This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers."

Collapse of the World Trade Center - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 23, 2014)

You are aware of course that the NIST report includes the line
"Total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation"

Now tell me, even if you don't have a degree in statistics & probability, you know that there are a multitude of possible out-comes from an event such as an airliner crashing  into a skyscraper, one of those out-comes being the complete and total destruction of said skyscraper, however, for all the other alternatives, there are scenarios that do not include the total destruction of said tower, and I ask, what probabilities do you see here in the odds of not only the South tower, but both towers being completely and totally destroyed?

We are talking THE BIG LIE here, that is a force of black magic that has subverted even our most prestigious institutions.   Do you have a vested interest in the status quo, or do you desire the TRUTH?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 23, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11ICONN said:
> ...



But this isn't a matter of "manipulating the masses" but rather of the manipulation of a miniscule segment of our society that cannot deal with reality. T-shirt and DVD hawkers have made a fortune from "Loose Change" fools like you who just can't escape the web woven by spiders like Stephen and Alex Jones, Richard Gage and David Griffin. Check out the testimony of one who did escape and the 9/11 CT Movement's vicious, paranoid reaction:

The 9 11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind - Telegraph


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 23, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> You are aware of course that the NIST report includes the line
> "Total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation"
> 
> Now tell me, even if you don't have a degree in statistics & probability, you know that there are a multitude of possible out-comes from an event such as an airliner crashing  into a skyscraper, one of those out-comes being the complete and total destruction of said skyscraper, however, for all the other alternatives, there are scenarios that do not include the total destruction of said tower, and I ask, what probabilities do you see here in the odds of not only the South tower, but both towers being completely and totally destroyed?
> ...



No Princess, and the reason is as obvious as it is impossible for one such as you to discern. The PROFESSIONALS at The Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE) have something to protect if they are to maintain their reputations ... their integrity. I realize you have no concept of the word's significance or of its value to many people but without it none of those who found that WTC 1 & 2 collapsed due to the severe localized impact damage and the ensuing chaotic fires would have viable careers. As it is, they do and you are left to piss into the wind. Such is life.


----------



## Capstone (Sep 24, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> ...without it none of those who found that WTC 1 & 2 collapsed due to the severe localized impact damage and the ensuing chaotic fires would have viable careers. As it is, they do and you are left to piss into the wind. Such is life.



Integrity isn't the province of those more concerned about their reputations or the viability of their careers than with getting at the truth; it's the province of men like Copernicus, Bruno, and Galileo, whose livelihoods were adversely effected (to say the least) in the interest of discovery. Only a major deficiency in the _integrity_ department would lead someone to believe otherwise.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 24, 2014)

9/11ICONN said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



If that were true you would simply read any or all of the many threads here in the CONSPIRACY THEORY section of USMB to find what people have said and - at least for the non-CTs - how they came to their conclusions. Instead you have injected yourself into the fray with a preconceived CT bias and as you already stated "I'm aware we will probably never find the answer we want." Since you speak only for yourself here, what you obviously meant was never find the answer YOU want. Perhaps you'd be better served by finding the truth.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 24, 2014)

Capstone said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > ...without it none of those who found that WTC 1 & 2 collapsed due to the severe localized impact damage and the ensuing chaotic fires would have viable careers. As it is, they do and you are left to piss into the wind. Such is life.
> ...



And all have been free to search for what you prefer the truth to be and none have found it. To borrow Skylar's wrap up: no evidence of  "Adamantium" or any other explosive was found nor has any of the "_fireproof ninjas_" with "mighty morphin' thermal cutters" necessary to perform the deed.


----------



## Capstone (Sep 24, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> And all have been free to search for what you prefer the truth to be and none have found it. ...



You betray yourself again. If truth were a matter of preference, I'd MUCH prefer it to be in line with the apple pie propaganda of my childhood beliefs.

Believe me, I don't enjoy the ridicule and stereotypes associated with my current beliefs any more than the amount of credence I lend to that ridicule (which is 0%).



SAYIT said:


> ...To borrow Skylar's wrap up: no evidence of  "Adamantium" or any other explosive was found nor has any of the "_fireproof ninjas_" with "mighty morphin' thermal cutters" necessary to perform the deed.



Funny thing about "evidence"  is that it tends to _elude_ (  ) detection when nobody's really looking for it. 

As for the_ fireproof_ ninjas,  they'd only be "necessary" in the event that the ninjas were forced to wire the buildings on the day of the attack, which would NOT have been _necessary_ by any contorted sense of the word.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 24, 2014)

{"Adamantium" or any other explosive}

Look up what "Adamantium" is ....

The major problem here is that so many people consider the totally lame presentations by the mainstream media to be sufficient evidence to solidify a position that indeed hijacked airliners were used as weapons ( etc.... ) however there are a multitude of alternatives and it appears that the majority of the public is resistant to even considering any of those alternatives.

Thanks to whoever posted the link to the article about Charlie Veitch,  very informative.
speaks volumes about the psychological warfare that is going on.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 24, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


the statement being you're a nut sack with no life and no education.
the internet is probably the only thing keeping you from molesting school children.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 24, 2014)

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/ Carl Sagan."

It is a truly extraordinary claim that 19 suicidal Arabs hijacked 4 airliners and crashed said airliners in to the WTC towers + the PENTAGON,
witch raises the question: 
"WHY did the worlds greatest military power fail to defend even its own HQ?"

whats up with that?


----------



## Penelope (Sep 24, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/ Carl Sagan."
> 
> It is a truly extraordinary claim that 19 suicidal Arabs hijacked 4 airliners and crashed said airliners in to the WTC towers + the PENTAGON,
> witch raises the question:
> ...



Actually Israel company was in charge of airport security, a Jew was in charge of the NY and NY Port Authority and the Twin Towers security also supplied by a Jewish company and owed by a Jewish man.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 24, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/ Carl Sagan."
> 
> It is a truly extraordinary claim that 19 suicidal Arabs hijacked 4 airliners and crashed said airliners in to the WTC towers + the PENTAGON,
> witch raises the question:
> ...


another classic! I have no argument so I'll SHOWCASE my ignorance and misuse a quote from Carl Sagan 
the short AND correct ANSWER IS THEY CAUGHT US WITH OUR PANTS DOWN.
DECEMBER 7TH 1941 SPRINGS TO MIND..


----------



## daws101 (Sep 24, 2014)

Penelope said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/ Carl Sagan."
> ...


NOT THE EVIL JEWS PLOY AGAIN!


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 24, 2014)

A: I'm not speculating as to exactly who did it, the matter of the real identity of the perpetrator(s) is still a totally open issue.
B: fact is... the hit to the south tower left no doubt at all as to the matter of "AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK" and then more than a half hour later the PENTAGON was hit, and during that more than half an hour, the AMERICAN military was doing exactly what?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 24, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> A: I'm not speculating as to exactly who did it, the matter of the real identity of the perpetrator(s) is still a totally open issue.
> B: fact is... the hit to the south tower left no doubt at all as to the matter of "AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK" and then more than a half hour later the PENTAGON was hit, and during that more than half an hour, the AMERICAN military was doing exactly what?


hit on the south tower?  kinda contradicting yourself aren't you?
for a "hit" to happen a plane Had to be used.  
the military and everybody else was still in the dark  more than 1/2 an hour later.
fun fact: it takes a presidential order to mobilize troops in  the usa.
it also takes a minimum 0f 30min to prep and arm interceptors and another presidential order for a shoot down.
also we don't shoot down civilian aircraft on a whim..


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 24, 2014)

Not my fault if some people refuse to engage in dialog on the subject.
fact is .... there were no airliners hijacked on 9/11/2001 .....
wrap your head around that!

"minimum 0f 30min to prep and arm interceptors"

OK, from the moment that it was known "AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK"
was anyone busy actually working on getting an aircraft armed and ready to intercept?


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 24, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> 9/11ICONN said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



May I be so bold as to ask what is YOUR opinion of the real truth 
that is the real explanation of what happened on 9/11/2001?


----------



## 9/11ICONN (Sep 25, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11ICONN said:
> ...


I'm not sure there is a specific amswer I am looking for...and your right when I said that I meant for each of us... Not to find one exact answer for all of is...have you found your answer? I think most of us can agree there is more than what has been told...


----------



## Penelope (Sep 25, 2014)

Someone just stated something about the "Samson Option"  and I goggled it. I have  wondered for so what the stronghold Israel has the Us is about, I mean all the politicians , we turn our closed eye to everything they do, they are above global laws, and I think I'm beginning to see much more clearly.

I don't think its because they are our ally, I think we are afraid.


----------



## Capstone (Sep 25, 2014)

The political problems in the United States run deeper than the Zionist aspect that's inextricably linked to the unconscionable profiteering of the _Military Industrial Complex_, and are really expressions of a novel twist on the precepts of WW2-era fascists. Instead of a strong Nationalist Socialism in which the dictatorial government sought to assume (or _publicize_) the roles of major corporations (ala Hitler's Germany and Mussilini's Italy), we have a weak form of national socialism in which a few corporate conglomerates have, for all intents and purposes, seized control of the government and have been actively working to _privatize_ (or end) as many public-sector programs as possible, all in the interest of a global corporatist agenda. These two forms of fascism are extremes on opposite ends of the spectrum, but the common thread between them was/is the political disenfranchisement of _the many_ in favor of the ever-increasing power of the few (or the one, as was the case with Hitler, et al).

Yes, Penelope, Israel _is_ a crucial pawn on the geopolitical chess board, and its lobbyist groups have exercised disproportionate leverage over US policy-making (both foreign _and_ domestic) for far too long, but that's not an indictment of Jewish People in general; it's an indictment of Zionists, *the overwhelming majority of which are non-Jews!*


----------



## Penelope (Sep 25, 2014)

Capstone said:


> The political problems in the United States run deeper than the Zionist aspect that's inextricably linked to the unconscionable profiteering of the _Military Industrial Complex_, and are really expressions of a novel twist on the precepts of WW2-era fascists. Instead of a strong Nationalist Socialism in which the dictatorial government sought to assume (or _publicize_) the roles of major corporations (ala Hitler's Germany and Mussilini's Italy), we have a weak form of national socialism in which a few corporate conglomerates have, for all intents and purposes, seized control of the government and have been actively working to _privatize_ (or end) as many public-sector programs as possible, all in the interest of a global corporatist agenda. These two forms of fascism are extremes on opposite ends of the spectrum, but the common thread between them was/is the political disenfranchisement of _the many_ in favor of the ever-increasing power of the few (or the one, as was the case with Hitler, et al).
> 
> Yes, Penelope, Israel _is_ a crucial pawn on the geopolitical chess board, and its lobbyist groups have exercised disproportionate leverage over US policy-making (both foreign _and_ domestic) for far too long, but that's not an indictment of Jewish People in general; it's an indictment of Zionists, *the overwhelming majority of which are non-Jews!*



Who are Jews? Yes I also agree we have our own power hungry people, and no not all Jews are Zionist, that is correct,  but the maj. are are Jews, and we really don 't know if others are really Zionist or go along do we. I often wonder about Germany, and why she seems to have no backbone at all when it comes to Israel, well, as I find it funny as one would think enough would seem to be enough, but now she sold them subs under costs.  They have controlled the Fed Reserve the last 30 years. What right now 3 Supreme Court Judges are Jewish? Pres. of ACLU. Goes on and one. (I have nothing against ordinary Jewish people)


----------



## Capstone (Sep 25, 2014)

Penelope said:


> ...not all Jews are Zionist, that is correct,  but the maj. are are Jews, and we really don 't know if others are really Zionist or go along do we. ...



_Specific_ knowledge as to the ethnicity or religious affiliations of people who support Zionism *is irrelevant* to the principle of denouncing them on the basis of their collective ideology ...NOT their respective ethnic categories. You need to let that sink in.



Penelope said:


> ...They have controlled the Fed Reserve the last 30 years. ...



There's no need to acknowledge (much less affirm) the racist implications of your use of "they", in order for me to denounce the actions of the Federal Reserve throughout its history. The results of those actions speak for themselves. The common ethnicity of many of the actors is completely irrelevant to a non-biased assessment of that central bank's effectiveness and equability (or lack thereof) as sole proprietor of our nation's monetary system for the past 100+ years.



Penelope said:


> ...What right now 3 Supreme Court Judges are Jewish? Pres. of ACLU. Goes on and one. (I have nothing against ordinary Jewish people.



There again, the decisions and actions of those individuals are open game for public scrutiny, without the need to descend to race-based bigotry that does nothing but paint the descender in a negative light.


----------



## Penelope (Sep 25, 2014)

Well if the shoe fits , it fits. There is no sense in denying the obvious, and what this has to do with race is beyond me, I see the Zionist the same as I see the radical Muslims , and neocons In our gov.  I just can see who is pulling the strings. Its who people are not allowed to question,  its calling everyone a anti-Semitic is you disagree with them, its being called a terrorist is you are not pro Israel.


----------



## Capstone (Sep 25, 2014)

Penelope said:


> ...I see the Zionist the same as I see the radical Muslims , and neocons In our gov. ..



The problem is that you keep calling them "Jews", when the *vast majority* of Zionists at home and abroad are evangelical Christians.



Penelope said:


> ...I just can see who is pulling the strings. Its who people are not allowed to question,  its *calling everyone a anti-Semitic* ...



But you only validate such criticism by focusing on the "Jewishness" (yes, there's a racial/ethnic factor in play there) of those you perceive as the "string pullers", instead of denouncing them on the basis of their actions and/or ideologies.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 25, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Not my fault if some people refuse to engage in dialog on the subject.
> fact is .... there were no airliners hijacked on 9/11/2001 .....
> wrap your head around that!
> 
> ...


"there were no airliners hijacked on 9/11/2001 .....spammy.
the previous quote is smoking gun evidence of delusional denial 
the poster is attempting to prove a negative..
2. yes they're were but it makes no difference because by the time they got the order to launch it was all over...


----------



## daws101 (Sep 25, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11ICONN said:
> ...


asked and answered.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 25, 2014)

"by the time they got the order to launch it was all over..."

Therefore blaming an allegedly lame command & control structure ..... or?

Also note,  it is a fact that the mainstream media has never sufficiently established that the hijackings actually happened.  Being shown videos of alleged airliners performing stunts that defy the laws of physics does not constitute proof of anything.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 25, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "by the time they got the order to launch it was all over..."
> 
> Therefore blaming an allegedly lame command & control structure ..... or?
> 
> Also note,  it is a fact that the mainstream media has never sufficiently established that the hijackings actually happened.  Being shown videos of alleged airliners performing stunts that defy the laws of physics does not constitute proof of anything.



Once again you make clear that you consider nothing to be sufficient to prove "that the hijackings actually happened," preferring instead to believe that all who saw and recorded the attack, including the millions who witnessed the 2nd WTC attack on live TV, the entire international media and all gov't agents and agencies have been co-opted by some nefarious cabal which you can't name and whose existence you can't substantiate. There is a term which describes those who continually bang their empty heads against the wall of stupidity as you so consistently do ... INSANE.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 25, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Many times. It is clear that nothing can penetrate NoSpammy's self-imposed blindness.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 25, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11ICONN said:
> ...



Sure, and I will again offer the same answer I always do:
4 passenger jets were hijacked by America-hatin' scummies who then slammed them into WTC 1 & 2, the Pentagon and a field near Shanksville, PA and as many doubts and questions as have been raised by disbelieving CTs, none of their alternative-universe scenarios make any sense to me, leaving only the official explanation standing.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 26, 2014)

"none of their alternative-universe scenarios make any sense to me"

This is the crux of the matter,  you lean on a sort of consensus opinion of what was alleged to have happened.

"millions who witnessed the 2nd WTC attack on live TV,"  Please examine closely what was shown on "live TV" note that the Michael Hezarkhani Video and the Evan Fairbanks video were not shown "live" but recorded and shown later.  and even Evan Fairbanks commented that it looked like a bad special effect.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "none of their alternative-universe scenarios make any sense to me"
> 
> This is the crux of the matter,  you lean on a sort of consensus opinion of what was alleged to have happened.
> 
> "millions who witnessed the 2nd WTC attack on live TV,"  Please examine closely what was shown on "live TV" note that the Michael Hezarkhani Video and the Evan Fairbanks video were not shown "live" but recorded and shown later.  and even Evan Fairbanks commented that it looked like a bad special effect.



I lean on what I saw, read and heard that day and 13 years later the only explanation that makes any sense continues to be the official one.
That you continue to cling desperately to your silliness despite having all of it thoroughly and painstakingly refuted is not the failure of the rest of us to see things your way but rather your particular insanity.
Once again: No evidence of explosives or a controlled demo has ever been found, ergo the hijacked planes which so many of us saw slam into the WTC and the Pentagon must have been the cause.
Once again: case closed.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 26, 2014)

"No evidence of explosives or a controlled demo"

PROVE IT!  Where is the documentation that any tests were done?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "by the time they got the order to launch it was all over..."
> 
> Therefore blaming an allegedly lame command & control structure ..... or?
> 
> Also note,  it is a fact that the mainstream media has never sufficiently established that the hijackings actually happened.  Being shown videos of alleged airliners performing stunts that defy the laws of physics does not constitute proof of anything.


only in your mind, in reality it's more than enough.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "No evidence of explosives or a controlled demo"
> 
> PROVE IT!  Where is the documentation that any tests were done?


asked and answered


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 26, 2014)

Fascinating Captain ...... Fascinating ..... 

So, WTC7 can drop at free fall acceleration for 2.25 sec
without any help from any other source of energy or any planning by anybody
but in response to fires & asymmetrical damage, the North & West walls drop and keep their shape as they drop.
is that it? ..... heavy stuff ....


----------



## daws101 (Sep 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Fascinating Captain ...... Fascinating .....
> 
> So, WTC7 can drop at free fall acceleration for 2.25 sec
> without any help from any other source of energy or any planning by anybody
> ...


learn to read, only the a portion of north face was in freefall. the entire wtc 7 structure did not.
way to attempt to intentionally misstate the facts. 
as to energy 
Below are calculations from a physics blogger...

When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so 
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough, 
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds.  If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.


Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to  this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be 
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be 
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our 
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10,362,544,260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t

Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.

Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with.  -  Schneibster edited by Debunking 911

Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Free Fall


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 26, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Fascinating Captain ...... Fascinating .....
> ...



Way to stay on topic, I was addressing the fall of WTC 7 and then you had to drag in a page of numbers about the towers.
Give me a break! 

Lets focus on WTC 7 shall we, the fact is that no matter what you call the falling mass, the bit that is visible in the video of WTC7 "collapsing"  shows clearly the North & West walls of the building with the vertical line at the corner of these two walls being straight and vertical during the 2.25 sec of free fall and the physics of this being that the resistance would have to be removed, and removed all at the same time to achieve this result.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


false. the 2.25 sec of "freefall not significant.
I posted that equation  in response to you energy comment if you understood it you'd know that it would be the same for wtc7
no lets not focus on wtc7 as they are all parts of the same event, if wtc one had not damaged wtc7 your fantasy never would have gotten started.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 26, 2014)

The fact still remains that in order to produce the observed result .... that is WTC7 North & West walls seen descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec, the resistance would have needed to be removed all at the same time for the entire falling mass,  Just exactly how is that accomplished without it being an engineered event?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> The fact still remains that in order to produce the observed result .... that is WTC7 North & West walls seen descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec, the resistance would have needed to be removed all at the same time for the entire falling mass,  Just exactly how is that accomplished without it being an engineered event?


false.
all that happened was the north face missed any impediments for that tiny amount of time.
it no proof of an engineered event..
try cause and effect


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 26, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > The fact still remains that in order to produce the observed result .... that is WTC7 North & West walls seen descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec, the resistance would have needed to be removed all at the same time for the entire falling mass,  Just exactly how is that accomplished without it being an engineered event?
> ...



"tiny amount of time"  now you are trying to minimize the time, when if fact it is rather significant
and also there is the fact that the North & West walls moved in unison.  Just exactly how does that fit in with your explanation?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


who's minimizing? no matter how you want to spin it 2.25 sec is negligible.  
so they move in unison ?was something else supposed to happen?


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 26, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



So many tons of material fall in a manner that doesn't suggest, but rather confirms the fact that the falling body has no resistance under it and the fall lasts for 2.25 sec, and you are trying to make this insignificant?
The West & North walls of WTC7 are seen falling without deformation for 2.25 sec and in that time the vertical line formed by the corner of the North & West walls is seen to be


daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



So exactly how is it that ALL of the support under the North & West walls of WTC7 simply disappears and all at the same time?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


   all that need to happen (and did) was the supports that hold the north face be out of place just enough for it to slip by.
it all happening  at the same time like you wish but have zero evidence to prove it is an optical illusion.
the 2.25 sec of "freefall" was only discovered when the tape was run at slower than normal speed  at regular speed it not even noticeable.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 26, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Where do you get this stuff? The video run at 30fps and analyzed using standard software that is routinely used to analyze the speed of moving objects seen on video.  The analysis confirms that the visible part of WTC7 that is seen dropping that is the North & West walls and anything connected to them, fell at 9.8 m/s^2 and did so for 2.25 sec.
So what you suggest is that the physical support for the falling mass would simply slip out-of-place and the whole thing came down as observed..... right?  However, this does NOT account for all of the potential resistance to fall.  There were stairwells, and elevator shafts and all sorts of things that communicated from ground level up to upper levels and would have presented resistance if not specifically removed.

BTW:  have you seen this


----------



## Skylar (Sep 26, 2014)

> Where do you get this stuff? The video run at 30fps and analyzed using standard software that is routinely used to analyze the speed of moving objects seen on video. The analysis confirms that the visible part of WTC7 that is seen dropping that is the North & West walls and anything connected to them, fell at 9.8 m/s^2 and did so for 2.25 sec.
> So what you suggest is that the physical support for the falling mass would simply slip out-of-place and the whole thing came down as observed..... right? However, this does NOT account for all of the potential resistance to fall.



We've been through this: there were no explosions, no bombs, no cut girders of any kind, despite your theory requiring thousands of each. The building was on fire, meaning any system of explosives would also have been on fire. And the fire would have melted almost everything, rendering the system unusable. The collapse of the building initiated in silence. And there's no such thing as silent explosives.

Your 'bombs' simply didn't exist. Nor can you show us any plausible scenario in which they could exist.  Your explanation is an impossibility. Ending your entire conspiracy.[/quote]


----------



## daws101 (Sep 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


bullshit no architect would attach stair well and and elevators shafts to the outer walls of any building  they must as per building and safety codes  be self supporting and free standing.
as to the frame speed 2.25 sec = 60 frames the .25 is 1/4 of a sec = 1 quarter frame  for all practical purposes it's useless 


  here a normal speed  compilation of the wtc 7 collapse please point out  exactly where the "free fall" begin and ends  no truther bogus analysis videos please. 














=


----------



## daws101 (Sep 26, 2014)

especially not this one  it the classic slo mo you ass hats awaysl use as evidence.

The WTC 7 fires were on multiple floors, and were serious enough that the FDNY abandoned any efforts to control them: watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U Cause divining collapses by their acceleration is pure junk science, and the ~2.25 seconds at g occurred after most of the interior had already collapsed, so there was no pancaking to consider. The 100% moment-connected exterior simply buckled.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 26, 2014)

"wtc 7 collapse please point out exactly where the "free fall" begin and ends"

See NIST NC STAR 1A  page 46 ..... the graph lays it all out.

"no truther bogus analysis videos please."

Can you express exactly what is your objection to David Chandler's analysis ?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 27, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "wtc 7 collapse please point out exactly where the "free fall" begin and ends"
> 
> See NIST NC STAR 1A  page 46 ..... the graph lays it all out.
> 
> ...


that's not what i ASK YOU SPAMMY ...you are a coward.
david chandler is not an engineer he's a high school science teacher.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 27, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > "wtc 7 collapse please point out exactly where the "free fall" begin and ends"
> ...



This is all too common, complain about people's credentials,
Please note that anybody who did not sleep through middle school science can get this, its not rocket science!

Do you have any evidence to bring to this discussion that counters the argument for controlled demolition, and that is of all three, the towers & 7.  All three steel framed skyscrapers were destroyed by controlled demolition.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 27, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


no because that would be false there is no evidence for a CD. your augment for a CD  is a specious fantasy.
besides it on you to prove your allegations .


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 27, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



The descent rate of acceleration + the fact of complete & total destruction of the towers is compelling evidence that the towers & 7 were demolished intentionally.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 27, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> "wtc 7 collapse please point out exactly where the "free fall" begin and ends"
> 
> See NIST NC STAR 1A  page 46 ..... the graph lays it all out.
> 
> ...




And shocker, you ignore the impossibility of your own silly conspiracy. That's the thing with truthers: they don't question their own beliefs and they don't even think too hard about them. When obvious, ludicrously simple and utterly theory killing holes appear again and again in their conspiracy......they just ignore them and pretend they don't exist.

Exactly as you're doing now, Spammy.

Keep running.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 28, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



Credentials are an important component of any discussion and in the case of 9/11 they are critical. That you whine like a stuck pig when caught embellishing those of your sources makes clear that you know they just aren't good enough to stand up to the credible experts who offer the most obvious 9/11 explanations. ... explanations you reject or ignore because they cause your CT "Truther" house of cards to crumble.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 28, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



at what time have I ever attempted to embellish any credentials?
Bottom line here is that anybody who didn't sleep through middle school science can get this stuff.
also FACT, the alleged tests for explosives at ground zero were never DOCUMENTED so nobody
can say with any authority at all that there were no explosives used and as for the cut beams, there
are an abundance of pix of cut beams, however every time they are brought up, the opposition insists
that its a pix done after the clean-up operation had been in progress so its simply a product of the torch work
during the clean up process.  lack of proper documentation leaves voids that are to be ignored by the faction
attempting to support the 19 suicidal hijackers story.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2014)

> Bottom line here is that anybody who didn't sleep through middle school science can get this stuff.



So use ' middle school science' to explain your 'silent explosives'. Remember, the collapse of the WTC 7 initiated in silence. Whereas actual controlled demolition is ludicrously loud. Use 'middle school science to explain how the buildings were destroyed via 'controlled demolition' without any bombs, without any cut girders, any residue of explosives, and while the system of explosives was _on fire_.

Explain how if there were the thousands and thousands of 'thermite reactions' you insist brought the building down, why none was ever seen? These reactions are so bright that they can damage your eyes if you look at them. They're used in fireworks. But every video, every witness, every angle of every moment of the tragedy just happened to miss thousands upon thousands of sun bright chemical reactions so powerful they could cut through 18 steel girders....*.most of them on the OUTSIDE of each tower?*

You can't explain any of it. Your theory not only makes no sense..its just stupid. And even you can't make it work.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 28, 2014)

Skylar said:


> > Bottom line here is that anybody who didn't sleep through middle school science can get this stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lets get this straight about the audio track of the event, first of all, its all too easy to edit the audio track to any video, and as another fact here, the fall of WTC7 was far from silent and even if it was only the sound of the building "collapsing" there would be considerable noise.  People heard explosions, and explosions were recorded on the audio track of videos being done that day and all the opposition can come up with is accusations that people are misinterpreting what they heard.  however, there were explosive sounds both recorded and reported by witnesses. 
The fact is that it would be ridiculously simple to stage theatrical fires close to the windows and still have the building rigged for controlled demolition.  May I also point out that the explosives used in typical controlled demolitions are not the only explosives available, all sorts of different energetic materials are available and also choices as to how to implement the process, if the job could be done by one major explosion, but also be done by a number of smaller bits of explosive each doing part of the job and being smaller individual bits, not producing the outrageous blast you expect.
The fact that is the compelling evidence is that the towers & 7 came down at a rate, and in a manner that indicates clearly that the event was not the product of an aircraft crash + fire, but an engineered event that was helped along by some combination of Thermite &or C4 &or micro-nukes, hydrogen bomb, .... up to & including back magic!  but the fact is the towers & 7 had a LOT of help to "collapse" as was observed.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2014)

> Lets get this straight about the audio track of the event, first of all, its all too easy to edit the audio track to any video, and as another fact here, the fall of WTC7 was far from silent and even if it was only the sound of the building "collapsing" there would be considerable noise.



Lets get this straight: the video I'm showing is yours.* This is the video that YOU cited that you offered of the collapse. *And now that it renders your conspiracy completely impossible......suddenly *your own sources are unreliable*?

Dude, you're raising denial to an art form.

*Do you have the slightest evidence that the audio tracks were faked? Of course not. *You're literally making this shit up as you go along and can't back any of it. The video evidence shows exactly the opposite of what you claimed. There are no explosions initiating the collapse. Here it is again:


Nothing. No explosions. A collapse that began so quietly that it didn't even interrupt the conversations of folks nearby. No explosions, no explosives. Here's *actual* controlled demolition with real explosives.:


Which is stupidly loud. 

And when faced with yet another in a litany of obtuse, obvious contradictions between your failed conspiracy and reality........you cling to your conspiracy and ignore any evidence that contradicts you. Even when its your own video. Just like you ignored EVERY of the 43 videos of the impact of flight 175, insisting they were all faked, just as you ignored the FDNY and their assessment of heavy fire in the WTC 7 insisting instead that there were only 'theatrical fires', just as you ignored entire galleries of images of debris from the impacts, just as you ignored every black box that was recovered, every eye witness (which you dismiss as plants)....

You ignore anything that contradicts you. But why would a rational person ignore what you do? Your inability to answer this simple question is why your conspiracy keeps failing.

As there's absolutely no reason for us to ignore overlapping, overwhelming, compelling evidence for no other reason than it contradicts you.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 28, 2014)

The funny thing here ( it would be totally funny if not for the fact that it is so tragic )  You see there is a 47 story skyscraper that simply drops at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec and people are willing to buy the lame excuse that office fires + asymmetrical damage from stuff thrown by WTC1, 2 while they were "collapsing" caused this nice neat symmetrical descent with the building keeping its shape as it descends...... not only laws of physics people but probability,  the odds are positively astronomical against any such thing happening just by chance, thus WTC7 had to have been an engineered demolition.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2014)

> The funny thing here ( it would be totally funny if not for the fact that it is so tragic )



What's funny is how desperate you are to avoid discussing the truck sized holes in your own claims. You've been reduced to* ignoring your own sources,* your own videos as fakes when they demonstrate your conspiracy is a physical impossibility.

No explosions, no explosives. As silent explosives don't exist. Your theory is already DOA.

Nor can you explain how any system of explosives could have operated while on fire. And the FDNY factually establishes massive, out of control fires in the WTC 7, spanning virtually every floor. And establishes the fires as the cause of the collapse....with the FDNY correctly predicting the collapse of WTC 7 by about an hour. You ignore them all.....but never could explain why.

You can't explain how the bombs wouldn't cut girders. You know the 'demolition' in controlled demolition? Your theory requires thousands and thousands of such cuts. Um, where are they?

You can't explain why there was no residue of explosives found in the dust samples taken from the WTC plaza.

Or why the Port authority bomb squad found no bombs only a week before 911. Or how their bomb sniffing dogs missed them. 

Or why not a single charge was ever found, not before, during or after the collapse. 

Or why no apparatus of explosives was ever found. Not an inch of blasting wire. Not a single receiver, transmitter, control board, anything. 

Any one of which absolutely destroys your conspiracy. All together, they make it look as silly as it actually is. Face it....your conspiracy doesn't work.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 28, 2014)

Skylar said:


> > The funny thing here ( it would be totally funny if not for the fact that it is so tragic )
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In the bit about finding detonator bits, the rubble was given a fine-toothed-comb treatment and in that, if something turned up that was a small piece of PC board and the workers could not classify it as a piece of something, it would just be relegated to the unknown pile, it may have  been a bit of somebodies transistor radio, or a piece of a computer, and with bits that are so small, its impossible to define exactly what it was, so ya, bits could have been in the wreckage and simply not identified as pieces of detonators.

Please note YOUR theory requires many thousands of cuts, I am keeping an open mind as to exactly how it was done, however we all can see the result of the operation in the destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7.

"You can't explain why there was no residue of explosives found in the dust samples taken from the WTC plaza."
stalemate, you can't produce the document that proves any such tests were ever done.

have you seen this:


----------



## Skylar (Sep 28, 2014)

> In the bit about finding detonator bits, the rubble was given a fine-toothed-comb treatment and in that, if something turned up that was a small piece of PC board and the workers could not classify it as a piece of something, it would just be relegated to the unknown pile, it may have been a bit of somebodies transistor radio, or a piece of a computer, and with bits that are so small, its impossible to define exactly what it was, so ya, bits could have been in the wreckage and simply not identified as pieces of detonators.



If PC boards were the only apparatus of explosives, you might have a point. But they aren't. There was no det cord, no blasting wire, no charges, no nothing. There was absolutely nothing one would expect to find in the aftermath of controlled demolition. No girders cut in a manner consistent with controlled demolition. With considerable debris landing outside the perimeter of the building.....and showing absolutely no signs of controlled demolition.

There is exactly nothing backing any part of your story. 

As for thermate....show us, don't tell us. Your theory requires tens of thousands of thermate reactions. Show us. Remember, more than 80% of load bearing girders for the WTC 1 and 2 were on the outside of the building, exposed to open air. Thermate is insanely bright, capable of damaging your eyes if you look at it. They use it in fireworks.

Its impossible to miss. And per your theory, occurred by the tens of thousands of such reactions. Most of them on the outside of the building. *So, um..... where were they? *

You can't show us any thermite reactions. Not during the collapse, not after. Not before. There are exactly zero thermite reactions ever seen. Its almost like your entire theory is imaginary nonsense.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 28, 2014)

"No girders cut in a manner consistent with controlled demolition"   Oh yea and the moment I point to a picture that includes obviously cut steel, the comment is made that the pix must have been taken after the clean up operation was in progress and that was torch cut steel as a product of the clean-up operation.  oh well ..... 

also "det cord" and other bits are only relevant if a conventional Controlled Demolition is being done, however using radio controlled detonators, this eliminates the need for det cord......  There are devices that use thermite and are self consuming packages such that once the demolition is done, there is nothing left.

again, YOUR version of the controlled demolition is not the ONLY possibility, there are a multitude of different ways it could have been done.  Speculation about HOW it was done is futile when nobody can even agree upon what was done.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 29, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


false! it's the effect not the cause you have no credible evidence of  a non jetliners as missiles plot.
yes the wtc complex was destroyed   intentionally just not by who and how you wish it was.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 29, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> The funny thing here ( it would be totally funny if not for the fact that it is so tragic )  You see there is a 47 story skyscraper that simply drops at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec and people are willing to buy the lame excuse that office fires + asymmetrical damage from stuff thrown by WTC1, 2 while they were "collapsing" caused this nice neat symmetrical descent with the building keeping its shape as it descends...... not only laws of physics people but probability,  the odds are positively astronomical against any such thing happening just by chance, thus WTC7 had to have been an engineered demolition.


another fine example proving you know jack shit about probabilities  ..

*Probability* is the measure of the likeliness that an event will occur.[1]

Probability is used to quantify an attitude of mind towards some proposition of whose truth we are not certain.[2] The proposition of interest is usually of the form "Will a specific event occur?" The attitude of mind is of the form "How certain are we that the event will occur?" The certainty we adopt can be described in terms of a numerical measure and this number, between 0 and 1 (where 0 indicates impossibility and 1 indicates certainty), we call probability.[3] Thus the higher the probability of an event, the more certain we are that the event will occur. A simple example would be the toss of a fair coin. Since the 2 outcomes are deemed equiprobable, the probability of "heads" equals the probability of "tails" and each probability is 1/2 or equivalently a 50% chance of either "heads" or "tails".

These concepts have been given an axiomatic mathematical formalization in probability theory (see probability axioms), which is used widely in such areas of study asmathematics, statistics, finance, gambling, science (in particular physics), artificial intelligence/machine learning, computer science, and philosophy to, for example, draw inferences about the expected frequency of events. Probability theory is also used to describe the underlying mechanics and regularities of complex systems.[4]


----------



## daws101 (Sep 29, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > > The funny thing here ( it would be totally funny if not for the fact that it is so tragic )
> ...


yes! everybody has and it self debunking...
it has some major flaws .. 
like getting caught. hauling up the several hundred pounds of thermite. working in confined spaces having to cut holes in every conceivable point of attachment.  thousands of feet of det cord or receivers that would very likely be activated by a stray signal.  etc..
you want to talk probabilities?  
the odds against   pulling that off successfully are  nearly incalculable.
the "domino effect" from using planes as missiles thousands of time better than chance which is   50/50 ...


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 29, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Not to mention the fact that the whole demo system would have to have survived hours of - drum roll, please - "CHAOTIC FIRES."
The entire controlled demo scenario is absurd.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 29, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


 as compared to controlled fires?


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 29, 2014)

daws101 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



One of our CTs described the 9/11 fires as "chaotic," thus the quotation marks.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



The fires would have been part of the theater, they were staged and under control, just as the damage from the alleged airliner crash was a controlled special effect.   9/11/2001 was a made for TV drama.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 30, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




And like every CT scenario you post, I'm certain that one comes with a whole litany of credible substantiation that you conveniently "forgot" to post.
Inquiring minds want to know who set those "staged and under control" fires and how they kept them so once thousands of gallons of jet fuel were loosed in WTC 1 & 2 and how YOU determined they were "staged and under control?"


----------



## daws101 (Sep 30, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


thanks again for showcasing your ignorance.
I have spent my  entire  adult life in the theatre and movie biz,based on that experience I can state unequivocally you don't know dick about what would be involved in faking it !
heres an easy one: IT would take a crew of 1000 fx techs 500 riggers 300 painters and an unknown numbers of "stage techs " to fake it..


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 30, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



So the rebuttal boils down to an argument from incredulity about how many people it would take to stage the event. 
and totally ignoring the facts of the event proving beyond any doubt that for the towers & 7 there would have had to be an additional source of energy to make the buildings do what was observed.


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 30, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



But you haven't come close to proving that there was an additional source of energy and the harder you try the more ludicrous your CT scenarios become, growing like a Chia Pet out of control to include everyone except you yourself.


----------



## n0spam4me (Sep 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



in the case of the towers, continuous acceleration for 90% of the "collapse" event and for 7, the fact of 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration and no matter how you attempt to dilute the facts here, please note that a significant mass made up of the North & West walls + some amount of supporting structure behind said walls, descended for 2.25 sec at 9.8 m/s^2 and this is significant.
also how do you get an airliner to penetrate a wall without slowing down at all?  what sort of black magic is that?

Tell you what, I have been exposed to the theories about how the towers "collapsed" and it all boils down to a row of dominoes, if you picture the skyscraper as if it were a row of dominoes and all one need do is knock over the first one and there goes the whole row. and if you really think that modern steel high-rise buildings are even capable of that sort of thing, ... well is there any hope at all for humanity? .....


----------



## SAYIT (Sep 30, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > But you haven't come close to proving that there was an additional source of energy and the harder you try the more ludicrous your CT scenarios become, growing like a Chia Pet out of control to include everyone except you yourself.
> ...



Or, more specifically it boils down to your twin, baseless beliefs that "no planes were hijacked on 9/11" and the fires were "staged."
Sorry Spammy, but there's good reason why you can't seem to get a date.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 1, 2014)

"baseless beliefs"  There is a major part of your problem,
you have failed to see the evidence that has been presented in abundance.  The fact that WTC1, 2 & 7 were all three totally destroyed is a serious smoking gun, and the ridiculous "FLT175" videos, you complain that the mainstream media could not possibly have faked "all those videos" however take a moment to examine what is available in evidence,  how many videos of "FLT175" are there with the actual south wall of the South Tower in view, the vast majority of the videos show the alleged impact with the south wall obscured by something, usually the North tower.  Incredulity over how it was done doesn't negate what was done just because you fail to believe it.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 1, 2014)

*n0spam4me* What you fail to understand is that the only way for a controlled demolition would be this:


You don't think those trillions of dollars spent are used to develop crazy things we've never seen or heard about do you?? You're nuts! 
Next you'll be telling me there such things as directed-energy weapons used for crowd control.


Plus don't forget about all those crazy chaotic fires!!


----------



## daws101 (Oct 2, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


false your allegation of proof is not proof.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 2, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > The funny thing here ( it would be totally funny if not for the fact that it is so tragic )  You see there is a 47 story skyscraper that simply drops at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec and people are willing to buy the lame excuse that office fires + asymmetrical damage from stuff thrown by WTC1, 2 while they were "collapsing" caused this nice neat symmetrical descent with the building keeping its shape as it descends...... not only laws of physics people but probability,  the odds are positively astronomical against any such thing happening just by chance, thus WTC7 had to have been an engineered demolition.
> ...


You cite this stuff, yet you'd be the first to totally dismiss, if ever even consider the results of experiments done to "quantify an attitude of mind towards some proposition" such as: Milgram's Obedience to Authority Experiment, Asch Conformity Experiments, The Bystander Effect and Learned Helplessness etc.

Your a fraud.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 2, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


you could have just said this stuff is far too complicated for my high school dropout mind to ponder.
instead you make erroneous accusations..


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 2, 2014)

daws101 said:


> receivers that would very likely be activated by a stray signal.



You are again working entirely from incredulity, without any basis for the above argument.  State of the art coded receivers will only accept the unique code that has been assigned  to that receiver.
There already are commercial products on the market that do exactly this job, that is wireless CD.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 2, 2014)

daws101 said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


You know what, perhaps you are right. I may be guilty of conflating you with other mythers.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 3, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > receivers that would very likely be activated by a stray signal.
> ...


right! and those never fail. still does not solve the intractable problem  of  not getting caught.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 3, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


I'll give you that. You are certainly an "expert" when it comes to "faking it"


----------



## daws101 (Oct 3, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


you just keep telling yourself that.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 4, 2014)

daws101 said:


> the intractable problem of not getting caught.



If you just happen to have the "security" company in your hip pocket, ..... kinda makes a difference .... also, on the excuse of working on the phone wiring, or the plumbing or anything at all to do with the building, there could have been armies of tradespeople all over the place and they would do what they do under the guise of re-routing wiring or checking for plumbing leaks and the office minions would be none the wiser. Some would speculate as to how much disruption of the building would need to have been done in order to rig it for demolition.  Note that in the case of the towers, there were many floors with no offices at all and the demolition rigging ninjas would have a totally free space to do whatever needed to be done.  However, speculation is rather fruitless, what we have as a sure thing is the total destruction of both towers after they fell straight down and at 64% of the acceleration of gravity.  That fact alone is HUGE evidence!


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 14, 2014)

daws101 said:


> as to the frame speed 2.25 sec = 60 frames the .25 is 1/4 of a sec = 1 quarter frame for all practical purposes it's useless



exactly what is this suppose to express?  Please clarify.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 14, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > the intractable problem of not getting caught.
> ...



Once again your CT grows and grows like an out-of-control Chia Pet. Yours has now reached the point where there are more co-conspirators than uninvolved bystanders yet fully 13 years after 9/11 not one of the hundreds of millions of perpetrators has whispered a word. Amazing!


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 15, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Question for you, can you explain why Both towers, "collapsed" down at 64% of the acceleration of gravity? and WTC7 "collapsed" at full free fall acceleration for 2.25 sec.....?  and these events were supposed to be the results of fire + aircraft crashes?

The mainstream media was the first to assert the 19 suicidal hijackers story and so far, they have not supported it with hard evidence.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 15, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



Look into my eyes ... I shall not play your oh so silly little game. Rational peeps like Skylar (and others) tried to reason with you (and others) on dozens of other threads here, all with the same result: you pretend your silliness has not been debunked and continue to bury your head in your little rabbit hole. When last seen, you had added another layer of players to your CT, bringing the total number of co-conspirators to around 205 million yet not one has written a book detailing his part, not one has done the talk show circuit and not one has gotten drunk and inadvertently spilled the beans. Not one.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 15, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



its ever so easy to claim that its all been debunked a long time ago and therefore its redundant to bring it up again..... HOWEVER, the "debunking" really wasn't and the fall of WTC7 is still a huge smoking gun.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 16, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



You are, as Jonathon Kay notes, the last of a "dying breed." It's over, Princess, and somewhere deep down inside you must know it.

Jonathan Kay 9 11 truther Richard Gage is a preacher to a dying breed National Post


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 16, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



There is a VERY serious problem here, you see .... the FACTS,
that is the actual physics of what happened, the alleged airliner crashes, the buildings falling down, the total media flim-flam show..... give me a break, it may be possible to play the emotional card and actually "convert" some of the truthers to the dark side, but that isn't really what this whole thing is about. YOU  that is YOU personally get to wherever it is that you get to to think, that meditate under a tree, or whatever and think about what is going on and the sort of warfare that is being practiced by the side that is promoting the 19 suicidal hijackers story.
and really, I do not expect people to return to any forum on-line and say
"Hey..... I've seen the light" or something .... doesn't happen like that but everybody needs to be able to deep in their own hearts, know what side they are on and know that a time will come when you will need to act upon what you know, and make decisions based upon what you know.
*Galileo* said "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

So THINK 
damnit!


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 16, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



Unfortunately there is nothing factual about your insistence that "no planes were hijacked on 9/11" and "the fires were staged and controlled." It's just bullshit you pull outta your ass and it's the kind of bullshit that - according to the 9/11 CT Movement," - has destroyed what little credibility the Movement may have had.
I thank you for a job well done. You're dismissed.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 19, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > as to the frame speed 2.25 sec = 60 frames the .25 is 1/4 of a sec = 1 quarter frame for all practical purposes it's useless
> ...



In the absents of an explanation, I can only conclude that somebody was just blowing smoke ...... oh well .....


----------

