9-11, 19 insanely motivated Saudis with pocket knives, nothing else

[candycorn]

Anti-America agenda?

At what point did I ever say anything that was anti-american?


9/11 has been the justification for 2, now 3 illegal wars and the Patriot Act, which is not good for a constitutional republic.

IS there some speculation in terms of theories of 9/11? Of course. Nobody has all the answers. But there is certainly enough evidence that suggests the official story is at least not entirely accurate.


If there's even a slight possibility that 9/11 was an inside job, it requires further examination and closure. Our debate is irrelevant as there are millions and millions of americans that question the official story, in fact there are more people that do not support the official theory than there are people who support it, as i said before, you are now in the minority.

The Commission Report has all the germane answers. You should have an adult read it to you some time fuckwad.

 

[candycorn]

Patriot911, I addressed my errors concerning the time discrepancies you pointed out regarding Flight 77 in the other post. Still doesn't explain the 15 ft. hole or the confiscated and lack of video evidence that would clearly show the jet, but since you say the Pentagon is not heavily defended there must not be much surveillance there so there probably isn't any other video evidence, right?

The good thing about you debunkers is I am once again, after quite a hiatus, looking over the evidence. Sometimes memory isn't sufficient and when I am going to "debate" you I must focus on the issues that have the greatest evidence and the least speculation. That is easily by far the collapse of WTC 7, you just can't make a coherent argument against controlled demolition in the case of WTC 7.

But feel free to sling insults and use name calling instead of actually challenging the assertion that WTC 7 collapsed by controlled demolition to continue to highlight just how truly vile you are. (With the exception of Ollie who is not obscene)

Now since you all piled on with a load of bullshit I will attempt to address all your points in one post.


Showing a single plane crash similar to Flight 93 in no way disproves the plausibility that due to its debris field Flight 93 was shot down. I can show you multiple land based commercial airplane crashes that reveal a semblance of a plane

Mathematics prove it wasn't shot down dumbfuck.

On to WTC 7

The picture, one of many. Those are textbook controlled demolition cuts found after the buildings collapsed Why? Because the buildings and the manner in which they collapsed (near free fall symmetrical total collapse into the foundation leaving pools of molten steel -NOT DISPUTABLE-) lead to the obvious conclusion of controlled demolition.

No Sword of Dumbfuck...when you have a controlled demolition, you have a staccato of explosions followed by a collapse. You have no explosions on WTC. You do have 18-20 floors missing from a corner and the seismic activity of two airplane crashes followed by two building collapses within a few hundred feet. But please continue to pretend that such things don't matter.

You are accusing researchers who have obtained samples from the towers that conclude with a thermitic reaction of falsifying your studies. Well who the hell are you?

No, we're accusing junk scientists who of being complicit in a lie that morons and mouth breathers like you believe and regurgitate.

Why not, in your own words, explain to us all how WTC 7, not hit by a plane, with sporadic fires AND I REPEAT SPORADIC FIRES AS IN THAT WAS THE REALITY, and a gash on the south side, caused a total symmetrical near free fall collapse, (do you accept near free fall Candy?, WTF did I ever do to you do draw out such disgusting words from you)

You showed up spouting bullshit.

As for a "symmetrical" collapse, you're again full of shit on this too.

I await your response, or I mean drivel, from you vile creatures.

And we await the Lewinsky you'll no doubt get from your buddy Rimjob and Ms. Jones.

For calling you delusional, I apologize. I merely disagree with your perspective and conclusions on the events of 9/11.

Oh brother.

 

[SFC Ollie]

If your picture actually shows dripping molten metal, it proves nothing. What kind of metal is it? Aluminum of which there was an abundance melts at a much lower temperature than steel. As does lead and copper. To name a few...

 

[candycorn]

If your picture actually shows dripping molten metal, it proves nothing. What kind of metal is it? Aluminum of which there was an abundance melts at a much lower temperature than steel. As does lead and copper. To name a few...

Twoofers have a learning disability. Hundreds of automobiles were beneath the towers; all with gasoline in their cars; acid in their batteries, and lord knows what in their trunks, beds, delivery trucks, etc... If you can't account for the source of ignition--which they can't--you can't account for the temperatures of the fires ignited.

The orange material coming out of the building was a UPS bank that was compromised by the aircraft; otherwise the tens of thousands of persons beneath the flow of liquid hot magma would have been hit. None were. Otherwise you would have had dozens (if not hundreds) of similar scenes in the twin towers if it had been thermite. You had just this one.

All logic is out the window when dealing with twoofers.

 

[Triton]

Typical candycorn response full of proafnity and nonsense, yet you still avoid the question.


Do I really need to show you a dozen more photos, videos, and countless eyewitness testimony, including scientific physical evidence , to prove to you that there was molten metal? No, you will just say it proves nothing.


Please, oh eloquent cancycorn, in your own words, explain how WTC 7 collapsed.

 

[candycorn]

Typical candycorn response full of proafnity and nonsense, yet you still avoid the question.


Do I really need to show you a dozen more photos, videos, and countless eyewitness testimony, including scientific physical evidence , to prove to you that there was molten metal? No, you will just say it proves nothing.


Please, oh eloquent cancycorn, in your own words, explain how WTC 7 collapsed.

Oh dumbfuck; so futile in your efforts. You've been at this for years and have convinced nobody of anything other than you're full of shit. Good job on that I suppose. He he he

Feel free to keep broadcasting the bullshit nobody cares about and "experts" that have been debunked and fired; I'm sure they could use some attention; they've long been ignored and forgotten. I sense you've gone through the same thing. Poor beeotch.

As for WTC 7,
It was hit by the collapse of the twin towers for one thing taking out 18-20 floors of the building at one corner; the seismic activity of those collapses for another, and the fires that raged in the building didn't help either.

You going to comment on the video that proves you and "Dr" Jones are flaming liars now?

I own you; too bad you're not worth a shit.

 

[Triton]

WTC 7 suffered the least amount of structural damage of all the WTC buildings, take a look at WTC 3

Yet, it did not have a symmetrical free fall total collapse into its own foundation as WTC 7 did.

Even if 18-20 floors were taken out on the south side along with sporadic fires on 7-8 floors this is insufficient to cause the kind of total collapse that WTC 7 had.

Furthermore, the seismic activity you mention would also be insufficient to cause the total free fall symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 into its own foundation.

So, you say that fire caused the total collapse of WTC 7. If you are telling the truth please explain why the building below did not have a total collapse:

How does your theory that fire and some structural damage can incinerate steel and pulverize concrete into aerosols causing total free fall collapses stand up to the example of the Windsor building in Madrid, which burned for 2 days straight, and did not have a total collapse?

If you would like some more examples of steel buildings that also burned for much longer, had more structural damage, and were even smaller than WTC 7 yet did not have symmetrical free fall total collapses into their ow foundations I would be more than happy to provide them for you.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Typical candycorn response full of proafnity and nonsense, yet you still avoid the question.


Do I really need to show you a dozen more photos, videos, and countless eyewitness testimony, including scientific physical evidence , to prove to you that there was molten metal? No, you will just say it proves nothing.


Please, oh eloquent cancycorn, in your own words, explain how WTC 7 collapsed.

thats what he always does everywhere he goes whenever he gets frustrated and cant disprove it,is start shouting off profanity and going on his bible lengh ramblings to try and save face in his posts when he knows he is defeated. was funny for a while,but then it just became the same old tiresome thing over and over again and he became a bore.

dont know why you bother with him and his lover Parrot.They have shitting problems and just fart in their posts all the time stinking up the threads as you can see.

 

[candycorn]

WTC 7 suffered the least amount of structural damage of all the WTC buildings, take a look at WTC 3

Yet, it did not have a symmetrical free fall total collapse into its own foundation as WTC 7 did.

Even if 18-20 floors were taken out on the south side along with sporadic fires on 7-8 floors this is insufficient to cause the kind of total collapse that WTC 7 had.

Furthermore, the seismic activity you mention would also be insufficient to cause the total free fall symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 into its own foundation.

So, you say that fire caused the total collapse of WTC 7. If you are telling the truth please explain why the building below did not have a total collapse:

How does your theory that fire and some structural damage can incinerate steel and pulverize concrete into aerosols causing total free fall collapses stand up to the example of the Windsor building in Madrid, which burned for 2 days straight, and did not have a total collapse?

If you would like some more examples of steel buildings that also burned for much longer, had more structural damage, and were even smaller than WTC 7 yet did not have symmetrical free fall total collapses into their ow foundations I would be more than happy to provide them for you.

Plenty of opinions there; no facts....poor Sword of Shit. Rimjob is here to supply the Lewinskys; I'm sure you'll enjoy that as much as he enjoys giving them; almost.

 

[SFC Ollie]

WTC 7 suffered the least amount of structural damage of all the WTC buildings, take a look at WTC 3

Yet, it did not have a symmetrical free fall total collapse into its own foundation as WTC 7 did.

Even if 18-20 floors were taken out on the south side along with sporadic fires on 7-8 floors this is insufficient to cause the kind of total collapse that WTC 7 had.

Furthermore, the seismic activity you mention would also be insufficient to cause the total free fall symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 into its own foundation.

So, you say that fire caused the total collapse of WTC 7. If you are telling the truth please explain why the building below did not have a total collapse:

How does your theory that fire and some structural damage can incinerate steel and pulverize concrete into aerosols causing total free fall collapses stand up to the example of the Windsor building in Madrid, which burned for 2 days straight, and did not have a total collapse?

If you would like some more examples of steel buildings that also burned for much longer, had more structural damage, and were even smaller than WTC 7 yet did not have symmetrical free fall total collapses into their ow foundations I would be more than happy to provide them for you.

Give me a break, there was no free fall. And every building is not the same. Just as what ever fuels different fires is not the same. There was 2 seconds of free fall of the facade of 7WTC. And that was only possible because the interior of the building had already collapsed.

 

[candycorn]

WTC 7 suffered the least amount of structural damage of all the WTC buildings, take a look at WTC 3

Yet, it did not have a symmetrical free fall total collapse into its own foundation as WTC 7 did.

Even if 18-20 floors were taken out on the south side along with sporadic fires on 7-8 floors this is insufficient to cause the kind of total collapse that WTC 7 had.

Furthermore, the seismic activity you mention would also be insufficient to cause the total free fall symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 into its own foundation.

So, you say that fire caused the total collapse of WTC 7. If you are telling the truth please explain why the building below did not have a total collapse:

How does your theory that fire and some structural damage can incinerate steel and pulverize concrete into aerosols causing total free fall collapses stand up to the example of the Windsor building in Madrid, which burned for 2 days straight, and did not have a total collapse?

If you would like some more examples of steel buildings that also burned for much longer, had more structural damage, and were even smaller than WTC 7 yet did not have symmetrical free fall total collapses into their ow foundations I would be more than happy to provide them for you.

Give me a break, there was no free fall. And every building is not the same. Just as what ever fuels different fires is not the same. There was 2 seconds of free fall of the facade of 7WTC. And that was only possible because the interior of the building had already collapsed.

He was getting ready to announce the Ollie/Triton alliance. LOL.

 

[SFC Ollie]

WTC 7 suffered the least amount of structural damage of all the WTC buildings, take a look at WTC 3

Yet, it did not have a symmetrical free fall total collapse into its own foundation as WTC 7 did.

Even if 18-20 floors were taken out on the south side along with sporadic fires on 7-8 floors this is insufficient to cause the kind of total collapse that WTC 7 had.

Furthermore, the seismic activity you mention would also be insufficient to cause the total free fall symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 into its own foundation.

So, you say that fire caused the total collapse of WTC 7. If you are telling the truth please explain why the building below did not have a total collapse:

How does your theory that fire and some structural damage can incinerate steel and pulverize concrete into aerosols causing total free fall collapses stand up to the example of the Windsor building in Madrid, which burned for 2 days straight, and did not have a total collapse?

If you would like some more examples of steel buildings that also burned for much longer, had more structural damage, and were even smaller than WTC 7 yet did not have symmetrical free fall total collapses into their ow foundations I would be more than happy to provide them for you.

Give me a break, there was no free fall. And every building is not the same. Just as what ever fuels different fires is not the same. There was 2 seconds of free fall of the facade of 7WTC. And that was only possible because the interior of the building had already collapsed.

He was getting ready to announce the Ollie/Triton alliance. LOL.

Lord forbid...

 

[psikeyhackr]

Box cutters were used to cut the core columns below the impact zone of the north tower and that is why the buildings came down in less than 18 seconds.

This is really an interesting physics problem. The Empire State building will be 80 years old this year. But the ESB was finished before the neutron was discovered and it became possible to make the atomic bomb. Of course there were no electronic computers to design the building or the bomb.

But here we are 41 years after the Moon landing with cheap computers everywhere and our brilliant physicists can't resolve this trivia.

This decade has surely been the finest for the entire physics profession.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo]YouTube - WTC Modeling Instruction & Testing in the Real World[/ame]

9/11 is the Piltdown Man Incident of the 21st century.

psik

 

[Triton]

Are you referring to classic crimp and kink in the middle that is conducive of a controlled demolition?

Yes that did happen with WTC7, textbook case of controlled demolition.

You're point?

Please explain how WTC7 , in your own words, collapsed.

 

[Triton]

Yes 911IJ, this is going nowhere, but it is entertaining to watch.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Are you referring to classic crimp and kink in the middle that is conducive of a controlled demolition?

Yes that did happen with WTC7, textbook case of controlled demolition.

You're point?

Please explain how WTC7 , in your own words, collapsed.

I'm talking about the east penthouse falling into the building followed by the west penthouse followed by the facade.

I'm talking about no recorded explosions.

I'm talking about no recovery of Det wire.

I'm talking about no recovery of any devise that could have set off an explosion.

I'm telling you that there is zero physical evidence of a controlled demolition.

 

[Triton]

Are you referring to classic crimp and kink in the middle that is conducive of a controlled demolition?

Yes that did happen with WTC7, textbook case of controlled demolition.

You're point?

Please explain how WTC7 , in your own words, collapsed.

I'm talking about the east penthouse falling into the building followed by the west penthouse followed by the facade.

I'm talking about no recorded explosions.

I'm talking about no recovery of Det wire.

I'm talking about no recovery of any devise that could have set off an explosion.

I'm telling you that there is zero physical evidence of a controlled demolition.

The collapse of the penthouses merely suggests an initiation of the controlled demolition like so many other buildings brought down by controlled demolition.

There were recorded explosions, and countless eyewitness accounts of explosions.

Where was the resistance from the floors below?

The falling of the east and west penthouse alone would not be able to produce a total symmetrical free fall collapse into the foundation nor would it leave behind
molten steel and thermite in the dust samples.

Just because you say there wasn't molten steel or thermite, now more recently discovered nano-thermite, is irrelevant. To cause the kind of total collapse WTC 7 means incineration, meaning using explosives to cause such.




I don't know where the devices are, I don't have all the answers. The evidence that does exist however, supports a controlled demolition.

Although Debunkers want every single detail of what happened (even though the official theory has been thoroughly debunked) with names, including SS#'s, of the people who carried out the false flag attack.

Perhaps the devices are where the rest of the cameras surrounding the Pentagon are? Now that's speculation

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Are you referring to classic crimp and kink in the middle that is conducive of a controlled demolition?

Yes that did happen with WTC7, textbook case of controlled demolition.

You're point?

Please explain how WTC7 , in your own words, collapsed.

I'm talking about the east penthouse falling into the building followed by the west penthouse followed by the facade.

I'm talking about no recorded explosions.

I'm talking about no recovery of Det wire.

I'm talking about no recovery of any devise that could have set off an explosion.

I'm telling you that there is zero physical evidence of a controlled demolition.

The collapse of the penthouses merely suggests an initiation of the controlled demolition like so many other buildings brought down by controlled demolition.

There were recorded explosions, and countless eyewitness accounts of explosions.

Where was the resistance from the floors below?

The falling of the east and west penthouse alone would not be able to produce a total symmetrical free fall collapse into the foundation nor would it leave behind
molten steel and thermite in the dust samples.

Just because you say there wasn't molten steel or thermite, now more recently discovered nano-thermite, is irrelevant. To cause the kind of total collapse WTC 7 means incineration, meaning using explosives to cause such.




I don't know where the devices are, I don't have all the answers. The evidence that does exist however, supports a controlled demolition.

Although Debunkers want every single detail of what happened (even though the official theory has been thoroughly debunked) with names, including SS#'s, of the people who carried out the false flag attack.

Perhaps the devices are where the rest of the cameras surrounding the Pentagon are? Now that's speculation

I'm on your side here, in a way. i would ask that you provide us with the eye witness testimony.

Please, and thanks.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Are you referring to classic crimp and kink in the middle that is conducive of a controlled demolition?

Yes that did happen with WTC7, textbook case of controlled demolition.

You're point?

Please explain how WTC7 , in your own words, collapsed.

I'm talking about the east penthouse falling into the building followed by the west penthouse followed by the facade.

I'm talking about no recorded explosions.

I'm talking about no recovery of Det wire.

I'm talking about no recovery of any devise that could have set off an explosion.

I'm telling you that there is zero physical evidence of a controlled demolition.

The collapse of the penthouses merely suggests an initiation of the controlled demolition like so many other buildings brought down by controlled demolition.

There were recorded explosions, and countless eyewitness accounts of explosions.

Where was the resistance from the floors below?

The falling of the east and west penthouse alone would not be able to produce a total symmetrical free fall collapse into the foundation nor would it leave behind
molten steel and thermite in the dust samples.

Just because you say there wasn't molten steel or thermite, now more recently discovered nano-thermite, is irrelevant. To cause the kind of total collapse WTC 7 means incineration, meaning using explosives to cause such.




I don't know where the devices are, I don't have all the answers. The evidence that does exist however, supports a controlled demolition.

Although Debunkers want every single detail of what happened (even though the official theory has been thoroughly debunked) with names, including SS#'s, of the people who carried out the false flag attack.

Perhaps the devices are where the rest of the cameras surrounding the Pentagon are? Now that's speculation

No, you don't have any of the answers.

There have been several other films of the pentagon attack released. none of them show anything more than the explosion.

You cannot show me a video or audio file of the explosions that you claim came from the collapse of WTC 7. I can show you many of them that did have the explosions. And none of those sound anything like WTC 7 did.

So who carried out this attack. Names are fine I don't need SSN's.

The official reports have not been debunked at all. Except in some peoples minds....

 

[Patriot911]

The collapse of the penthouses merely suggests an initiation of the controlled demolition like so many other buildings brought down by controlled demolition.

So what is your evidence that this CAN'T happen in a non-CD collapse? What? You don't have any? You're just talking out your ass again? Big surprise!

There were recorded explosions, and countless eyewitness accounts of explosions.

More bullshit lies from you. Show us the recorded explosions. We all know CDs are very loud and you can hear them for miles, right? Yet numerous recordings taken from just blocks away where you can plainly hear the collapse have NO EXPLOSIONS AT ALL.

Here is a good example.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-WZpXiEKAo]YouTube - WTC7 - "That is the building that is going to go down next"[/ame]

Where was the resistance from the floors below?

Already explained to you. Maybe you should take the explanation and have an adult explain it to you in very small words.

The falling of the east and west penthouse alone would not be able to produce a total symmetrical free fall collapse into the foundation nor would it leave behind
molten steel and thermite in the dust samples.

Nobody has said the penthouse collapses caused the collapse. How deep did you have to dig up your ass to pull that bullshit out? You've still failed miserably at proving molten steel and there was no thermite in the dust samples. Why do you insist on lying about this despite all the times you've had the facts pointed out to you?

Just because you say there wasn't molten steel or thermite, now more recently discovered nano-thermite, is irrelevant.

Again, no such discovery was made. You lying your ass off about it doesn't change the truth.

To cause the kind of total collapse WTC 7 means incineration, meaning using explosives to cause such.

Only because your little pathetic peabrain is incapable of understanding that a collapse can happen without explosives. Maybe when you grow up you will understand just how foolish you're being.

I don't know where the devices are, I don't have all the answers. The evidence that does exist however, supports a controlled demolition.

So produce the evidence. Come on. How many times do we have to demand you back up your bullshit!

Although Debunkers want every single detail of what happened (even though the official theory has been thoroughly debunked) with names, including SS#'s, of the people who carried out the false flag attack.

You stupid fucks can't even agree on what happened, who did it, how they did it, or why they did it. You're like a really pathetic version of the keystone cops.

Perhaps the devices are where the rest of the cameras surrounding the Pentagon are? Now that's speculation

Sure is. Not a very good one. At least you're learning that your bullshit is speculation not supported by evidence.