Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes eots we know, we've seen the exact same statements and names from you at least 100 times over the past years. Got any physical evidence yet? Or are you sticking with opinions?
If you can stop laughing long enough, you should hit up ABC Nightline for a job interviewing Coleen Rowley. Ask her about liquor stores and shotguns and 3000 murder victims.Sometime in the near future, a young man armed with a shotgun will hold up a liquor store somewhere in America.If Cheney and Bush knew 9/11 was coming and did nothing to prevent it, what would you do about it?The only one they would accept would recommend perp walks to the Hague for BUSHROVECHENEY.
Nothing less would be acceptable.
There. Now you have as much information as the Bush Administration had prior to 9/11. Your job is to prevent the liquor store holdup. Bear in mind idiots who think you should have prevented it will want to see you in jail when you don't.
How about Newton's Third Law for physical evidence?Yes eots we know, we've seen the exact same statements and names from you at least 100 times over the past years. Got any physical evidence yet? Or are you sticking with opinions?
some didI wonder if our grandparents whined as much 9 years after Pearl Harbor? I doubt it.
No, because they didn't. Any more stupid questions?If you can stop laughing long enough, you should hit up ABC Nightline for a job interviewing Coleen Rowley. Ask her about liquor stores and shotguns and 3000 murder victims.Sometime in the near future, a young man armed with a shotgun will hold up a liquor store somewhere in America.If Cheney and Bush knew 9/11 was coming and did nothing to prevent it, what would you do about it?
There. Now you have as much information as the Bush Administration had prior to 9/11. Your job is to prevent the liquor store holdup. Bear in mind idiots who think you should have prevented it will want to see you in jail when you don't.
"Bury got a similar response from former FBI agent and whisteblower Coleen Rowley when he asked her the loaded question, 'Do you think the American government helped kill innocent Americans?'
"Rowley told Bury the technique he was using reminded her of interrogation strategies she'd used while in the FBI. Rowley stated that the full truth is simply not known and that the 9/11 Commission has said so itself.
"Nightline then interviewed Lee Hamilton, vice-chairman of the 9/11 Commission, who stated, 'We got the story basically right' in order to give the impression he was contradicting Rowley's claim, but that was intentionally misleading. Consider what he wrote in his book Without Precedentthat the 9/11 Commission was 'set up to fail' by the Bush Administration.
"And what John Farmer, Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission wrote on page four of his book, The Ground Truth: 'At some level of government, at some point in time, there was an agreement not to tell the people the truth about what happened.'"
Do you think the American government helped kill innocent Americans?
You might have a point, if the WTC were solid like matches and trees.How about Newton's Third Law for physical evidence?Yes eots we know, we've seen the exact same statements and names from you at least 100 times over the past years. Got any physical evidence yet? Or are you sticking with opinions?
"'Mass always follows the path of least resistance' the famous physicist said more than 300 years ago. It isn't even possible to squash a match from top to bottom. It bends at its weakest point. Like a tree will fall in the direction where the cut is made with an axe. Meaning: the building had to fall to the side where the steel structure was damaged by the impact of the plane."
you might have a point, if the wtc were solid like matches and trees.how about newton's third law for physical evidence?yes eots we know, we've seen the exact same statements and names from you at least 100 times over the past years. Got any physical evidence yet? Or are you sticking with opinions?
"'mass always follows the path of least resistance' the famous physicist said more than 300 years ago. It isn't even possible to squash a match from top to bottom. It bends at its weakest point. Like a tree will fall in the direction where the cut is made with an axe. Meaning: The building had to fall to the side where the steel structure was damaged by the impact of the plane."
But they weren't. They were hollow, mostly air. Furthermore, the path of least resistance is straight down for a collapsing structure.
This has been explained to you, repeatedly. You will once again ignore it.
Dumbass.
You might have a point, if the WTC were solid like matches and trees.How about Newton's Third Law for physical evidence?Yes eots we know, we've seen the exact same statements and names from you at least 100 times over the past years. Got any physical evidence yet? Or are you sticking with opinions?
"'Mass always follows the path of least resistance' the famous physicist said more than 300 years ago. It isn't even possible to squash a match from top to bottom. It bends at its weakest point. Like a tree will fall in the direction where the cut is made with an axe. Meaning: the building had to fall to the side where the steel structure was damaged by the impact of the plane."
But they weren't. They were hollow, mostly air. Furthermore, the path of least resistance IS straight down for a collapsing structure.
This has been explained to you, repeatedly. You will once again ignore it.
Dumbass.
NO, I will not allow the terrorist bastards the satisfaction of anything except my strength to fight them tooth and nail. I will place my Patriotic flags out on that day
NO, I will not allow the terrorist bastards the satisfaction of anything except my strength to fight them tooth and nail. I will place my Patriotic flags out on that day
Oh shut the fuck up
If you'd learn some real science, instead of relying on what internet idiot troofers tell you, you'd know you were wrong.you might have a point, if the wtc were solid like matches and trees.how about newton's third law for physical evidence?
"'mass always follows the path of least resistance' the famous physicist said more than 300 years ago. It isn't even possible to squash a match from top to bottom. It bends at its weakest point. Like a tree will fall in the direction where the cut is made with an axe. Meaning: The building had to fall to the side where the steel structure was damaged by the impact of the plane."
But they weren't. They were hollow, mostly air. Furthermore, the path of least resistance is straight down for a collapsing structure.
This has been explained to you, repeatedly. You will once again ignore it.
Dumbass.
no nincompoop the path of most resistance was the lighter top floors somehow pulverizing the stronger lower floors..if the towers followed the lest resistance the damaged top section would of toppled over into the street...no plane hit the majority of the building it was a solid structure.. What you call mostly air was heavy steel beams and concrete
Yet another dumbass. Compare the volume of the towers standing to the volume of the debris pile. The debris pile is much, much smaller because most of the air has been removed.You might have a point, if the WTC were solid like matches and trees.How about Newton's Third Law for physical evidence?
"'Mass always follows the path of least resistance' the famous physicist said more than 300 years ago. It isn't even possible to squash a match from top to bottom. It bends at its weakest point. Like a tree will fall in the direction where the cut is made with an axe. Meaning: the building had to fall to the side where the steel structure was damaged by the impact of the plane."
But they weren't. They were hollow, mostly air. Furthermore, the path of least resistance IS straight down for a collapsing structure.
This has been explained to you, repeatedly. You will once again ignore it.
Dumbass.
The towers were "mostly air?"
ROTFLLMMFAOTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And you say troofers are dumbasses? Hahahahaha!!!! The towers were mostly air!!!!! Lol!!
Learn it and realize everything you think is wrong.
You might have a point, if the WTC were solid like matches and trees.How about Newton's Third Law for physical evidence?Yes eots we know, we've seen the exact same statements and names from you at least 100 times over the past years. Got any physical evidence yet? Or are you sticking with opinions?
"'Mass always follows the path of least resistance' the famous physicist said more than 300 years ago. It isn't even possible to squash a match from top to bottom. It bends at its weakest point. Like a tree will fall in the direction where the cut is made with an axe. Meaning: the building had to fall to the side where the steel structure was damaged by the impact of the plane."
But they weren't. They were hollow, mostly air. Furthermore, the path of least resistance IS straight down for a collapsing structure.
This has been explained to you, repeatedly. You will once again ignore it.
Dumbass.
On a sub-atomic level I think it's accurate to say that everything is mostly air. Atoms have a very dense nucleus that's orbited by electrons equal parts matter and waves, leaving "space" as the primary component of each atom.
The WTC Towers all had structural steel skeletons extending from Manhattan's bedrock to the top most floor in each building.
In the case of the shortest tower, WTC7, which was NOT struck by an airplane and collapsed at 5:20PM on 9/11/2001, 40,000 tons of structural steel extending 47 floors above ground level wouldn't seem like the path of least resistance.
"The overall building mass fell uniformly and with
almost perfect symmetry through what should
have been the path of greatest resistance 40,000
tons of structural steel. This requires a precisely
timed patterned removal of critical columns
which office fires, a gradual organic process, is not capable of.
"Only a carefully engineered implosion
could cause this 47-story building to collapse in on itself and land mostly within its own footprint. After all, demolition
companies are paid large sums to accomplish this feat, and only a few can do it with tall buildings.
"Also, the destruction was complete. The building had been built especially strong so that alternate floors could be removed in case a tenant needed an extra tall space.
"Yet its forty-seven stories were reduced, in less than seven seconds, to about four stories of debris like a house of cards with the virtually complete dismemberment of the steel skeleton, including both braced and welded moment-resisting (bend-resistant) frames."
Republic Magazine Issue 16 P. 23
Yet another dumbass. Compare the volume of the towers standing to the volume of the debris pile. The debris pile is much, much smaller because most of the air has been removed.You might have a point, if the WTC were solid like matches and trees.
But they weren't. They were hollow, mostly air. Furthermore, the path of least resistance IS straight down for a collapsing structure.
This has been explained to you, repeatedly. You will once again ignore it.
Dumbass.
The towers were "mostly air?"
ROTFLLMMFAOTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And you say troofers are dumbasses? Hahahahaha!!!! The towers were mostly air!!!!! Lol!!
Dumbass.
