......OK

Attached Images

tinfoil hat.jpg (48.4 KB, 13 views)

__________________

BUAHAHAHAHAAH! That pic cracks me up! Is that FDD??? lol

I could be persuaded to accept that the planes and fires brought down the 2 towers after a session of intense torture, but building # 7 just defies all physics and laws known to man, just watching it go down tells you that it had to be something other than fires or surface damage from falling debris, just look at the picture of the pristine shape the building is in after the 2nd tower fell.
watch this over and over and tell me it looks totally natural, mind you this building is made of HUGE fucking steel beams, ITS not made of brick.



Every floor collapses at basically the same time and it come straight down, somehow the 2 fires must have weakened every piece of steel in the building equally, with no fuel to help it along, just papers and office furniture. Every bit of it is impossible. Even our own governments OFFICIAL statement is that " We don't know". crock of SHIIIIIT!!

__________________
It is far easier to ignorantly control others than it is to wisely control yourself.

look at all the government files disappearing n the rubble . i see a lot of ppl high fiving after that

__________________
"The Cruelest Trick Came From The Talibans, Who Allowed Plenty Of Drugs And Then Banned Music."
"Rarely is the question asked: is our children learning"- G.W.B.

First of all... it didn't come straight down. It spilled into the street.

Second of all... it was filled with unbattled blazes. The flames that tore through this building (which again were set by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.) were completely uncontrolled for more than 6 hours. The NYFD chief had lost over 300 men already that day and demanded the FD be pulled from the area to prevent further loss of his men in a clearly unstable ground zero. The flames simply raged. For nearly 7 hours.

The decision was made after the SW side of the building began to bulge between the 10th and 13th floors, and about an hour later began creaking... generally a pretty good sign that it is going to collapse.

As I am sure you have heard, there were 3 web trusses used to transfer load balances to the foundation. The failure of the first causing the bulge, and a redistribution of WAY too much weight to the remaining two. An hour and a half later, as predicted, the building fell.


Find me a precision demo, anywhere in the world with no boom boom.


Thermite DOES ignite under fire.


In no video has there been a single explosion. Not one.

Find me silent demo. Before your theory of detonation is even possible... find me silent demo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlGmn...aynext_from=PL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4er...aynext_from=PL

the only demo I know ^

Concussive at street level.

So wait... so fire DOES or DOES not weaken steel? Did I lose the plot somewhere... or did I throw that out as evidence that in fact fire will weaken HUGE steel beams? I thought so. BTW look at my melted beams next to those men and your beams next to men. Not even a fifth the size of my beams. Quit changing the argument because you don't like being wrong. The question was will fire weaken steel beams.

Obviously the answer is yes.

It took out that section, because the fire was only underneath that section. WTC fires were spread throughout the whole of several floors. That was a SINGLE VEHICLE ACCIDENT.

Congratulations jackass... you are a dumbass.



I am pretty sure that I clearly demostrated that Mr. Gage is either lying or misleading by stating that the building came down in less than 10 seconds... while trying to suggest that time/rate of descent PROVED that the building fell faster than gravity and must have been demolished.

That IS discrediting sir.

Your hero is either incompetent, or a liar. I mean... wtf? If I proposed something and you found such a painful and fundamental flaw, I would eat sh1t on it.

Like the burning C4 thing. You think that was fun? It is simply honest. Eat your sh1t like a fkucking man.


Ummm... I clearly just disputed the "facts". BTW... do you think you have some sort of fan club you are addressing? In your sad and savage little mind do you imagine people looking to you for wisdom and heralding your posts with cheers of jubilation?

It comes across weird. Just thought I would let you know.


What do you not understand about restricted airspace? The whitehouse is under restricted airspace... the pentagon is not because it is RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM AN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.

I don't think I can make this any simpler.

On 911 no aircraft in the United States violated restricted or prohibited airspace.


You do realize that you have done nothing but call me a liar since I entered the thread...

Thieves think everyone steals.

I have said several times that the 10 second nonsense was EITHER a lie, or grossly incompetent. Either way... discredited.

What is PM evidence? I don't know what the 390 post is either. You say Ashcroft was addressed... I have yet to see anything which refutes it. There is no double talk about the bridge. You have no idea how NORAD functions... nor restricted airspace. YES when you enter RESTRICTED airspace jets come say hello. No planes entered restricted airspace on 9/11.

What have I "lied" about? Please, by all means, post a lie of mine. Not a theory, evidence... a lie and demonstrate it as such. Know what that makes you if you can't? Aint irony grand?

You cannot form a coherent sentence... you have continually made ignorant and incorrect assumptions. I have corrected you on each, and you just keep blasting ahead.

Deja vu.

For the record... I don't watch tv. You keep trying to bait me into this insulting game... you have been insulting to me since I got here... and yes I eventually called you a jackass... not for your theories... er... other peoples theories that you paste... but because you are acting like a jackass. So let's try this. You try and address the facts, and NOT me, my intellect, or my character and I will do the same. I wonder if you are capable.

I am rather fond of you too. Like a 3 legged dog. I feel both sorry for it and amazed that it can accomplish so much being so severely handicapped.

deja vu.

You have presented evidence. The "Facts" you have been providing are all incorrect. For instance.


1. Jets are not called in when a plane goes "off course". Generally nobody on the ground has any idea if anybody is "off course".

Here is a brief explanation. A pilot files a flight plan with the FAA. The plane, as it travels, is not tracked by any single entity. As the plane enters a new "controlled airspace" the pilot changes the frequency on the radio to the new one. The new tower picks up a dot on the radar and squaks it (identifies self and asks for ID in return). That tower has no earthly idea where that plane has come from, what their flight plan is, or where it is supposed to end up. The towers (the only controllers in the entire trip) exist to keep planes from hitting each other, and assign runways if they are landing and taking off. This is not battlestar galactica. There is no dradus. MOST airspace is not picked up on ground. Only airspace surrounding large airports. The effective range of this radar is between 20 and 100 nautical miles.

IF they are unable to raise the pilot, they switch to the bordering frequencies in case the pilot switched over early/late. If that doesn't work they contact the airline to get details and see if they can raise the pilots on navcom. If the plane continues to be unresponsive, unless it threatens other aircraft, they leave it be and schedule traffic around it. If it then begins to behave oddly they FINALLY call NORAD. ATC does not control flight plans... they keep planes from bumping into each other.

That's it. Clear? Great.
Gonna stop saying that crap? Prolly not.

2. Fire weakens steel beams. Period.

3. Cell phones work on planes. They drop a LOT but work.

4. The planes were not at 35,000 ft.

5. House fires vaporize bone.

6. The terrorists names were on the flight manifests.


I have provided documents, links, images, books for all of this except the cell phone thing... but I am tired of doing research you do not read. I give you links and you say "you should have told me to look further down". What is the point of even debating you? It isn't a debate. You throw out BS in 8 mile long posts, you don't read the evidence against your borrowed theories, you are obnoxiously insulting simply because I have a different opinion than you, and you do not recognize when you have been corrected.

Seriously... what is the point?

Prove there are no unicorns. TY.

Nothing on 19. Want to know how to shear a 2 ft beam? Drop 500,000,000 pounds of concrete and steel on it against another 500,000,000 pounds of it trying to withstand the impact. Ever seen sheet metal cut? Same thing only bigger.


I will take that last bit of advice... and wish you the same

Couple late additions. We determine a plane is "lost" when its ID transponder stops functioning. Either due to malfunction or the switch being turned off.

If grow cannot engage in civil discourse please have chrome dome ask any questions.

Lastly... Here is how you operate...

You paste a mountain of info. When reply, you try and insult the poster to unsettle them. If a "fact" is disproven, you either change the scope of the original statement to create strawman arguments, simply say "nuh uh", or bury it in 300 miles of unrelated drivel and insults. This is why I keep asking you to address one argument at a time. As in one post at a time so as not to obfuscate your assertions which have been demonstrated to be false. This is also the exact reason you refuse.

Most people do not engage you because you are tiring, insulting, and intellectually dishonest. Not because they are afraid of truth.

If you do decide to drop the attitude and actually have a real debate, I will address only one topic at a time until it is put to bed.

I love how everyone is an expert in engineering and demoliton. And no, I did not read all 44 pages of this post. One, I dont need too, it's the same bullshit I've heard a million times, and two I did skim over some of it. Yes, I've seen all the conspiracy videos with the so called "experts". Most of the issues in questions where of regular people giving their on site comentary as it happened. Real, top or their game, professional engineers have said the plans brought the towers down. How can the government even attempt to cover this us? The government could never keep this covered up if they had anything to do with it. There would have had to have been atleast 50-100 people involved.

I'll tell you alittle story of a government cover up. It involved just 2 people. One was in a high ranking government position. Does any of this ring a bell yet? I'll tell who was involved, Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Yes, I know, how can this even compare. Well, it was a government cover up. And it only involved 2 people. Do you know the lengths they, both of them, went through to keep it covered up. And it still got out. Mainly because of the republicans. I suggest you read up more on that alittle more. It's some pretty fun reading too.

Also, for the government to be involved in the 911 attacks, it would have taken reaources of both parties, democrate and republican. How the hell could they have pulled that off when they can't even run the meet eye to eye on a budget.

The fact is someone would have came out about it now. Something would have surfaced by now about their involvement. And do you really think our government is that smart to pull this off? Do you really think that? And why would they want to do it? Yeah, the 2 wars we have are really paying off now. When you say our governemnt did this, your really making them look good.....and smart I guess. Please don't do that. Our government is filled with a bunch of rich assholes who only thing about themselves and how to get elected again. To give them the praise that they could pull this off is ignorant. And your pissing all over the people and families who lost loved ones on that tragic day.

I blame the internet. We are just a bunch of mice following the flute. Just because someone posts something on the internet of someone questioning something, does not mean it is a fact. And everytime I hear something involved in this conspiracy, I see America following the road of the stupid and selfish more and more. Every other country laughs at the U.S. because of this so called conspiacy theory. Good job America! You just made us look even more stupid and selfish. Thanks!

__________________
http://www.rollitup.org/grow-room-de...struction.html

It depends on the steel ... it can weaken rebarb ... the steel rods in the concrete that supports the bridge ... but the steel use in those skyscapers are massive compare the the steel used in the bridge ... and are fireproofed ... big difference ... excepted to the bushwhacked ...

You lost the plot the moment you entered this thread ...

You haven't presented any evidence that fire will weaken huge steel beams ... where were the huge steel beams in the bridge? ... there were none. No steel in the buildings you posted ... none ... so you haven't proven anything.


Where are these steel beams? ... next to what men? You will have to point them out because I didn't see them. Not to mention them being bigger than the steel beams in the WTC ... is not possible so point it out ... now watch this folks ... he won't be able to do it ... once again.

No the question was did fire bring down those towers ... the answer is obviously no.

Those building collapsed from the bottom and fell straight down ... the fires were on the upper floors ... fire can not melt steel beams that have been fire proofed plus the fire wasn't nearly hot enough to do so ...
once again folks the bushwhack tries to project his own short coming on to his opponent ... what ever you say dumbass ...


Bwaa ha ha ha ... that's his argument folks! because it came down in less than 10 seconds! ha ha ha ... you only prove our point ... which is those buildings can't come crashing straight down in a few seconds! Bwaa ha ha ... and notice folks ... nothing about the evidence of thermite being found.

Bwaa ha ha ha ... you're discediting sir ... bwaa ha ha ha.

Says the debating expert whos dumbass argument is because a blow it out his ass "time/rate of desent" bwaa ha ha ha ... now that's a good one!

"Painful and fundamental flaw"! bwaa ha ha ha too funny!

And you eat shit like a fucking woman! ha ha ha ...

Ummmm .... you clearly just did the same bullshit you always do ... show nothing ... make ridiculous statements ... and side step the obvious .... ladies and gentlemen lets give the dumbass another hand ...

There are "viewers at home" that stop by to see me make a fool of you ... whether you want to accept it or not ... Since you think it's so weird ... don't worry about it.


Like I said ... if something goes wrong NORAD is there ... Just that one day ... they were delayed ... you can go on and on about this as much as you want ... but NORAD is there for a purpose.


No ... you have done nothing but call my sources lies with nothing to back it up other than making ridiculous statements. ... like that "time/rate" bullshit that you pulled out your ass.

Only a dumbass of your caliber would believe that.

More proof that you are truly a dumbass. I think I make post hilight from that interview making the PM guy look stupid.

The man did testify under oath ... he could lie his ass off with no repurcussions what so ever! Why the hell should we believe him?

Yes there is because there is no huge thick steel in the bridge like there are in the buildings!

No you have no idea how NORAD functions ... I have submitted a link with evidence that NORAD had time and oppoturnity to stop those jets ... yet they didn't all you've done is blow it out your ass.

When did I say you were lying? You are the only one that has been accusing people of lying ... here again folks ... he projects his own short coming on to his opponets ...



Here we go again folks ... he couldn't dispute Gage other than his ridiculous statement ... with no backing I might add ... so one again he attack me ... since he can't attack the evidence ... so he fall back on the projection thang ... and pretends that he has made valid points ... aren't the bushwhacked fun to watch?



Oh come now ... you must admit this is a lot of fun ... I'm have a great time aren't you?

There goes the projection thang again folks ... will he ever learn that we are on to him?

Yes I do pretty well don't I ... but it's really not that hard against a bushwhacked minded person ...

Says the bushwhack with no backing ...


Say the bushwhacked with nothing to back his statement ...

Says the bushwhacked with absolutely no link to a source to back his statement ... I guess we are to accept him at his word ... not.

And it doesn't cause a skyscaper to collapes on itself in a few seconds. Period.

Not at the attitude the planes were traveling ... link posted.

Source link?

Bullshit ... and I provide links to back it up ...

No ... you only show a flight manifest ... not the manifest with the so called hijackers ... wow you are really wacked in the head.

Yeah ... right ...

I have read it ... that's how I was able to show the folks it was bullshit.

That you seem to have a problem refuting with evidence that we can check out ... the stuff that we are able to check out is easily discredited like the Popular Mechanics (PM) bullshit you tried to use.

No because you are stupid to the obvious ... that's why.

there are unicorns ... you've seen one haven't you? Know what it look like don't you ... ha ha ha ...

Source? Link?

__________________
Our Beautiful Ladies ...
Keep Them Safe Keep Them SECRET!
911 ... inside job!

That look like rebar to you?



Again... my beams are bigger. You can at least see if not read yes?




This is you.