9/11: The Pentaplane Flyover Theory

[Dale Smith]

AGAIN, you ignore what I posted. Your beloved "gubermint" lies to you with great gusto and they do it constantly. Stupid little naive fucks like you swallow it like it was ambrosia delivered by the gods. Seriously, I can't believe how fucking stupid some people truly are.

Which leaves us sane folks to weigh who is more reliable ...

crazy nuts like you ... the lying government ... or the mountain of evidence pointing to planes flying into buildings.

Not really a tough call, I gotta tell ya.

Really? What plane few into Building 7? (snicker)

Great, more fruits & nuts.

Who said one did? The north tower did tremendous damage to it when it fell and fires burned uncontrollably all day until the build collapsed.

But speaking of planes ... if you don't think planes were flown into the Twin Towers, how do you explain the videos we've all seen, corroborated by eyewitnesses who were there?

Tremendous damage? It was on the outer perimeter of where the closest Tower fell. How in the fuck did fires get started in the middle of the building and how in the fuck would that cause it to fall and "free fall"? Witnesses said that they heard explosions, the BBC reported that it fell almost 30 minutes before it did. Larry Silverstien said that the decision was made to "pull it" which is a demolition term...only problem is how in the fuck could they set up charges in a building when something like that takes at least a few days to put charges into place? We know that vans were being allowed into Towers 1 and 2 for a couple of weeks leading up to 9/11/01. And how did FEMA know this was going to happen when they arrived on Monday night???

You're fucking deranged.

Yes, "tremendous damage."

And who said the fires "started" in the middle of any floors?

And I get tell you how many times this idiocy has been debunked, but "pull it" is not a demolition term. WTF would that even mean? Nothing is pulled. A button is pushed.

Lastly... this is what actual demolitions look like and sound like. Build #7 neither looked anything like that nor sounded like that...



Notice, in particular, the second building in that video.... it's a rather tall building, like building #7 but shorter..... notice there's a loud hum. Very loud. Meanwhile, you can still clearly hear the explosions easily over the humming. Also pay close attention to how many explosives were needed to bring down about a 30 story building and imagine what would have been needed to take down a 47 story building. Which went down with NO explosions. So quiet, you could hear people speaking.

If that picture was actually true, then it would have fallen OVER instead of collapsing at free fall speed right into it's own fucking footprint. It's called physics...ever heard of it? As far as Larry Silverstein's comment goes? He says the decision to take down the building was made and yes, "pull it" is a demolition term, it's a slang term because the technology is more advanced but it is indeed a valid term. If the building was going to allegedly fall by itself regardless, why would any action be necessary? See? You are not even trying to think this thing through AT all....you are wed to the idea that it just simply collapsed in on it's self as if it was made with a house of cards that could simply collapse with no resistance.....how fucking stupid is that???

 

[Faun]

Of course we don't discount them. Those are the people who were inside the Pentagon and other locations where they couldn't see the plane. You must be dumber than dirt to think there was no plane because some witnesses didn't see the plane when so many others, who were outside and held a better vantage point, did.

But then, crazy is what you do. It's who you are.

Who is "we"? I am talking to you so whom else are you speaking on the behalf of? How can you explain the undisturbed landscape? The reporter that said (and it was only played once) that he saw no evidence that a plane hit hit the Pentagon?How could a guy that couldn't even fly a single engine Cessna make an aeronautical move by flying a tight 270 degree turn, level off and fly mere inches off the ground with no wings and a tail? The damage to the Pentagon does not come close to matching the dimensions of the plane, we have Rove telling an orderly that the stand down order still stands as the plane got closer and why is that? Because if they took down the plane, that means the missile that actually hit the Pentagon could not be fired. The plane flew over the Pentagon, the missile was fired and it was fired right in the area where bookkeepers, accountants and budget analysts were trying to track the 2.3 TRILLION dollars that Rumsfeld said could not be accounted for on 9/11/01....coincidence? Not on your fucking life. You believe the official story? Fine...I did as well for over a decade but I and many others see right through the bullshit and we will never stop pointing out the lies.

I guess you're too crazy to see I already pointed out who "we" is.

The rest of your post is just fucking nuts.

Like Rove telling anyone to stand down. Who the fuck do you think listened to Turd Blossom? He was a nobody with no authority to tell anyone anything. Or like your insanity that a missile could knock down two rows of light poles. Or your brain fart that it was to squash a search for missing money, as though that would have accomplished that. Or that it's suspicious the grounds were "undisturbed" when the plane never touched the grounds. Or like your wackiness that the plane flew over the Pentagon when not one single eyewitness ever came forward saying they saw that; meanwhile, every witness who saw the plane and the Pentagon said they saw it hit.

So where are the wings and the tail, dumb ass? Where is the video? Why can't you address how poorly this alleged pilot was and the turn he made was have been almost impossible for even the most experienced pilot? Like a pilot explained to me one time...he said a passenger jet is really nothing but a bus with wings...it cannot to maneuvers like a fighter jet because that isn't what they were built for". Even if the jet was taken over by a computer, it could not have performed that turn....end of story. Excuse me, I meant Tricky Dick Cheney...he gave the stand down orders. I don't believe the witnesses because the damage doesn't come close to matching that of a huge passenger plane.....no way, no how.

Sadly, you have the mind of a three year old.

The tail and wings, being among the lightest parts of the plane, disintegrated on impact. The [survellience] videos have been posted repeatedly. The jet did not make any "fighter Jet" maneuvers.

As far as Cheney....

Cheney Gave Order to Shoot Down Jets

The damage fits perfectly with an aircraft plowing into it and the witnesses corroborate it. no witnesses came forward and said the saw the plane fly over, and not into, the Pentagon.

Do you comprehend the implication of ZERO witnesses? Where there where hundreds, if not thousands, of witnesses on every side of the Pentagon. Or is even that above your three year old intellect?

You are as batshit insane as anyone I've seen posting here. At this point, I'm inclined to believe just about anything you don't if for no other reason, you're a fruit loop dingus who never gets any conspiracy right.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!! Disintegrated? If so, then there should have been an area that shows where they went through the building or they hit the building, flew off and are somewhere on the grass. I have seen the footage of many plane crashes and the wings are always visible. Your scenario has enough holes to drive a brigade of tanks through. Why is the earth before the alleged crash totally un- scorched? It defies any kind of logic but yet you cling to this tale of monumental proportions like a little kid that still wants to believe that there just HAS to be a Santa Claus.....LOL!

disintegrate

to break or decompose into constituent elements, parts, or small particles

... damage consistent with a plane crash....

And because you're as insane as you are, I have no choice but to point out that is not what damage from a Cruise missile looks like.

And why am I still waiting for an answer? If no planes were flown into the Twin Towers, how did millions see it happen on live TV, corroborated by untold thousands who were there watching it?

 

[Faun]

AGAIN, you ignore what I posted. Your beloved "gubermint" lies to you with great gusto and they do it constantly. Stupid little naive fucks like you swallow it like it was ambrosia delivered by the gods. Seriously, I can't believe how fucking stupid some people truly are.

Which leaves us sane folks to weigh who is more reliable ...

crazy nuts like you ... the lying government ... or the mountain of evidence pointing to planes flying into buildings.

Not really a tough call, I gotta tell ya.

Really? What plane few into Building 7? (snicker)

Great, more fruits & nuts.

Who said one did? The north tower did tremendous damage to it when it fell and fires burned uncontrollably all day until the build collapsed.

But speaking of planes ... if you don't think planes were flown into the Twin Towers, how do you explain the videos we've all seen, corroborated by eyewitnesses who were there?

Tremendous damage? It was on the outer perimeter of where the closest Tower fell. How in the fuck did fires get started in the middle of the building and how in the fuck would that cause it to fall and "free fall"? Witnesses said that they heard explosions, the BBC reported that it fell almost 30 minutes before it did. Larry Silverstien said that the decision was made to "pull it" which is a demolition term...only problem is how in the fuck could they set up charges in a building when something like that takes at least a few days to put charges into place? We know that vans were being allowed into Towers 1 and 2 for a couple of weeks leading up to 9/11/01. And how did FEMA know this was going to happen when they arrived on Monday night???

You're fucking deranged.

Yes, "tremendous damage."

And who said the fires "started" in the middle of any floors?

And I get tell you how many times this idiocy has been debunked, but "pull it" is not a demolition term. WTF would that even mean? Nothing is pulled. A button is pushed.

Lastly... this is what actual demolitions look like and sound like. Build #7 neither looked anything like that nor sounded like that...



Notice, in particular, the second building in that video.... it's a rather tall building, like building #7 but shorter..... notice there's a loud hum. Very loud. Meanwhile, you can still clearly hear the explosions easily over the humming. Also pay close attention to how many explosives were needed to bring down about a 30 story building and imagine what would have been needed to take down a 47 story building. Which went down with NO explosions. So quiet, you could hear people speaking.

My apologies ... I neglected to include the link to where you see and hear building #7 coming down with no visible or audible signs of a controlled demolition.....

Actual demolitions....



...compared to...

 

[Dale Smith]

Who is "we"? I am talking to you so whom else are you speaking on the behalf of? How can you explain the undisturbed landscape? The reporter that said (and it was only played once) that he saw no evidence that a plane hit hit the Pentagon?How could a guy that couldn't even fly a single engine Cessna make an aeronautical move by flying a tight 270 degree turn, level off and fly mere inches off the ground with no wings and a tail? The damage to the Pentagon does not come close to matching the dimensions of the plane, we have Rove telling an orderly that the stand down order still stands as the plane got closer and why is that? Because if they took down the plane, that means the missile that actually hit the Pentagon could not be fired. The plane flew over the Pentagon, the missile was fired and it was fired right in the area where bookkeepers, accountants and budget analysts were trying to track the 2.3 TRILLION dollars that Rumsfeld said could not be accounted for on 9/11/01....coincidence? Not on your fucking life. You believe the official story? Fine...I did as well for over a decade but I and many others see right through the bullshit and we will never stop pointing out the lies.

I guess you're too crazy to see I already pointed out who "we" is.

The rest of your post is just fucking nuts.

Like Rove telling anyone to stand down. Who the fuck do you think listened to Turd Blossom? He was a nobody with no authority to tell anyone anything. Or like your insanity that a missile could knock down two rows of light poles. Or your brain fart that it was to squash a search for missing money, as though that would have accomplished that. Or that it's suspicious the grounds were "undisturbed" when the plane never touched the grounds. Or like your wackiness that the plane flew over the Pentagon when not one single eyewitness ever came forward saying they saw that; meanwhile, every witness who saw the plane and the Pentagon said they saw it hit.

So where are the wings and the tail, dumb ass? Where is the video? Why can't you address how poorly this alleged pilot was and the turn he made was have been almost impossible for even the most experienced pilot? Like a pilot explained to me one time...he said a passenger jet is really nothing but a bus with wings...it cannot to maneuvers like a fighter jet because that isn't what they were built for". Even if the jet was taken over by a computer, it could not have performed that turn....end of story. Excuse me, I meant Tricky Dick Cheney...he gave the stand down orders. I don't believe the witnesses because the damage doesn't come close to matching that of a huge passenger plane.....no way, no how.

Sadly, you have the mind of a three year old.

The tail and wings, being among the lightest parts of the plane, disintegrated on impact. The [survellience] videos have been posted repeatedly. The jet did not make any "fighter Jet" maneuvers.

As far as Cheney....

Cheney Gave Order to Shoot Down Jets

The damage fits perfectly with an aircraft plowing into it and the witnesses corroborate it. no witnesses came forward and said the saw the plane fly over, and not into, the Pentagon.

Do you comprehend the implication of ZERO witnesses? Where there where hundreds, if not thousands, of witnesses on every side of the Pentagon. Or is even that above your three year old intellect?

You are as batshit insane as anyone I've seen posting here. At this point, I'm inclined to believe just about anything you don't if for no other reason, you're a fruit loop dingus who never gets any conspiracy right.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!! Disintegrated? If so, then there should have been an area that shows where they went through the building or they hit the building, flew off and are somewhere on the grass. I have seen the footage of many plane crashes and the wings are always visible. Your scenario has enough holes to drive a brigade of tanks through. Why is the earth before the alleged crash totally un- scorched? It defies any kind of logic but yet you cling to this tale of monumental proportions like a little kid that still wants to believe that there just HAS to be a Santa Claus.....LOL!

disintegrate

to break or decompose into constituent elements, parts, or small particles

... damage consistent with a plane crash....

And because you're as insane as you are, I have no choice but to point out that is not what damage from a Cruise missile looks like.

And why am I still waiting for an answer? If no planes were flown into the Twin Towers, how did millions see it happen on live TV, corroborated by untold thousands who were there watching it?

One hundred percent total bullshit..........as far as the answers you want? How about answering a few of mine first....like the lack of skill of the alleged pilot, un scorched earth, where are the wings......the spot that was allegedly hit at the Pentagon was a bit more solid than the outer offices of the twin towers so how could aluminum wings penetrate concrete, etc, etc......

 

[Dale Smith]

Which leaves us sane folks to weigh who is more reliable ...

crazy nuts like you ... the lying government ... or the mountain of evidence pointing to planes flying into buildings.

Not really a tough call, I gotta tell ya.

Really? What plane few into Building 7? (snicker)

Great, more fruits & nuts.

Who said one did? The north tower did tremendous damage to it when it fell and fires burned uncontrollably all day until the build collapsed.

But speaking of planes ... if you don't think planes were flown into the Twin Towers, how do you explain the videos we've all seen, corroborated by eyewitnesses who were there?

Tremendous damage? It was on the outer perimeter of where the closest Tower fell. How in the fuck did fires get started in the middle of the building and how in the fuck would that cause it to fall and "free fall"? Witnesses said that they heard explosions, the BBC reported that it fell almost 30 minutes before it did. Larry Silverstien said that the decision was made to "pull it" which is a demolition term...only problem is how in the fuck could they set up charges in a building when something like that takes at least a few days to put charges into place? We know that vans were being allowed into Towers 1 and 2 for a couple of weeks leading up to 9/11/01. And how did FEMA know this was going to happen when they arrived on Monday night???

You're fucking deranged.

Yes, "tremendous damage."

And who said the fires "started" in the middle of any floors?

And I get tell you how many times this idiocy has been debunked, but "pull it" is not a demolition term. WTF would that even mean? Nothing is pulled. A button is pushed.

Lastly... this is what actual demolitions look like and sound like. Build #7 neither looked anything like that nor sounded like that...



Notice, in particular, the second building in that video.... it's a rather tall building, like building #7 but shorter..... notice there's a loud hum. Very loud. Meanwhile, you can still clearly hear the explosions easily over the humming. Also pay close attention to how many explosives were needed to bring down about a 30 story building and imagine what would have been needed to take down a 47 story building. Which went down with NO explosions. So quiet, you could hear people speaking.

My apologies ... I neglected to include the link to where you see and hear building #7 coming down with no visible or audible signs of a controlled demolition.....

Actual demolitions....



...compared to...

 

[Dale Smith]

Which leaves us sane folks to weigh who is more reliable ...

crazy nuts like you ... the lying government ... or the mountain of evidence pointing to planes flying into buildings.

Not really a tough call, I gotta tell ya.

Really? What plane few into Building 7? (snicker)

Great, more fruits & nuts.

Who said one did? The north tower did tremendous damage to it when it fell and fires burned uncontrollably all day until the build collapsed.

But speaking of planes ... if you don't think planes were flown into the Twin Towers, how do you explain the videos we've all seen, corroborated by eyewitnesses who were there?

Tremendous damage? It was on the outer perimeter of where the closest Tower fell. How in the fuck did fires get started in the middle of the building and how in the fuck would that cause it to fall and "free fall"? Witnesses said that they heard explosions, the BBC reported that it fell almost 30 minutes before it did. Larry Silverstien said that the decision was made to "pull it" which is a demolition term...only problem is how in the fuck could they set up charges in a building when something like that takes at least a few days to put charges into place? We know that vans were being allowed into Towers 1 and 2 for a couple of weeks leading up to 9/11/01. And how did FEMA know this was going to happen when they arrived on Monday night???

You're fucking deranged.

Yes, "tremendous damage."

And who said the fires "started" in the middle of any floors?

And I get tell you how many times this idiocy has been debunked, but "pull it" is not a demolition term. WTF would that even mean? Nothing is pulled. A button is pushed.

Lastly... this is what actual demolitions look like and sound like. Build #7 neither looked anything like that nor sounded like that...



Notice, in particular, the second building in that video.... it's a rather tall building, like building #7 but shorter..... notice there's a loud hum. Very loud. Meanwhile, you can still clearly hear the explosions easily over the humming. Also pay close attention to how many explosives were needed to bring down about a 30 story building and imagine what would have been needed to take down a 47 story building. Which went down with NO explosions. So quiet, you could hear people speaking.

My apologies ... I neglected to include the link to where you see and hear building #7 coming down with no visible or audible signs of a controlled demolition.....

Actual demolitions....



...compared to...

 

[Dale Smith]

Which leaves us sane folks to weigh who is more reliable ...

crazy nuts like you ... the lying government ... or the mountain of evidence pointing to planes flying into buildings.

Not really a tough call, I gotta tell ya.

Really? What plane few into Building 7? (snicker)

Great, more fruits & nuts.

Who said one did? The north tower did tremendous damage to it when it fell and fires burned uncontrollably all day until the build collapsed.

But speaking of planes ... if you don't think planes were flown into the Twin Towers, how do you explain the videos we've all seen, corroborated by eyewitnesses who were there?

Tremendous damage? It was on the outer perimeter of where the closest Tower fell. How in the fuck did fires get started in the middle of the building and how in the fuck would that cause it to fall and "free fall"? Witnesses said that they heard explosions, the BBC reported that it fell almost 30 minutes before it did. Larry Silverstien said that the decision was made to "pull it" which is a demolition term...only problem is how in the fuck could they set up charges in a building when something like that takes at least a few days to put charges into place? We know that vans were being allowed into Towers 1 and 2 for a couple of weeks leading up to 9/11/01. And how did FEMA know this was going to happen when they arrived on Monday night???

You're fucking deranged.

Yes, "tremendous damage."

And who said the fires "started" in the middle of any floors?

And I get tell you how many times this idiocy has been debunked, but "pull it" is not a demolition term. WTF would that even mean? Nothing is pulled. A button is pushed.

Lastly... this is what actual demolitions look like and sound like. Build #7 neither looked anything like that nor sounded like that...



Notice, in particular, the second building in that video.... it's a rather tall building, like building #7 but shorter..... notice there's a loud hum. Very loud. Meanwhile, you can still clearly hear the explosions easily over the humming. Also pay close attention to how many explosives were needed to bring down about a 30 story building and imagine what would have been needed to take down a 47 story building. Which went down with NO explosions. So quiet, you could hear people speaking.

My apologies ... I neglected to include the link to where you see and hear building #7 coming down with no visible or audible signs of a controlled demolition.....

Actual demolitions....



...compared to...

 

[SAYIT]

I guess you're too crazy to see I already pointed out who "we" is.

The rest of your post is just fucking nuts.

Like Rove telling anyone to stand down. Who the fuck do you think listened to Turd Blossom? He was a nobody with no authority to tell anyone anything. Or like your insanity that a missile could knock down two rows of light poles. Or your brain fart that it was to squash a search for missing money, as though that would have accomplished that. Or that it's suspicious the grounds were "undisturbed" when the plane never touched the grounds. Or like your wackiness that the plane flew over the Pentagon when not one single eyewitness ever came forward saying they saw that; meanwhile, every witness who saw the plane and the Pentagon said they saw it hit.

So where are the wings and the tail, dumb ass? Where is the video? Why can't you address how poorly this alleged pilot was and the turn he made was have been almost impossible for even the most experienced pilot? Like a pilot explained to me one time...he said a passenger jet is really nothing but a bus with wings...it cannot to maneuvers like a fighter jet because that isn't what they were built for". Even if the jet was taken over by a computer, it could not have performed that turn....end of story. Excuse me, I meant Tricky Dick Cheney...he gave the stand down orders. I don't believe the witnesses because the damage doesn't come close to matching that of a huge passenger plane.....no way, no how.

Sadly, you have the mind of a three year old.

The tail and wings, being among the lightest parts of the plane, disintegrated on impact. The [survellience] videos have been posted repeatedly. The jet did not make any "fighter Jet" maneuvers.

As far as Cheney....

Cheney Gave Order to Shoot Down Jets

The damage fits perfectly with an aircraft plowing into it and the witnesses corroborate it. no witnesses came forward and said the saw the plane fly over, and not into, the Pentagon.

Do you comprehend the implication of ZERO witnesses? Where there where hundreds, if not thousands, of witnesses on every side of the Pentagon. Or is even that above your three year old intellect?

You are as batshit insane as anyone I've seen posting here. At this point, I'm inclined to believe just about anything you don't if for no other reason, you're a fruit loop dingus who never gets any conspiracy right.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!! Disintegrated? If so, then there should have been an area that shows where they went through the building or they hit the building, flew off and are somewhere on the grass. I have seen the footage of many plane crashes and the wings are always visible. Your scenario has enough holes to drive a brigade of tanks through. Why is the earth before the alleged crash totally un- scorched? It defies any kind of logic but yet you cling to this tale of monumental proportions like a little kid that still wants to believe that there just HAS to be a Santa Claus.....LOL!

disintegrate

to break or decompose into constituent elements, parts, or small particles

... damage consistent with a plane crash....

And because you're as insane as you are, I have no choice but to point out that is not what damage from a Cruise missile looks like.

And why am I still waiting for an answer? If no planes were flown into the Twin Towers, how did millions see it happen on live TV, corroborated by untold thousands who were there watching it?

One hundred percent total bullshit..........as far as the answers you want? How about answering a few of mine first....like the lack of skill of the alleged pilot, un scorched earth, where are the wings......the spot that was allegedly hit at the Pentagon was a bit more solid than the outer offices of the twin towers so how could aluminum wings penetrate concrete, etc, etc......

You seem to forget your 9/11 CTBS was already debunked. The Pentagon attack pilot received his FAA commercial pilot's certification in 1999. The reason you persist in spewing the same debunked BS ad nauseam is your inability (or unwillingness) to accept the fact that your 9/11 theories are BS.

You know ... garbage in, garbage out.

 

[Faun]

Which leaves us sane folks to weigh who is more reliable ...

crazy nuts like you ... the lying government ... or the mountain of evidence pointing to planes flying into buildings.

Not really a tough call, I gotta tell ya.

Really? What plane few into Building 7? (snicker)

Great, more fruits & nuts.

Who said one did? The north tower did tremendous damage to it when it fell and fires burned uncontrollably all day until the build collapsed.

But speaking of planes ... if you don't think planes were flown into the Twin Towers, how do you explain the videos we've all seen, corroborated by eyewitnesses who were there?

Tremendous damage? It was on the outer perimeter of where the closest Tower fell. How in the fuck did fires get started in the middle of the building and how in the fuck would that cause it to fall and "free fall"? Witnesses said that they heard explosions, the BBC reported that it fell almost 30 minutes before it did. Larry Silverstien said that the decision was made to "pull it" which is a demolition term...only problem is how in the fuck could they set up charges in a building when something like that takes at least a few days to put charges into place? We know that vans were being allowed into Towers 1 and 2 for a couple of weeks leading up to 9/11/01. And how did FEMA know this was going to happen when they arrived on Monday night???

You're fucking deranged.

Yes, "tremendous damage."

And who said the fires "started" in the middle of any floors?

And I get tell you how many times this idiocy has been debunked, but "pull it" is not a demolition term. WTF would that even mean? Nothing is pulled. A button is pushed.

Lastly... this is what actual demolitions look like and sound like. Build #7 neither looked anything like that nor sounded like that...



Notice, in particular, the second building in that video.... it's a rather tall building, like building #7 but shorter..... notice there's a loud hum. Very loud. Meanwhile, you can still clearly hear the explosions easily over the humming. Also pay close attention to how many explosives were needed to bring down about a 30 story building and imagine what would have been needed to take down a 47 story building. Which went down with NO explosions. So quiet, you could hear people speaking.

If that picture was actually true, then it would have fallen OVER instead of collapsing at free fall speed right into it's own fucking footprint. It's called physics...ever heard of it? As far as Larry Silverstein's comment goes? He says the decision to take down the building was made and yes, "pull it" is a demolition term, it's a slang term because the technology is more advanced but it is indeed a valid term. If the building was going to allegedly fall by itself regardless, why would any action be necessary? See? You are not even trying to think this thing through AT all....you are wed to the idea that it just simply collapsed in on it's self as if it was made with a house of cards that could simply collapse with no resistance.....how fucking stupid is that???

Sorry, but you're too fucking deranged to be believed that the building would have fallen down earlier than it did, simply by you looking at a photograph. But because of the structural damage caused by the collapse of the north tower, the sprinkler system failed and fire fighters decided early on to not enter an unstable building, risking yet even more lives than already lost that morning, and let the building burn uncontrollably for about 7 hours until it finally, and expectedly, collapsed.

"pull it" is not a demolition term. I just posted a video with 30 demolitions. No one used that term. No one has ever been heard using that term. Again -- nothing is pulled.

And then there's video of firemen earlier in the day predicting it would fall.



"See where the white smoke is? You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it. 'Cause you have to go up in there to put it out and it's already, the structural integrity is not there in the building ... it's tough ... we can handle just about everything, this is beyond... They were trying to put the fire out down there with tower ladders. but uh, we got all kinds of water problems. The two Trade buildings took out the mains. There's no way to put the fire out."

Furthermore, Silverstein says he told the firemen to "pull" or "pull" it ... you brain-diseased parasite ... firemen don't demolish buildings. That's not what they do. They're not trained for that. Silverstein even explains what he meant by "pull it" ... he meant for the firefighters to pull back away from the building before any more firemen were injured.

I know I say this over and over again, but it really can't be stressed enough, even at the risk of sounding repetitive ... you are absolutely and completely fucking deranged.

 

[Dale Smith]

Really? What plane few into Building 7? (snicker)

Great, more fruits & nuts.

Who said one did? The north tower did tremendous damage to it when it fell and fires burned uncontrollably all day until the build collapsed.

But speaking of planes ... if you don't think planes were flown into the Twin Towers, how do you explain the videos we've all seen, corroborated by eyewitnesses who were there?

Tremendous damage? It was on the outer perimeter of where the closest Tower fell. How in the fuck did fires get started in the middle of the building and how in the fuck would that cause it to fall and "free fall"? Witnesses said that they heard explosions, the BBC reported that it fell almost 30 minutes before it did. Larry Silverstien said that the decision was made to "pull it" which is a demolition term...only problem is how in the fuck could they set up charges in a building when something like that takes at least a few days to put charges into place? We know that vans were being allowed into Towers 1 and 2 for a couple of weeks leading up to 9/11/01. And how did FEMA know this was going to happen when they arrived on Monday night???

You're fucking deranged.

Yes, "tremendous damage."

And who said the fires "started" in the middle of any floors?

And I get tell you how many times this idiocy has been debunked, but "pull it" is not a demolition term. WTF would that even mean? Nothing is pulled. A button is pushed.

Lastly... this is what actual demolitions look like and sound like. Build #7 neither looked anything like that nor sounded like that...



Notice, in particular, the second building in that video.... it's a rather tall building, like building #7 but shorter..... notice there's a loud hum. Very loud. Meanwhile, you can still clearly hear the explosions easily over the humming. Also pay close attention to how many explosives were needed to bring down about a 30 story building and imagine what would have been needed to take down a 47 story building. Which went down with NO explosions. So quiet, you could hear people speaking.

If that picture was actually true, then it would have fallen OVER instead of collapsing at free fall speed right into it's own fucking footprint. It's called physics...ever heard of it? As far as Larry Silverstein's comment goes? He says the decision to take down the building was made and yes, "pull it" is a demolition term, it's a slang term because the technology is more advanced but it is indeed a valid term. If the building was going to allegedly fall by itself regardless, why would any action be necessary? See? You are not even trying to think this thing through AT all....you are wed to the idea that it just simply collapsed in on it's self as if it was made with a house of cards that could simply collapse with no resistance.....how fucking stupid is that???

Sorry, but you're too fucking deranged to be believed that the building would have fallen down earlier than it did, simply by you looking at a photograph. But because of the structural damage caused by the collapse of the north tower, the sprinkler system failed and fire fighters decided early on to not enter an unstable building, risking yet even more lives than already lost that morning, and let the building burn uncontrollably for about 7 hours until it finally, and expectedly, collapsed.

"pull it" is not a demolition term. I just posted a video with 30 demolitions. No one used that term. No one has ever been heard using that term. Again -- nothing is pulled.

And then there's video of firemen earlier in the day predicting it would fall.



"See where the white smoke is? You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it. 'Cause you have to go up in there to put it out and it's already, the structural integrity is not there in the building ... it's tough ... we can handle just about everything, this is beyond... They were trying to put the fire out down there with tower ladders. but uh, we got all kinds of water problems. The two Trade buildings took out the mains. There's no way to put the fire out."

Furthermore, Silverstein says he told the firemen to "pull" or "pull" it ... you brain-diseased parasite ... firemen don't demolish buildings. That's not what they do. They're not trained for that. Silverstein even explains what he meant by "pull it" ... he meant for the firefighters to pull back away from the building before any more firemen were injured.

I know I say this over and over again, but it really can't be stressed enough, even at the risk of sounding repetitive ... you are absolutely and completely fucking deranged.

It is a slang term for demolition. I posted the video of his interview...his own words are very incriminating. Lamely attempting to insult me doesn't make your case in the slightest...none, nada, zilch. It was a controlled demolition.....deal with that very salient fact.

 

[Faun]

Really? What plane few into Building 7? (snicker)

Great, more fruits & nuts.

Who said one did? The north tower did tremendous damage to it when it fell and fires burned uncontrollably all day until the build collapsed.

But speaking of planes ... if you don't think planes were flown into the Twin Towers, how do you explain the videos we've all seen, corroborated by eyewitnesses who were there?

Tremendous damage? It was on the outer perimeter of where the closest Tower fell. How in the fuck did fires get started in the middle of the building and how in the fuck would that cause it to fall and "free fall"? Witnesses said that they heard explosions, the BBC reported that it fell almost 30 minutes before it did. Larry Silverstien said that the decision was made to "pull it" which is a demolition term...only problem is how in the fuck could they set up charges in a building when something like that takes at least a few days to put charges into place? We know that vans were being allowed into Towers 1 and 2 for a couple of weeks leading up to 9/11/01. And how did FEMA know this was going to happen when they arrived on Monday night???

You're fucking deranged.

Yes, "tremendous damage."

And who said the fires "started" in the middle of any floors?

And I get tell you how many times this idiocy has been debunked, but "pull it" is not a demolition term. WTF would that even mean? Nothing is pulled. A button is pushed.

Lastly... this is what actual demolitions look like and sound like. Build #7 neither looked anything like that nor sounded like that...



Notice, in particular, the second building in that video.... it's a rather tall building, like building #7 but shorter..... notice there's a loud hum. Very loud. Meanwhile, you can still clearly hear the explosions easily over the humming. Also pay close attention to how many explosives were needed to bring down about a 30 story building and imagine what would have been needed to take down a 47 story building. Which went down with NO explosions. So quiet, you could hear people speaking.

My apologies ... I neglected to include the link to where you see and hear building #7 coming down with no visible or audible signs of a controlled demolition.....

Actual demolitions....



...compared to...

Holyfuckingshit!

Your own video just proved how insane you are.

firefighter: "...and we have no term that I know of that says, 'pulling buildings.' That's not our area of expertise, we've never done that. We don't do that. So for him to say that, I don't know where he pulled that out of but it's just not part of our operations. Ok?"

reporter: "so the fire department doesn't have the training to "pull" a building; to "demo" a building like that?"

firefighter: "we're not trained to do that. We've never done that. In my 32 years, I know of no evolution whatsoever, that does that."​

YOUR OWN VIDEO!!

 

[Faun]

Great, more fruits & nuts.

Who said one did? The north tower did tremendous damage to it when it fell and fires burned uncontrollably all day until the build collapsed.

But speaking of planes ... if you don't think planes were flown into the Twin Towers, how do you explain the videos we've all seen, corroborated by eyewitnesses who were there?

Tremendous damage? It was on the outer perimeter of where the closest Tower fell. How in the fuck did fires get started in the middle of the building and how in the fuck would that cause it to fall and "free fall"? Witnesses said that they heard explosions, the BBC reported that it fell almost 30 minutes before it did. Larry Silverstien said that the decision was made to "pull it" which is a demolition term...only problem is how in the fuck could they set up charges in a building when something like that takes at least a few days to put charges into place? We know that vans were being allowed into Towers 1 and 2 for a couple of weeks leading up to 9/11/01. And how did FEMA know this was going to happen when they arrived on Monday night???

You're fucking deranged.

Yes, "tremendous damage."

And who said the fires "started" in the middle of any floors?

And I get tell you how many times this idiocy has been debunked, but "pull it" is not a demolition term. WTF would that even mean? Nothing is pulled. A button is pushed.

Lastly... this is what actual demolitions look like and sound like. Build #7 neither looked anything like that nor sounded like that...



Notice, in particular, the second building in that video.... it's a rather tall building, like building #7 but shorter..... notice there's a loud hum. Very loud. Meanwhile, you can still clearly hear the explosions easily over the humming. Also pay close attention to how many explosives were needed to bring down about a 30 story building and imagine what would have been needed to take down a 47 story building. Which went down with NO explosions. So quiet, you could hear people speaking.

If that picture was actually true, then it would have fallen OVER instead of collapsing at free fall speed right into it's own fucking footprint. It's called physics...ever heard of it? As far as Larry Silverstein's comment goes? He says the decision to take down the building was made and yes, "pull it" is a demolition term, it's a slang term because the technology is more advanced but it is indeed a valid term. If the building was going to allegedly fall by itself regardless, why would any action be necessary? See? You are not even trying to think this thing through AT all....you are wed to the idea that it just simply collapsed in on it's self as if it was made with a house of cards that could simply collapse with no resistance.....how fucking stupid is that???

Sorry, but you're too fucking deranged to be believed that the building would have fallen down earlier than it did, simply by you looking at a photograph. But because of the structural damage caused by the collapse of the north tower, the sprinkler system failed and fire fighters decided early on to not enter an unstable building, risking yet even more lives than already lost that morning, and let the building burn uncontrollably for about 7 hours until it finally, and expectedly, collapsed.

"pull it" is not a demolition term. I just posted a video with 30 demolitions. No one used that term. No one has ever been heard using that term. Again -- nothing is pulled.

And then there's video of firemen earlier in the day predicting it would fall.



"See where the white smoke is? You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it. 'Cause you have to go up in there to put it out and it's already, the structural integrity is not there in the building ... it's tough ... we can handle just about everything, this is beyond... They were trying to put the fire out down there with tower ladders. but uh, we got all kinds of water problems. The two Trade buildings took out the mains. There's no way to put the fire out."

Furthermore, Silverstein says he told the firemen to "pull" or "pull" it ... you brain-diseased parasite ... firemen don't demolish buildings. That's not what they do. They're not trained for that. Silverstein even explains what he meant by "pull it" ... he meant for the firefighters to pull back away from the building before any more firemen were injured.

I know I say this over and over again, but it really can't be stressed enough, even at the risk of sounding repetitive ... you are absolutely and completely fucking deranged.

It is a slang term for demolition. I posted the video of his interview...his own words are very incriminating. Lamely attempting to insult me doesn't make your case in the slightest...none, nada, zilch. It was a controlled demolition.....deal with that very salient fact.

Post a video of someone demolishing a video while saying, "pull it."

And why would Silverstein tell the fire department commander to "pull" the building down?

YOUR OWN POST.......

firefighter: "...and we have no term that I know of that says, 'pulling buildings.' That's not our area of expertise, we've never done that. We don't do that. So for him to say that, I don't know where he pulled that out of but it's just not part of our operations. Ok?"

reporter: "so the fire department doesn't have the training to "pull" a building; to "demo" a building like that?"

firefighter: "we're not trained to do that. We've never done that. In my 32 years, I know of no evolution whatsoever, that does that."

 

[Faun]

Great, more fruits & nuts.

Who said one did? The north tower did tremendous damage to it when it fell and fires burned uncontrollably all day until the build collapsed.

But speaking of planes ... if you don't think planes were flown into the Twin Towers, how do you explain the videos we've all seen, corroborated by eyewitnesses who were there?

Tremendous damage? It was on the outer perimeter of where the closest Tower fell. How in the fuck did fires get started in the middle of the building and how in the fuck would that cause it to fall and "free fall"? Witnesses said that they heard explosions, the BBC reported that it fell almost 30 minutes before it did. Larry Silverstien said that the decision was made to "pull it" which is a demolition term...only problem is how in the fuck could they set up charges in a building when something like that takes at least a few days to put charges into place? We know that vans were being allowed into Towers 1 and 2 for a couple of weeks leading up to 9/11/01. And how did FEMA know this was going to happen when they arrived on Monday night???

You're fucking deranged.

Yes, "tremendous damage."

And who said the fires "started" in the middle of any floors?

And I get tell you how many times this idiocy has been debunked, but "pull it" is not a demolition term. WTF would that even mean? Nothing is pulled. A button is pushed.

Lastly... this is what actual demolitions look like and sound like. Build #7 neither looked anything like that nor sounded like that...



Notice, in particular, the second building in that video.... it's a rather tall building, like building #7 but shorter..... notice there's a loud hum. Very loud. Meanwhile, you can still clearly hear the explosions easily over the humming. Also pay close attention to how many explosives were needed to bring down about a 30 story building and imagine what would have been needed to take down a 47 story building. Which went down with NO explosions. So quiet, you could hear people speaking.

If that picture was actually true, then it would have fallen OVER instead of collapsing at free fall speed right into it's own fucking footprint. It's called physics...ever heard of it? As far as Larry Silverstein's comment goes? He says the decision to take down the building was made and yes, "pull it" is a demolition term, it's a slang term because the technology is more advanced but it is indeed a valid term. If the building was going to allegedly fall by itself regardless, why would any action be necessary? See? You are not even trying to think this thing through AT all....you are wed to the idea that it just simply collapsed in on it's self as if it was made with a house of cards that could simply collapse with no resistance.....how fucking stupid is that???

Sorry, but you're too fucking deranged to be believed that the building would have fallen down earlier than it did, simply by you looking at a photograph. But because of the structural damage caused by the collapse of the north tower, the sprinkler system failed and fire fighters decided early on to not enter an unstable building, risking yet even more lives than already lost that morning, and let the building burn uncontrollably for about 7 hours until it finally, and expectedly, collapsed.

"pull it" is not a demolition term. I just posted a video with 30 demolitions. No one used that term. No one has ever been heard using that term. Again -- nothing is pulled.

And then there's video of firemen earlier in the day predicting it would fall.



"See where the white smoke is? You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it. 'Cause you have to go up in there to put it out and it's already, the structural integrity is not there in the building ... it's tough ... we can handle just about everything, this is beyond... They were trying to put the fire out down there with tower ladders. but uh, we got all kinds of water problems. The two Trade buildings took out the mains. There's no way to put the fire out."

Furthermore, Silverstein says he told the firemen to "pull" or "pull" it ... you brain-diseased parasite ... firemen don't demolish buildings. That's not what they do. They're not trained for that. Silverstein even explains what he meant by "pull it" ... he meant for the firefighters to pull back away from the building before any more firemen were injured.

I know I say this over and over again, but it really can't be stressed enough, even at the risk of sounding repetitive ... you are absolutely and completely fucking deranged.

It is a slang term for demolition. I posted the video of his interview...his own words are very incriminating. Lamely attempting to insult me doesn't make your case in the slightest...none, nada, zilch. It was a controlled demolition.....deal with that very salient fact.

Why do I have to ask for this 10 times? Are you too embarrassed to admit what you believe? Is there some small glimmer of sanity inside you, capable of recognizing just how insane you appear, causing you to hesitate describing what you actually believe happened?

.... again ....

if you think planes were not flown into the Twin Towers ... how did millions see it happen live on TV, corroborated by many thousands who were there?

 

[Dale Smith]

Great, more fruits & nuts.

Who said one did? The north tower did tremendous damage to it when it fell and fires burned uncontrollably all day until the build collapsed.

But speaking of planes ... if you don't think planes were flown into the Twin Towers, how do you explain the videos we've all seen, corroborated by eyewitnesses who were there?

Tremendous damage? It was on the outer perimeter of where the closest Tower fell. How in the fuck did fires get started in the middle of the building and how in the fuck would that cause it to fall and "free fall"? Witnesses said that they heard explosions, the BBC reported that it fell almost 30 minutes before it did. Larry Silverstien said that the decision was made to "pull it" which is a demolition term...only problem is how in the fuck could they set up charges in a building when something like that takes at least a few days to put charges into place? We know that vans were being allowed into Towers 1 and 2 for a couple of weeks leading up to 9/11/01. And how did FEMA know this was going to happen when they arrived on Monday night???

You're fucking deranged.

Yes, "tremendous damage."

And who said the fires "started" in the middle of any floors?

And I get tell you how many times this idiocy has been debunked, but "pull it" is not a demolition term. WTF would that even mean? Nothing is pulled. A button is pushed.

Lastly... this is what actual demolitions look like and sound like. Build #7 neither looked anything like that nor sounded like that...



Notice, in particular, the second building in that video.... it's a rather tall building, like building #7 but shorter..... notice there's a loud hum. Very loud. Meanwhile, you can still clearly hear the explosions easily over the humming. Also pay close attention to how many explosives were needed to bring down about a 30 story building and imagine what would have been needed to take down a 47 story building. Which went down with NO explosions. So quiet, you could hear people speaking.

My apologies ... I neglected to include the link to where you see and hear building #7 coming down with no visible or audible signs of a controlled demolition.....

Actual demolitions....



...compared to...

Holyfuckingshit!

Your own video just proved how insane you are.

firefighter: "...and we have no term that I know of that says, 'pulling buildings.' That's not our area of expertise, we've never done that. We don't do that. So for him to say that, I don't know where he pulled that out of but it's just not part of our operations. Ok?"

reporter: "so the fire department doesn't have the training to "pull" a building; to "demo" a building like that?"

firefighter: "we're not trained to do that. We've never done that. In my 32 years, I know of no evolution whatsoever, that does that."​

YOUR OWN VIDEO!!

What it shows and proves is that Silverstein lied but yet knew that the building had already been wired to explode....how did that escape you?

 

[Dale Smith]

Tremendous damage? It was on the outer perimeter of where the closest Tower fell. How in the fuck did fires get started in the middle of the building and how in the fuck would that cause it to fall and "free fall"? Witnesses said that they heard explosions, the BBC reported that it fell almost 30 minutes before it did. Larry Silverstien said that the decision was made to "pull it" which is a demolition term...only problem is how in the fuck could they set up charges in a building when something like that takes at least a few days to put charges into place? We know that vans were being allowed into Towers 1 and 2 for a couple of weeks leading up to 9/11/01. And how did FEMA know this was going to happen when they arrived on Monday night???

You're fucking deranged.

Yes, "tremendous damage."

And who said the fires "started" in the middle of any floors?

And I get tell you how many times this idiocy has been debunked, but "pull it" is not a demolition term. WTF would that even mean? Nothing is pulled. A button is pushed.

Lastly... this is what actual demolitions look like and sound like. Build #7 neither looked anything like that nor sounded like that...



Notice, in particular, the second building in that video.... it's a rather tall building, like building #7 but shorter..... notice there's a loud hum. Very loud. Meanwhile, you can still clearly hear the explosions easily over the humming. Also pay close attention to how many explosives were needed to bring down about a 30 story building and imagine what would have been needed to take down a 47 story building. Which went down with NO explosions. So quiet, you could hear people speaking.

If that picture was actually true, then it would have fallen OVER instead of collapsing at free fall speed right into it's own fucking footprint. It's called physics...ever heard of it? As far as Larry Silverstein's comment goes? He says the decision to take down the building was made and yes, "pull it" is a demolition term, it's a slang term because the technology is more advanced but it is indeed a valid term. If the building was going to allegedly fall by itself regardless, why would any action be necessary? See? You are not even trying to think this thing through AT all....you are wed to the idea that it just simply collapsed in on it's self as if it was made with a house of cards that could simply collapse with no resistance.....how fucking stupid is that???

Sorry, but you're too fucking deranged to be believed that the building would have fallen down earlier than it did, simply by you looking at a photograph. But because of the structural damage caused by the collapse of the north tower, the sprinkler system failed and fire fighters decided early on to not enter an unstable building, risking yet even more lives than already lost that morning, and let the building burn uncontrollably for about 7 hours until it finally, and expectedly, collapsed.

"pull it" is not a demolition term. I just posted a video with 30 demolitions. No one used that term. No one has ever been heard using that term. Again -- nothing is pulled.

And then there's video of firemen earlier in the day predicting it would fall.



"See where the white smoke is? You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it. 'Cause you have to go up in there to put it out and it's already, the structural integrity is not there in the building ... it's tough ... we can handle just about everything, this is beyond... They were trying to put the fire out down there with tower ladders. but uh, we got all kinds of water problems. The two Trade buildings took out the mains. There's no way to put the fire out."

Furthermore, Silverstein says he told the firemen to "pull" or "pull" it ... you brain-diseased parasite ... firemen don't demolish buildings. That's not what they do. They're not trained for that. Silverstein even explains what he meant by "pull it" ... he meant for the firefighters to pull back away from the building before any more firemen were injured.

I know I say this over and over again, but it really can't be stressed enough, even at the risk of sounding repetitive ... you are absolutely and completely fucking deranged.

It is a slang term for demolition. I posted the video of his interview...his own words are very incriminating. Lamely attempting to insult me doesn't make your case in the slightest...none, nada, zilch. It was a controlled demolition.....deal with that very salient fact.

Why do I have to ask for this 10 times? Are you too embarrassed to admit what you believe? Is there some small glimmer of sanity inside you, capable of recognizing just how insane you appear, causing you to hesitate describing what you actually believe happened?

.... again ....

if you think planes were not flown into the Twin Towers ... how did millions see it happen live on TV, corroborated by many thousands who were there?

I am totally open to the idea that holograms were used because that technology has been around for a very long time. It might have been a real drone plane as well. After learning how the WTC towers were actually built, how that a jet could slice through it like butter (being that it's made out of lightweight aluminium) could go all the way through the building seems like bullshit to me. But unlike you, I am open-minded about any theory because the official story is total bullshit.......does this help?

 

[Faun]

You're fucking deranged.

Yes, "tremendous damage."

And who said the fires "started" in the middle of any floors?

And I get tell you how many times this idiocy has been debunked, but "pull it" is not a demolition term. WTF would that even mean? Nothing is pulled. A button is pushed.

Lastly... this is what actual demolitions look like and sound like. Build #7 neither looked anything like that nor sounded like that...



Notice, in particular, the second building in that video.... it's a rather tall building, like building #7 but shorter..... notice there's a loud hum. Very loud. Meanwhile, you can still clearly hear the explosions easily over the humming. Also pay close attention to how many explosives were needed to bring down about a 30 story building and imagine what would have been needed to take down a 47 story building. Which went down with NO explosions. So quiet, you could hear people speaking.

If that picture was actually true, then it would have fallen OVER instead of collapsing at free fall speed right into it's own fucking footprint. It's called physics...ever heard of it? As far as Larry Silverstein's comment goes? He says the decision to take down the building was made and yes, "pull it" is a demolition term, it's a slang term because the technology is more advanced but it is indeed a valid term. If the building was going to allegedly fall by itself regardless, why would any action be necessary? See? You are not even trying to think this thing through AT all....you are wed to the idea that it just simply collapsed in on it's self as if it was made with a house of cards that could simply collapse with no resistance.....how fucking stupid is that???

Sorry, but you're too fucking deranged to be believed that the building would have fallen down earlier than it did, simply by you looking at a photograph. But because of the structural damage caused by the collapse of the north tower, the sprinkler system failed and fire fighters decided early on to not enter an unstable building, risking yet even more lives than already lost that morning, and let the building burn uncontrollably for about 7 hours until it finally, and expectedly, collapsed.

"pull it" is not a demolition term. I just posted a video with 30 demolitions. No one used that term. No one has ever been heard using that term. Again -- nothing is pulled.

And then there's video of firemen earlier in the day predicting it would fall.



"See where the white smoke is? You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it. 'Cause you have to go up in there to put it out and it's already, the structural integrity is not there in the building ... it's tough ... we can handle just about everything, this is beyond... They were trying to put the fire out down there with tower ladders. but uh, we got all kinds of water problems. The two Trade buildings took out the mains. There's no way to put the fire out."

Furthermore, Silverstein says he told the firemen to "pull" or "pull" it ... you brain-diseased parasite ... firemen don't demolish buildings. That's not what they do. They're not trained for that. Silverstein even explains what he meant by "pull it" ... he meant for the firefighters to pull back away from the building before any more firemen were injured.

I know I say this over and over again, but it really can't be stressed enough, even at the risk of sounding repetitive ... you are absolutely and completely fucking deranged.

It is a slang term for demolition. I posted the video of his interview...his own words are very incriminating. Lamely attempting to insult me doesn't make your case in the slightest...none, nada, zilch. It was a controlled demolition.....deal with that very salient fact.

Why do I have to ask for this 10 times? Are you too embarrassed to admit what you believe? Is there some small glimmer of sanity inside you, capable of recognizing just how insane you appear, causing you to hesitate describing what you actually believe happened?

.... again ....

if you think planes were not flown into the Twin Towers ... how did millions see it happen live on TV, corroborated by many thousands who were there?

I am totally open to the idea that holograms were used because that technology has been around for a very long time. It might have been a real drone plane as well. After learning how the WTC towers were actually built, how that a jet could slice through it like butter (being that it's made out of lightweight aluminium) could go all the way through the building seems like bullshit to me. But unlike you, I am open-minded about any theory because the official story is total bullshit.......does this help?

Well it certainly lends to your mental disorders. Moron... aside from your sad reality that no such technology exists today, no less 15 years ago, to cast a holographic image of a realistic looking plane streaking across the sky ... but had it... or had it been a drone... the perpetrators would have simply used one additional hologram, or drone, on building #7, if their intention was to bring that building down.

 

[Dale Smith]

If that picture was actually true, then it would have fallen OVER instead of collapsing at free fall speed right into it's own fucking footprint. It's called physics...ever heard of it? As far as Larry Silverstein's comment goes? He says the decision to take down the building was made and yes, "pull it" is a demolition term, it's a slang term because the technology is more advanced but it is indeed a valid term. If the building was going to allegedly fall by itself regardless, why would any action be necessary? See? You are not even trying to think this thing through AT all....you are wed to the idea that it just simply collapsed in on it's self as if it was made with a house of cards that could simply collapse with no resistance.....how fucking stupid is that???

Sorry, but you're too fucking deranged to be believed that the building would have fallen down earlier than it did, simply by you looking at a photograph. But because of the structural damage caused by the collapse of the north tower, the sprinkler system failed and fire fighters decided early on to not enter an unstable building, risking yet even more lives than already lost that morning, and let the building burn uncontrollably for about 7 hours until it finally, and expectedly, collapsed.

"pull it" is not a demolition term. I just posted a video with 30 demolitions. No one used that term. No one has ever been heard using that term. Again -- nothing is pulled.

And then there's video of firemen earlier in the day predicting it would fall.



"See where the white smoke is? You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it. 'Cause you have to go up in there to put it out and it's already, the structural integrity is not there in the building ... it's tough ... we can handle just about everything, this is beyond... They were trying to put the fire out down there with tower ladders. but uh, we got all kinds of water problems. The two Trade buildings took out the mains. There's no way to put the fire out."

Furthermore, Silverstein says he told the firemen to "pull" or "pull" it ... you brain-diseased parasite ... firemen don't demolish buildings. That's not what they do. They're not trained for that. Silverstein even explains what he meant by "pull it" ... he meant for the firefighters to pull back away from the building before any more firemen were injured.

I know I say this over and over again, but it really can't be stressed enough, even at the risk of sounding repetitive ... you are absolutely and completely fucking deranged.

It is a slang term for demolition. I posted the video of his interview...his own words are very incriminating. Lamely attempting to insult me doesn't make your case in the slightest...none, nada, zilch. It was a controlled demolition.....deal with that very salient fact.

Why do I have to ask for this 10 times? Are you too embarrassed to admit what you believe? Is there some small glimmer of sanity inside you, capable of recognizing just how insane you appear, causing you to hesitate describing what you actually believe happened?

.... again ....

if you think planes were not flown into the Twin Towers ... how did millions see it happen live on TV, corroborated by many thousands who were there?

I am totally open to the idea that holograms were used because that technology has been around for a very long time. It might have been a real drone plane as well. After learning how the WTC towers were actually built, how that a jet could slice through it like butter (being that it's made out of lightweight aluminium) could go all the way through the building seems like bullshit to me. But unlike you, I am open-minded about any theory because the official story is total bullshit.......does this help?

Well it certainly lends to your mental disorders. Moron... aside from your sad reality that no such technology exists today, no less 15 years ago, to cast a holographic image of a realistic looking plane streaking across the sky ... but had it... or had it been a drone... the perpetrators would have simply used one additional hologram, or drone, on building #7, if their intention was to bring that building down.

I know more than you......and the picture is perfectly clear to me because I took the time to read, research and discern information. The military industrial complex is at the very least twenty years ahead of what technology we are allowed to have and could be as much as 150 years. I do know the deep underground military bases/cities (of which there are at least 139 of them) do not have an electrical grid and work off of Nikola Tesla technology and they connect these bases with a train that works off of magnets and they can go from "coast to coast" in less than two hours. Do some research on "Project Blue Beam".....read, learn, grow, evolve. The world that you think you live in and the ones that you have so much faith in don't give a flying fuck about you. You are simply a resource with an ever growing decreasing value. It's a fucking fact and the sooner you learn that, the sooner you will wake up as to what is reality.

 

[rightwinger]

There has already been a fair amount of discussion regarding what happened at the Pentagon in this forum, much of which I have participated in, in other threads. That being said, I think the other threads on the subject start off in a tone that clearly implies those behind the threads haven't studied the issue in much depth. In my view, this can lead to individuals entering the discussion, not really having much knowledge of the depth of evidence against the official story's version of events, which is why I intend to transfer any discussions I have been having with others regarding the Pentagon event in other threads to this one. I have studied and discussed the Pentagon event on 9/11 for years, and I think that while a 5 minute video known as "Pentagon Strike" is an excellent place to begin, it is only the beginning. For those who are unfamiliar with this video, The Pentagon Strike focuses on evidence that whatever happened at the Pentagon, it couldn't have been hit by a 757 airplane. I find much of this evidence is as compelling today as it was when it was first released. That video can be seen here:



For those who want to go beyond this point, I offer 2 additional videos, from 2 different organizations, and as well as some commentary on the organizations and the videos themselves.


The first is from Citizen Investigation Team, or CIT for short. This team of investigators, which have primarily been composed of Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke, worked for many years on uncovering what really happened in the Pentagon attack. They went down to Arlington, Virginia, to video record the witnesses they found were in the best position to know exactly what happened during the Pentagon event. What they found out surprised them. Essentially, they found out that all the witnesses they found to be credible had the plane flying a path that took it North of a Citgo gas station that was directly east of the Pentagon at the time, instead of south of the Citgo gas station, which is what the official narrative had posited at that point in time. This was very important, as all of the damage that the official story had alleged was caused by American Airlines Flight 77 could not have been caused by an airplane that flew in a path that took it North of the Citgo gas station before approaching the Pentagon. The conclusion was as inevitable as it was stunning: the Pentaplane must have flown over the Pentagon. CIT has done many videos, all of which I believe focus on the testimony of atleast 1 witness who claims to have seen what happened at the Pentagon from a good vantage point, recommends that for just diving in to their work, that they see National Security Alert, so this is the video I have put up below:




The second video is from Pilots for 9/11 Truth. This group, founded by current or former pilots, and whose core is the same, have focused on what occurred with the 4 planes that were allegedly hijacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11. They have also done many documentaries on the subject of these planes. I feel that the best video specifically regarding the Pentagon attack that they have made is 9/11: Attack on the Pentagon. The video incorporates the work done by CIT and its many points of its own as well. It was uploaded to the internet by Pilots for 9/11 Truth and can be found here:



I am hoping that people who participate in this thread watch atleast one (or part of one) of the videos from CIT or Pilots for 9/11 Truth that I have linked to above, and comment in a constructive manner as to whether they agree or disagree with the points made, and why.

How do you account for the bodies and personal effects of Flight 77 found in the Pentagon wreckage?

Yeah, they recovered no luggage or the 2 ton titanium jet engines but they found enough remains of people in order to "ID" them. What I would like to know is why does the officially released flight data recorder show that the aircraft was hundreds of feet above those struck lamp poles as it flew past?


The data provided by the NTSB contradict the 9/11 Commission Report in several significant ways:

- The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.

• CSV file and animation as plotted and provided by the NTSB through the Freedom Of Information Act (1) at time stamp 09:37:44, reports pressure altitude as 173 (csv file) and 180 feet (animation). When adjusted for local pressure to true altitude, the aircraft is ~473 and ~ 480 feet above sea level, respectively. Too high to hit the light poles as reported being struck on Washington Blvd and the Pentagon if trends are continued. NTSB calculates and reports impact time of 09:37:45 in their NTSB Flight Path Study (2).
• The Animation Reconstruction as plotted and provided by the NTSB shows a flight path north of the required physical damage path. (1)

- All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.

AA77 Technical Outline

The families of those victims took those remains and gave them a proper burial and honor and pray to those remains

Are you such a LOW LIFE SCUM that you mock those families, call them suckers and taunt them that those are not the remains of their loved ones based on NO EVIDENCE?

You make me sick

AGAIN, you ignore what I posted. Your beloved "gubermint" lies to you with great gusto and they do it constantly. Stupid little naive fucks like you swallow it like it was ambrosia delivered by the gods. Seriously, I can't believe how fucking stupid some people truly are.

So when the gubment notified families that remains of their loved ones have been identified and the family honors those remains and buries them and visits them........You believe they are "naive fucks". You mock their grief, piss on the graves of their loved ones......All based on NO EVIDENCE


You are truly a despicable individual

 

[Faun]

Sorry, but you're too fucking deranged to be believed that the building would have fallen down earlier than it did, simply by you looking at a photograph. But because of the structural damage caused by the collapse of the north tower, the sprinkler system failed and fire fighters decided early on to not enter an unstable building, risking yet even more lives than already lost that morning, and let the building burn uncontrollably for about 7 hours until it finally, and expectedly, collapsed.

"pull it" is not a demolition term. I just posted a video with 30 demolitions. No one used that term. No one has ever been heard using that term. Again -- nothing is pulled.

And then there's video of firemen earlier in the day predicting it would fall.



"See where the white smoke is? You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it. 'Cause you have to go up in there to put it out and it's already, the structural integrity is not there in the building ... it's tough ... we can handle just about everything, this is beyond... They were trying to put the fire out down there with tower ladders. but uh, we got all kinds of water problems. The two Trade buildings took out the mains. There's no way to put the fire out."

Furthermore, Silverstein says he told the firemen to "pull" or "pull" it ... you brain-diseased parasite ... firemen don't demolish buildings. That's not what they do. They're not trained for that. Silverstein even explains what he meant by "pull it" ... he meant for the firefighters to pull back away from the building before any more firemen were injured.

I know I say this over and over again, but it really can't be stressed enough, even at the risk of sounding repetitive ... you are absolutely and completely fucking deranged.

It is a slang term for demolition. I posted the video of his interview...his own words are very incriminating. Lamely attempting to insult me doesn't make your case in the slightest...none, nada, zilch. It was a controlled demolition.....deal with that very salient fact.

Why do I have to ask for this 10 times? Are you too embarrassed to admit what you believe? Is there some small glimmer of sanity inside you, capable of recognizing just how insane you appear, causing you to hesitate describing what you actually believe happened?

.... again ....

if you think planes were not flown into the Twin Towers ... how did millions see it happen live on TV, corroborated by many thousands who were there?

I am totally open to the idea that holograms were used because that technology has been around for a very long time. It might have been a real drone plane as well. After learning how the WTC towers were actually built, how that a jet could slice through it like butter (being that it's made out of lightweight aluminium) could go all the way through the building seems like bullshit to me. But unlike you, I am open-minded about any theory because the official story is total bullshit.......does this help?

Well it certainly lends to your mental disorders. Moron... aside from your sad reality that no such technology exists today, no less 15 years ago, to cast a holographic image of a realistic looking plane streaking across the sky ... but had it... or had it been a drone... the perpetrators would have simply used one additional hologram, or drone, on building #7, if their intention was to bring that building down.

I know more than you......and the picture is perfectly clear to me because I took the time to read, research and discern information. The military industrial complex is at the very least twenty years ahead of what technology we are allowed to have and could be as much as 150 years. I do know the deep underground military bases/cities (of which there are at least 139 of them) do not have an electrical grid and work off of Nikola Tesla technology and they connect these bases with a train that works off of magnets and they can go from "coast to coast" in less than two hours. Do some research on "Project Blue Beam".....read, learn, grow, evolve. The world that you think you live in and the ones that you have so much faith in don't give a flying fuck about you. You are simply a resource with an ever growing decreasing value. It's a fucking fact and the sooner you learn that, the sooner you will wake up as to what is reality.

Raving lunatic... there is no such technology. Even worse for your delusions... holograms don't make holes in buildings like...

...and again... if they used holograms, you would have seen a plane fly into building #7.

But I suppose that's the beauty of being insane like you... you believe anything you hallucinate. Evidence isn't even necessary. If you imagine it -- it's real.

 

[Dale Smith]

There has already been a fair amount of discussion regarding what happened at the Pentagon in this forum, much of which I have participated in, in other threads. That being said, I think the other threads on the subject start off in a tone that clearly implies those behind the threads haven't studied the issue in much depth. In my view, this can lead to individuals entering the discussion, not really having much knowledge of the depth of evidence against the official story's version of events, which is why I intend to transfer any discussions I have been having with others regarding the Pentagon event in other threads to this one. I have studied and discussed the Pentagon event on 9/11 for years, and I think that while a 5 minute video known as "Pentagon Strike" is an excellent place to begin, it is only the beginning. For those who are unfamiliar with this video, The Pentagon Strike focuses on evidence that whatever happened at the Pentagon, it couldn't have been hit by a 757 airplane. I find much of this evidence is as compelling today as it was when it was first released. That video can be seen here:



For those who want to go beyond this point, I offer 2 additional videos, from 2 different organizations, and as well as some commentary on the organizations and the videos themselves.


The first is from Citizen Investigation Team, or CIT for short. This team of investigators, which have primarily been composed of Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke, worked for many years on uncovering what really happened in the Pentagon attack. They went down to Arlington, Virginia, to video record the witnesses they found were in the best position to know exactly what happened during the Pentagon event. What they found out surprised them. Essentially, they found out that all the witnesses they found to be credible had the plane flying a path that took it North of a Citgo gas station that was directly east of the Pentagon at the time, instead of south of the Citgo gas station, which is what the official narrative had posited at that point in time. This was very important, as all of the damage that the official story had alleged was caused by American Airlines Flight 77 could not have been caused by an airplane that flew in a path that took it North of the Citgo gas station before approaching the Pentagon. The conclusion was as inevitable as it was stunning: the Pentaplane must have flown over the Pentagon. CIT has done many videos, all of which I believe focus on the testimony of atleast 1 witness who claims to have seen what happened at the Pentagon from a good vantage point, recommends that for just diving in to their work, that they see National Security Alert, so this is the video I have put up below:




The second video is from Pilots for 9/11 Truth. This group, founded by current or former pilots, and whose core is the same, have focused on what occurred with the 4 planes that were allegedly hijacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11. They have also done many documentaries on the subject of these planes. I feel that the best video specifically regarding the Pentagon attack that they have made is 9/11: Attack on the Pentagon. The video incorporates the work done by CIT and its many points of its own as well. It was uploaded to the internet by Pilots for 9/11 Truth and can be found here:



I am hoping that people who participate in this thread watch atleast one (or part of one) of the videos from CIT or Pilots for 9/11 Truth that I have linked to above, and comment in a constructive manner as to whether they agree or disagree with the points made, and why.

How do you account for the bodies and personal effects of Flight 77 found in the Pentagon wreckage?

Yeah, they recovered no luggage or the 2 ton titanium jet engines but they found enough remains of people in order to "ID" them. What I would like to know is why does the officially released flight data recorder show that the aircraft was hundreds of feet above those struck lamp poles as it flew past?


The data provided by the NTSB contradict the 9/11 Commission Report in several significant ways:

- The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.

• CSV file and animation as plotted and provided by the NTSB through the Freedom Of Information Act (1) at time stamp 09:37:44, reports pressure altitude as 173 (csv file) and 180 feet (animation). When adjusted for local pressure to true altitude, the aircraft is ~473 and ~ 480 feet above sea level, respectively. Too high to hit the light poles as reported being struck on Washington Blvd and the Pentagon if trends are continued. NTSB calculates and reports impact time of 09:37:45 in their NTSB Flight Path Study (2).
• The Animation Reconstruction as plotted and provided by the NTSB shows a flight path north of the required physical damage path. (1)

- All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.

AA77 Technical Outline

The families of those victims took those remains and gave them a proper burial and honor and pray to those remains

Are you such a LOW LIFE SCUM that you mock those families, call them suckers and taunt them that those are not the remains of their loved ones based on NO EVIDENCE?

You make me sick

AGAIN, you ignore what I posted. Your beloved "gubermint" lies to you with great gusto and they do it constantly. Stupid little naive fucks like you swallow it like it was ambrosia delivered by the gods. Seriously, I can't believe how fucking stupid some people truly are.

So when the gubment notified families that remains of their loved ones have been identified and the family honors those remains and buries them and visits them........You believe they are "naive fucks". You mock their grief, piss on the graves of their loved ones......All based on NO EVIDENCE


You are truly a despicable individual

Got proof that anyone died besides the words of your beloved "gubermint"? That's what I thought so STFU. You can't play the "shame game" on me, ya fucking retard. Your fucking "gubermint" is nothing but one huge crime syndicate and that is what truly is despicable.