Another Year And The Ones Who Were Involved In 911

[n0spam4me]

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

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

 

[SAYIT]

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

Which is, I believe, Skylar's point. "Truthers" reject physical evidence, facts and logic.

 

[n0spam4me]

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

 

[Skylar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Skylar]

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

Says the guy that ignored every picture of debris, every video, every eye witness, every piece of physical evidence, every report, every piece of testimony that contradicts you....

....all because they destroy your theory.

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

Every. Single. One.

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

 

[SAYIT]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SAYIT]

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

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

 

[daws101]

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

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

ah handjob, that's fire burns steel!

 

[n0spam4me]

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

 

[Skylar]

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

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

 

[n0spam4me]

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

 

[Skylar]

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

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

The fact that the building fell in silence...and there's no such thing as silent explosives.......you ignore.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[n0spam4me]

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

The fact that the building fell in silence...and there's no such thing as silent explosives.......you ignore.

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

have a nice day.

: )

 

[Skylar]

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

The fact that the building fell in silence...and there's no such thing as silent explosives.......you ignore.

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

have a nice day.

: )

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

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

The fact that the building fell in silence...and there's no such thing as silent explosives.......you ignore.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[n0spam4me]

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

 

[irosie91]

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

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

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

 

[n0spam4me]

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

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

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

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

 

[irosie91]

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

 

[n0spam4me]

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

 

[irosie91]

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

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

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