Something for 9/11 Conspiracy loonies to read.

[paulitician]

Minimal fires in WTC 7? You really believe that? For 7 hours there were minimal fires?

Have you seen the videos taken that day? In particular concentrate on the south side of the building. that would be the side that the truther videos never show you.....

Compared to past fires in comparable sized buildings,they were relatively small fires. They could not have caused such a perfect Demolition-style collapse. It just doesn't happen. And check out the other WTC buildings that were right below the Towers. They suffered far more damage than WTC 7 and yet were left standing after the collapses. The video & photo evidence shows this. So something is not right with the Government's story on WTC 7. And if that's the case,what else have they lied about?

Every building in the WTC complex was destroyed that day. All 7.

You really need to stop drinking the koolaide and start thinking for yourself.

Sure they had to finish knocking a couple of them down, but there were also buildings outside the WTC that had to be demolished because of the heavy damage.

Go back and re-look at the videos, listen to what the fire chiefs were saying. They said 3 hours prior that the building was going to collapse. One said that 25% of the building was scooped out of the south side. The facts are out there......

No,the other buildings were left standing somewhat intact. And they were right below the Towers. They did not implode in the same perfect Demolition-style that WTC 7 did. Their damage looked consistent with how buildings should look after such damage. WTC 7 did not. And it had less damage. Now,the only question left is why? Why did they demolish it? There are some reasons why floating around out there but i haven't settled on a particular reason yet.

There were CIA offices in the building along with it being the Emergency Disaster Response Center for the City. But other agencies had offices in the building as well. Looks like there were a lot of files they didn't want anyone seeing. That's one guess. Anyway,you will always believe the Government's story and i can't change your mind on that. But i don't believe their story. Way too many holes.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Somewhat intact? Really?

By the way I meant to ask, where did you ever get the Idea that steel was turned into dust?

 

[paulitician]

Somewhat intact? Really?

By the way I meant to ask, where did you ever get the Idea that steel was turned into dust?

Other WTC Buildings right below the Towers were left relatively intact. Yes they had a whole lot of damage but the damage was consistent with how a building should look after such destruction. This is not the case with WTC 7. And it had much less damage. WTC 7 was a controlled Demolition. I'm not exactly sure why though. I have some ideas but i can't pin it down completely yet.

But anyway like i said,i can't change your mind. I don't even want to try to. I was just looking for some discussion on this. No one gets converted on Message Boards. The more i post,the more you'll dig your heels in and defend the Government's story. So it's kind of pointless to contunue our discussion no? Just try and approach 911 with more of an open mind if you can. Or don't. It's up to you.

 

[paulitician]

Impossible for all columns to collapse perfectly at the same time. Those fires could not have caused that. Absolutely impossible. There would have been an uneven collapse...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk]WTC7 -- This is an Orange - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mr. Jones]

As far as WTC 1&2 collapsing name ONE other building IN THE WORLD with that same construction. THERE ARE NONE!! Can you say DESIGN FLAW??

Study Suggests Design Flaws Didn't Doom Towers
By ERIC LIPTON
Published: October 20, 2004

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 - After the most sophisticated building analysis in United States history, federal investigators have arrived at the clearest picture yet of the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, largely ruling out a design flaw in the buildings as a central factor in the catastrophe...

In interviews Tuesday, the lead investigator, as well as other engineers who have studied the collapse, said the evidence increasingly suggested that the giant structures - given the extreme conditions, including temperatures that reached more than 1,000 degrees - performed relatively well on Sept. 11, 2001.

For Leslie E. Robertson, the structural engineer who helped design the twin towers as a young man back in the early 1960's, the latest findings buttress his longstanding assertion that the towers were fundamentally sound. His wife, Saw-Teen See, who is a managing partner at Mr. Robertson's New York design firm, said the report "validates the way we thought the structure would have performed."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/20/nyregion/20towers.html

There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs.

The WTC was primarily a lightweight steel structure, however, its 244 perimeter columns made it “one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers.
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation (commented)

Quote: Originally Posted by Obamerican]Your entire argument is based on 1/10 of ONE PERCENT of the engineers in the world that says what you do about the collapse.

OCTASSes back the governments theory, based on never before occurring, absurd, unproven and secretive computer simulation data, and wild conspiracy theories that are full of holes, and full of shit.

Quote: Originally Posted by Obamerican]WTC7 is a different building. The front was collapsed by the falling debris, not DUST, from WTC 1&2 collapsing. I've seen the videos of the fires in 7. Name another building that had huge tanks of diesel fuel stored in the middle of the building.

If you believe the NIST theory so much, then why do you go against their statement? Do you not realize that what you just wrote goes against their findings? The "huge diesel tanks" had nothing to do with the collapse of WTC 7, and neither did the physical "damage" caused by the falling tower/s...according to NIST.
Perhaps you would like the government and NIST to cooperate with a new independent investigation to help clear up your misunderstandings?

[quote Originally Posted by Obamerican ] And don't say "free fall". They weren't.

Why not? NIST does! You're even more mixed up then you were in past discussions about the 9-11 controversy. NIST Admitted WTC-7 Accelerated at Freefall Speed.

NIST Admits Freefall

OpEdNews - Diary: (9/11) NIST: a. Free Fall Requires No Resistance b. WTC7 was in Free Fall

Quote: Originally Posted by SFC Ollie ]Minimal fires in WTC 7? You really believe that? For 7 hours there were minimal fires?

Other steel buildings have burned for longer periods of time without a total global collapse.
The north tower survived a serious fire in 1975.
9-11 Research: The 1975 Fire

A major fact that OCTASSes fail to think about, is the correct time for free-fall in a vacuum from the heights of the towers' roofs to the street is 9.2 seconds. And the crushing of all the mass of the buildings and acceleration of the 400,000 tons of intact structure below the impact zone only slowed the fall by a couple of seconds.

The speed of fall, the uniformity of acceleration and the verticality of collapse are not
consistent with the effects of fire but are fully consistent with the hypothesis that the building
supports were rapidly and completely severed. No plausible explanation for this other than the
use of explosives in a controlled demolition has been presented.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...eration-Study-Proves-Explosive-Demolition.pdf

 

[paulitician]

As far as WTC 1&2 collapsing name ONE other building IN THE WORLD with that same construction. THERE ARE NONE!! Can you say DESIGN FLAW??

Study Suggests Design Flaws Didn't Doom Towers
By ERIC LIPTON
Published: October 20, 2004

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 - After the most sophisticated building analysis in United States history, federal investigators have arrived at the clearest picture yet of the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, largely ruling out a design flaw in the buildings as a central factor in the catastrophe...

In interviews Tuesday, the lead investigator, as well as other engineers who have studied the collapse, said the evidence increasingly suggested that the giant structures - given the extreme conditions, including temperatures that reached more than 1,000 degrees - performed relatively well on Sept. 11, 2001.

For Leslie E. Robertson, the structural engineer who helped design the twin towers as a young man back in the early 1960's, the latest findings buttress his longstanding assertion that the towers were fundamentally sound. His wife, Saw-Teen See, who is a managing partner at Mr. Robertson's New York design firm, said the report "validates the way we thought the structure would have performed."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/20/nyregion/20towers.html

There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs.

The WTC was primarily a lightweight steel structure, however, its 244 perimeter columns made it “one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers.
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation (commented)

Quote: Originally Posted by Obamerican]Your entire argument is based on 1/10 of ONE PERCENT of the engineers in the world that says what you do about the collapse.

OCTASSes back the governments theory, based on never before occurring, absurd, unproven and secretive computer simulation data, and wild conspiracy theories that are full of holes, and full of shit.



If you believe the NIST theory so much, then why do you go against their statement? Do you not realize that what you just wrote goes against their findings? The "huge diesel tanks" had nothing to do with the collapse of WTC 7, and neither did the physical "damage" caused by the falling tower/s...according to NIST.
Perhaps you would like the government and NIST to cooperate with a new independent investigation to help clear up your misunderstandings?

[quote Originally Posted by Obamerican ] And don't say "free fall". They weren't.

Why not? NIST does! You're even more mixed up then you were in past discussions about the 9-11 controversy. NIST Admitted WTC-7 Accelerated at Freefall Speed.

NIST Admits Freefall

OpEdNews - Diary: (9/11) NIST: a. Free Fall Requires No Resistance b. WTC7 was in Free Fall

Quote: Originally Posted by SFC Ollie ]Minimal fires in WTC 7? You really believe that? For 7 hours there were minimal fires?

Other steel buildings have burned for longer periods of time without a total global collapse.
The north tower survived a serious fire in 1975.
9-11 Research: The 1975 Fire

A major fact that OCTASSes fail to think about, is the correct time for free-fall in a vacuum from the heights of the towers' roofs to the street is 9.2 seconds. And the crushing of all the mass of the buildings and acceleration of the 400,000 tons of intact structure below the impact zone only slowed the fall by a couple of seconds.

The speed of fall, the uniformity of acceleration and the verticality of collapse are not
consistent with the effects of fire but are fully consistent with the hypothesis that the building
supports were rapidly and completely severed. No plausible explanation for this other than the
use of explosives in a controlled demolition has been presented.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...eration-Study-Proves-Explosive-Demolition.pdf

NIST didn't even investigate the possibility of explosives being involved. Now how can you have a Terrorism investigation without investigating the possibility of bombs being involved? That just defies logic. And the 911 Commission didn't even mention WTC 7. How did that happen? In my opinion,there is no way all the columns in WTC 7 could collapse perfectly at the same time because of those fires. The fires would have caused an uneven collapse. It had to be by controlled Demolition.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Compared to past fires in comparable sized buildings,they were relatively small fires. They could not have caused such a perfect Demolition-style collapse. It just doesn't happen.

Uh Huh, does to...But only in Manhattan on 9-11-2001. Damn those pesky Moooslims for suspending the laws of physics especially the conservation of momentum.

Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents a gallon on the open market.
mcmichael.html

 

[Obamerican]

As far as WTC 1&2 collapsing name ONE other building IN THE WORLD with that same construction. THERE ARE NONE!! Can you say DESIGN FLAW??

Study Suggests Design Flaws Didn't Doom Towers
By ERIC LIPTON
Published: October 20, 2004

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 - After the most sophisticated building analysis in United States history, federal investigators have arrived at the clearest picture yet of the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, largely ruling out a design flaw in the buildings as a central factor in the catastrophe...

In interviews Tuesday, the lead investigator, as well as other engineers who have studied the collapse, said the evidence increasingly suggested that the giant structures - given the extreme conditions, including temperatures that reached more than 1,000 degrees - performed relatively well on Sept. 11, 2001.

For Leslie E. Robertson, the structural engineer who helped design the twin towers as a young man back in the early 1960's, the latest findings buttress his longstanding assertion that the towers were fundamentally sound. His wife, Saw-Teen See, who is a managing partner at Mr. Robertson's New York design firm, said the report "validates the way we thought the structure would have performed."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/20/nyregion/20towers.html

There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs.

The WTC was primarily a lightweight steel structure, however, its 244 perimeter columns made it “one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers.
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation (commented)

OCTASSes back the governments theory, based on never before occurring, absurd, unproven and secretive computer simulation data, and wild conspiracy theories that are full of holes, and full of shit.



If you believe the NIST theory so much, then why do you go against their statement? Do you not realize that what you just wrote goes against their findings? The "huge diesel tanks" had nothing to do with the collapse of WTC 7, and neither did the physical "damage" caused by the falling tower/s...according to NIST.
Perhaps you would like the government and NIST to cooperate with a new independent investigation to help clear up your misunderstandings?

Why not? NIST does! You're even more mixed up then you were in past discussions about the 9-11 controversy. NIST Admitted WTC-7 Accelerated at Freefall Speed.

NIST Admits Freefall

OpEdNews - Diary: (9/11) NIST: a. Free Fall Requires No Resistance b. WTC7 was in Free Fall

Quote: Originally Posted by SFC Ollie ]Minimal fires in WTC 7? You really believe that? For 7 hours there were minimal fires?

Other steel buildings have burned for longer periods of time without a total global collapse.
The north tower survived a serious fire in 1975.
9-11 Research: The 1975 Fire

A major fact that OCTASSes fail to think about, is the correct time for free-fall in a vacuum from the heights of the towers' roofs to the street is 9.2 seconds. And the crushing of all the mass of the buildings and acceleration of the 400,000 tons of intact structure below the impact zone only slowed the fall by a couple of seconds.

The speed of fall, the uniformity of acceleration and the verticality of collapse are not
consistent with the effects of fire but are fully consistent with the hypothesis that the building
supports were rapidly and completely severed. No plausible explanation for this other than the
use of explosives in a controlled demolition has been presented.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...eration-Study-Proves-Explosive-Demolition.pdf

NIST didn't even investigate the possibility of explosives being involved. Now how can you have a Terrorism investigation without investigating the possibility of bombs being involved? That just defies logic. And the 911 Commission didn't even mention WTC 7. How did that happen? In my opinion,there is no way all the columns in WTC 7 could collapse perfectly at the same time because of those fires. The fires would have caused an uneven collapse. It had to be by controlled Demolition.

I have never said that I was against reopening an investigation into 9/11. My problem is people on your side always assume that the "new" investigation is going to "prove" you right when, in fact, it may only show flaws in the NIST study.

As for controlled demolition go watch REAL CD's and then watch the Trade Center or even 7. Where are the DOZENS of explosions that occur before the building even begins to collapse? People all around the area yet nothing like a normal CD.

 

[Obamerican]

Compared to past fires in comparable sized buildings,they were relatively small fires. They could not have caused such a perfect Demolition-style collapse. It just doesn't happen.

Uh Huh, does to...But only in Manhattan on 9-11-2001. Damn those pesky Moooslims for suspending the laws of physics especially the conservation of momentum.

Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents a gallon on the open market.
mcmichael.html

It didn't "melt" the steel, just softened it but you know that.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Impossible for all columns to collapse perfectly at the same time. Those fires could not have caused that. Absolutely impossible. There would have been an uneven collapse...

WTC7 -- This is an Orange - YouTube

OK you are officially a 911 nutcase.

Now go back and look at your video, Before they start moving the paused video of WTC7 notice it is on screen without the smoke moving for some time, then the collapse starts. Now look again, the east penthouse is gone before the video is shown. Why is it that the truther videos don't show the collapse starting before the east penthouse collapses? Thinking people know the reason. Because it proves that there was no free fall and no controlled demo, the timing just doesn't work.....

But that's OK, you believe what ever you like, you have labeled yourself....

 

[paulitician]

Compared to past fires in comparable sized buildings,they were relatively small fires. They could not have caused such a perfect Demolition-style collapse. It just doesn't happen.

Uh Huh, does to...But only in Manhattan on 9-11-2001. Damn those pesky Moooslims for suspending the laws of physics especially the conservation of momentum.

Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents a gallon on the open market.
mcmichael.html

 

[paulitician]

Impossible for all columns to collapse perfectly at the same time. Those fires could not have caused that. Absolutely impossible. There would have been an uneven collapse...

WTC7 -- This is an Orange - YouTube

OK you are officially a 911 nutcase.

Now go back and look at your video, Before they start moving the paused video of WTC7 notice it is on screen without the smoke moving for some time, then the collapse starts. Now look again, the east penthouse is gone before the video is shown. Why is it that the truther videos don't show the collapse starting before the east penthouse collapses? Thinking people know the reason. Because it proves that there was no free fall and no controlled demo, the timing just doesn't work.....

But that's OK, you believe what ever you like, you have labeled yourself....

Yup an orange is not an orange. It's an apple or maybe a grape? Sorry,no way fire caused that perfectly symmetrical collapse. Label me what you like but that doesn't change the fact the Government's story is Bullshit.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Impossible for all columns to collapse perfectly at the same time. Those fires could not have caused that. Absolutely impossible. There would have been an uneven collapse...

WTC7 -- This is an Orange - YouTube

OK you are officially a 911 nutcase.

Now go back and look at your video, Before they start moving the paused video of WTC7 notice it is on screen without the smoke moving for some time, then the collapse starts. Now look again, the east penthouse is gone before the video is shown. Why is it that the truther videos don't show the collapse starting before the east penthouse collapses? Thinking people know the reason. Because it proves that there was no free fall and no controlled demo, the timing just doesn't work.....

But that's OK, you believe what ever you like, you have labeled yourself....

Yup an orange is not an orange. It's an apple or maybe a grape? Sorry,no way fire caused that perfectly symmetrical collapse. Label me what you like but that doesn't change the fact the Government's story is Bullshit.

It wasn't a symmetrical collapse. But you keep believing.... When you have some proof, let us know.

 

[paulitician]

OK you are officially a 911 nutcase.

Now go back and look at your video, Before they start moving the paused video of WTC7 notice it is on screen without the smoke moving for some time, then the collapse starts. Now look again, the east penthouse is gone before the video is shown. Why is it that the truther videos don't show the collapse starting before the east penthouse collapses? Thinking people know the reason. Because it proves that there was no free fall and no controlled demo, the timing just doesn't work.....

But that's OK, you believe what ever you like, you have labeled yourself....

Yup an orange is not an orange. It's an apple or maybe a grape? Sorry,no way fire caused that perfectly symmetrical collapse. Label me what you like but that doesn't change the fact the Government's story is Bullshit.

It wasn't a symmetrical collapse. But you keep believing.... When you have some proof, let us know.

Yes and you keep believing your Government fairy tale. Ignorance really is bliss.

 

[Obamerican]

Yup an orange is not an orange. It's an apple or maybe a grape? Sorry,no way fire caused that perfectly symmetrical collapse. Label me what you like but that doesn't change the fact the Government's story is Bullshit.

It wasn't a symmetrical collapse. But you keep believing.... When you have some proof, let us know.

Yes and you keep believing your Government fairy tale. Ignorance really is bliss.

And you seriously believe that there is no ignorance on your part and you are truly one of the "enlightened" ones? Saying the official story is bullshit without providing proof of another scenario is not really presenting a valid argument. And you agreeing with Jonesy does give you a lot of credibility unless you're just a sock.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Yup an orange is not an orange. It's an apple or maybe a grape? Sorry,no way fire caused that perfectly symmetrical collapse. Label me what you like but that doesn't change the fact the Government's story is Bullshit.

It wasn't a symmetrical collapse. But you keep believing.... When you have some proof, let us know.

Yes and you keep believing your Government fairy tale. Ignorance really is bliss.

You really want to go there? here's how stupid you fucking are.

You have no choice to admit that two airliners crashed into the twin towers.

Yet you think it was impossible to do the exact same thing on the same day at the pentagon. You see it's common sense, if you plan this operation why change one of 4 parts of it?

Lets see we'll hijack 4 airplanes (or pretend they were hijacked, whatever you want to believe) and we'll crash 2 of them into the WTC and we'll fire a missile (No clue where we might get it from) into the pentagon; and while doing this we'll make the people and one of the airliners disappear.

Now what do you want to add about Shanksville?


Fucking stupid ass.

I'll challenge you the same way all these other assholes have failed. Tell me in your own words what you believe happened.

I can use a good laugh I need a good Ho Ho Ho tonight............

 

[paulitician]

It wasn't a symmetrical collapse. But you keep believing.... When you have some proof, let us know.

Yes and you keep believing your Government fairy tale. Ignorance really is bliss.

And you seriously believe that there is no ignorance on your part and you are truly one of the "enlightened" ones? Saying the official story is bullshit without providing proof of another scenario is not really presenting a valid argument. And you agreeing with Jonesy does give you a lot of credibility unless you're just a sock.

Well why are you here then? If there are no Conspiracies,why are you spending so much time here? There has to be something way in the back of your pea brain that has doubts about the Government's 911 fair tale story. The fact is,Conspiracies do exist. They really do. Dismissing all possible Conspiracies really is very closed-minded and a sign of ignorance. Many Conspiracy Theories are Bullshit but not all of them are. Try opening your mind. You might just be surprised what you find in there.

 

[Obamerican]

Yes and you keep believing your Government fairy tale. Ignorance really is bliss.

And you seriously believe that there is no ignorance on your part and you are truly one of the "enlightened" ones? Saying the official story is bullshit without providing proof of another scenario is not really presenting a valid argument. And you agreeing with Jonesy does give you a lot of credibility unless you're just a sock.

Well why are you here then? If there are no Conspiracies,why are you spending so much time here? There has to be something way in the back of your pea brain that has doubts about the Government's 911 fair tale story. The fact is,Conspiracies do exist. They really do. Dismissing all possible Conspiracies really is very closed-minded and a sign of ignorance. Many Conspiracy Theories are Bullshit but not all of them are. Try opening your mind. You might just be surprised what you find in there.

Are you stupid? Where did I say that I dismiss all conspiracies? "Pea brain"? Fuck you! Just because I don't follow your non-existent theory of what "really" happened I'm a "pea brain"?

Like all of the rest you got nothing. If I remember right aren't you the one that said the government should have video from satellites showing EXACTLY what happened on 9/11? You're nothing more than another fool that has seen too many movies. Believe it or not I worked for the NSA (National Security Agency) in the 70's and the government isn't smart enough to do the shit you "think" they did.

 

[paulitician]

It wasn't a symmetrical collapse. But you keep believing.... When you have some proof, let us know.

Yes and you keep believing your Government fairy tale. Ignorance really is bliss.

You really want to go there? here's how stupid you fucking are.

You have no choice to admit that two airliners crashed into the twin towers.

Yet you think it was impossible to do the exact same thing on the same day at the pentagon. You see it's common sense, if you plan this operation why change one of 4 parts of it?

Lets see we'll hijack 4 airplanes (or pretend they were hijacked, whatever you want to believe) and we'll crash 2 of them into the WTC and we'll fire a missile (No clue where we might get it from) into the pentagon; and while doing this we'll make the people and one of the airliners disappear.

Now what do you want to add about Shanksville?


Fucking stupid ass.

I'll challenge you the same way all these other assholes have failed. Tell me in your own words what you believe happened.

I can use a good laugh I need a good Ho Ho Ho tonight............

Well now you're just getting angry. But yes,i do believe our Government is capable of such awful crimes. But i'm not exactly sure what the cover-up is or why. That i do admit. But there is no way our Government has told us the truth about 911. They clearly at the very least took WTC 7 down intentionally. Now i can't say for sure why they did it but they did do it. As far as the rest goes,i still see way too many holes in their story. The only thing i know for sure is that they have lied. And that proves a Conspiracy does exist. You can hang onto your Government fairy tale story if you want to. I wont begrudge you for that. But i will always believe we were lied to. So let's just agree to disagree. Enjoy your Holidays.

 

[paulitician]

And you seriously believe that there is no ignorance on your part and you are truly one of the "enlightened" ones? Saying the official story is bullshit without providing proof of another scenario is not really presenting a valid argument. And you agreeing with Jonesy does give you a lot of credibility unless you're just a sock.

Well why are you here then? If there are no Conspiracies,why are you spending so much time here? There has to be something way in the back of your pea brain that has doubts about the Government's 911 fair tale story. The fact is,Conspiracies do exist. They really do. Dismissing all possible Conspiracies really is very closed-minded and a sign of ignorance. Many Conspiracy Theories are Bullshit but not all of them are. Try opening your mind. You might just be surprised what you find in there.

Are you stupid? Where did I say that I dismiss all conspiracies? "Pea brain"? Fuck you! Just because I don't follow your non-existent theory of what "really" happened I'm a "pea brain"?

Like all of the rest you got nothing. If I remember right aren't you the one that said the government should have video from satellites showing EXACTLY what happened on 9/11? You're nothing more than another fool that has seen too many movies. Believe it or not I worked for the NSA (National Security Agency) in the 70's and the government isn't smart enough to do the shit you "think" they did.

So again,why are you here? You're clearly far too closed-minded and dimwitted to possibly fathom anything other than what the Government tells you? So i don't believe you when you claim you don't dismiss all Conspiracy Theories. Your behavior exhibits the exact opposite approach. Seriously,open your mind. It wont hurt. I promise.