The End of the 9/11 CT Movement

[wihosa]

The only time a modern steel framed high rise building has ever collapsed because of fire was on 911 when it happened 3 times!

The planes did not cause the buildings to fall. No plane even hit Building 7.

The only thing that has ever made skyscrapers collapse like WTC 1, 2 & 7 is controlled demolition.

 

[n0spam4me]

I don't know who was behind 911 but it's obvious it wasn't 19 hijackers.
Richard Gage now has 2200 architects and engineers who have put there careers and their good names on the line by signing the petition at AE911 Truth. The 911 Truth Movement only gets stronger. Many people still haven't heard about Building Seven. When I show people they often say "why didn't I ever hear about this?!?!"

Good question!

Not one of the believers of the Official Conspiracy Theory can explain why on 911 two planes knocked down three skyscrapers. That the official reason was fire when no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire even though there have been thousands of high rise fires, many which burned hotter and longer.
In fact the only thing that has ever caused a high rise building to collapse like the WTC 1,2 & 7 is controlled demolition.

Your final claim is patently false (they fell on 9/11) as there is - 13 years after the attack - still no evidence of a CD. In fact, NoSpammy's scenario is that "no planes were hijacked on 9/11" and the "fires were staged and controlled" (foil helmets required). So what is yours?

Do you understand that something "collapsing" at 64% of the acceleration of gravity is only expressing 36% of its weight against whatever is under it? Just FYI ......

You are aware that the towers collapsed following fires caused after by the large passenger jets which rammed them, loaded with thousands of gallons of fuel, at high speed?

obviously an attempt to justify a violation of the laws of physics.
No amount of making excuses, can account for the violation of the laws of physics. If the official explanation is to be accepted, then WTC 1, 2 & 7 violated the laws of physics by "collapsing" as they did.

 

[candycorn]

Again...if twoofers want anyone to believe them... they have to come up with a plausible alternative scenario.

In 13 years not one has.

 

[n0spam4me]

Again...if twoofers want anyone to believe them... they have to come up with a plausible alternative scenario.

In 13 years not one has.

So let me get this straight, YOU do not see the violations of the law of physics inherent in the "collapse" of WTC1, 2 & 7 ? that is if the OFFICIAL story is taken at face value. obviously there is something very wrong with this picture, and that is a starting point. The fact that the "truthers" can't explain in detail HOW something was done, when in fact it is obvious that it was NOT done in the way that the mainstream media described it.

 

[SAYIT]

Again...if twoofers want anyone to believe them... they have to come up with a plausible alternative scenario.

In 13 years not one has.

So let me get this straight, YOU do not see the violations of the law of physics inherent in the "collapse" of WTC1, 2 & 7 ? that is if the OFFICIAL story is taken at face value. obviously there is something very wrong with this picture, and that is a starting point. The fact that the "truthers" can't explain in detail HOW something was done, when in fact it is obvious that it was NOT done in the way that the mainstream media described it.

The media reported what they were seeing on 9/11 and the NIST explained it later. In order for rational peeps to reject mainstream beliefs there must be a plausible alternative based on facts.
You have failed miserably to do so.

 

[n0spam4me]

So it appears to be that some people do not get the fact that in order for the official story to be true, the laws of physics would have had to be suspended for 9/11/2001.....

 

[SAYIT]

So it appears to be that some people do not get the fact that in order for the official story to be true, the laws of physics would have had to be suspended for 9/11/2001.....

Oh well ... I suppose you didn't understand this the first time:
In order for rational peeps to reject the official explanation (and its warts)
there must be a plausible alternative based on facts.
You have failed miserably to provide one.

 

[n0spam4me]

So it appears to be that some people do not get the fact that in order for the official story to be true, the laws of physics would have had to be suspended for 9/11/2001.....

Oh well ... I suppose you didn't understand this the first time:
In order for rational peeps to reject the official explanation (and its warts)
there must be a plausible alternative based on facts.
You have failed miserably to provide one.

so you do not understand that it is possible to KNOW
that there is something very wrong with the official story,
without having a detailed alternate explanation.

so a cheep trick way of dismissing "truthers" is to demand
an explanation of exactly what was done as an alternative to
the official explanation. + you apparently fail to see the violations
of the laws of physics inherent in the official explanation.

 

[SAYIT]

So it appears to be that some people do not get the fact that in order for the official story to be true, the laws of physics would have had to be suspended for 9/11/2001.....

Oh well ... I suppose you didn't understand this the first time:
In order for rational peeps to reject the official explanation (and its warts)
there must be a plausible alternative based on facts.
You have failed miserably to provide one.

so you do not understand that it is possible to KNOW
that there is something very wrong with the official story,
without having a detailed alternate explanation.

so a cheep trick way of dismissing "truthers" is to demand
an explanation of exactly what was done as an alternative to
the official explanation. + you apparently fail to see the violations
of the laws of physics inherent in the official explanation.

The cheap trick is perpetrated by those who post half-truths and outright fabrications, cherry-pick or distort facts, and reject the official explanation based on their Internet "research."
The only way to move rational peeps off the official story is for you to provide a better one. Your mission Jim, should you decide to accept...

 

[n0spam4me]

can anybody here give me a straight answer,
do you or do you not see the violations of the laws of physics
inherent in the official explanation of 9/11/2001?

 

[Toro]

It's over, twoofer.

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

Again...if twoofers want anyone to believe them... they have to come up with a plausible alternative scenario.

In 13 years not one has.

That's both arrogant and ignorant. Sorry miss, but you don't write the rules regarding how other people have to think. If someone wants to doubt or question the "official theory" (which is itself a conspiracy) because of any one or more of the numerous inconsistencies, improbabilities or impossibilities, that is their choice.

If you or some other miffer want to believe, or pretend to believe, that 2 + 2 = 5 , that is your choice.

 

[daws101]

and you have absolute proof that 19 suicidal fanatics took control of 4 airliners and crashed 3 of them into buildings? if so, where is it?

I post this again to see if anyone actually wants to address the issue rather than simply insist that anyone seeking truth about 9/11/2001 must be crazy......

or?

since you are not seeking the truth or the facts about 911 there is no issue..

 

[daws101]

I don't know who was behind 911 but it's obvious it wasn't 19 hijackers.
Richard Gage now has 2200 architects and engineers who have put there careers and their good names on the line by signing the petition at AE911 Truth. The 911 Truth Movement only gets stronger. Many people still haven't heard about Building Seven. When I show people they often say "why didn't I ever hear about this?!?!"

Good question!

Not one of the believers of the Official Conspiracy Theory can explain why on 911 two planes knocked down three skyscrapers. That the official reason was fire when no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire even though there have been thousands of high rise fires, many which burned hotter and longer.
In fact the only thing that has ever caused a high rise building to collapse like the WTC 1,2 & 7 is controlled demolition.

Your final claim is patently false (they fell on 9/11) as there is - 13 years after the attack - still no evidence of a CD. In fact, NoSpammy's scenario is that "no planes were hijacked on 9/11" and the "fires were staged and controlled" (foil helmets required). So what is yours?

Do you understand that something "collapsing" at 64% of the acceleration of gravity is only expressing 36% of its weight against whatever is under it? Just FYI ......

meaningless minutia

 

[daws101]

Again...if twoofers want anyone to believe them... they have to come up with a plausible alternative scenario.

In 13 years not one has.

That's both arrogant and ignorant. Sorry miss, but you don't write the rules regarding how other people have to think. If someone wants to doubt or question the "official theory" (which is itself a conspiracy) because of any one or more of the numerous inconsistencies, improbabilities or impossibilities, that is their choice.

If you or some other miffer want to believe, or pretend to believe, that 2 + 2 = 5 , that is your choice.

you can doubt it all you want but proving those doubts are anything more than a paranoid misperception of reality is insurmountable

 

[SAYIT]

Again...if twoofers want anyone to believe them... they have to come up with a plausible alternative scenario.

In 13 years not one has.

That's both arrogant and ignorant. Sorry miss, but you don't write the rules regarding how other people have to think. If someone wants to doubt or question the "official theory" (which is itself a conspiracy) because of any one or more of the numerous inconsistencies, improbabilities or impossibilities, that is their choice.

If you or some other miffer want to believe, or pretend to believe, that 2 + 2 = 5 , that is your choice.

Thing is, you can speculate to your heart's content but the only way to dislodge the official explanation is to provide a plausible alternative based on reliable facts. Simply stating that "no planes were hijacked on 9/11" or "the fires were staged and controlled" or "it was a space beam" just doesn't cut it and 13 years later we are stuck with the NIST report because so much of what has emanated from the "Truther" World is 2+2=5.

 

[n0spam4me]

It's over, twoofer.

Its DIM
JED ......

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

Again...if twoofers want anyone to believe them... they have to come up with a plausible alternative scenario.

In 13 years not one has.

That's both arrogant and ignorant. Sorry miss, but you don't write the rules regarding how other people have to think. If someone wants to doubt or question the "official theory" (which is itself a conspiracy) because of any one or more of the numerous inconsistencies, improbabilities or impossibilities, that is their choice.

If you or some other miffer want to believe, or pretend to believe, that 2 + 2 = 5 , that is your choice.

Thing is, you can speculate to your heart's content but the only way to dislodge the official explanation is to provide a plausible alternative based on reliable facts. Simply stating that "no planes were hijacked on 9/11" or "the fires were staged and controlled" or "it was a space beam" just doesn't cut it and 13 years later we are stuck with the NIST report because so much of what has emanated from the "Truther" World is 2+2=5.

You don't set the requirements on what I or anyone else needs to do. I don't give a fuck what you, daws or anyone else thinks needs to be proven.
It would be pretty asinine on your part to be arguing 13 years later with someone that says "it was a space beam", no??
Your motivation is clearly something other than the truth, and you demonstrate your treachery by obstructing those that seek it.

 

[SAYIT]

Again...if twoofers want anyone to believe them... they have to come up with a plausible alternative scenario.

In 13 years not one has.

That's both arrogant and ignorant. Sorry miss, but you don't write the rules regarding how other people have to think. If someone wants to doubt or question the "official theory" (which is itself a conspiracy) because of any one or more of the numerous inconsistencies, improbabilities or impossibilities, that is their choice.

If you or some other miffer want to believe, or pretend to believe, that 2 + 2 = 5 , that is your choice.

Thing is, you can speculate to your heart's content but the only way to dislodge the official explanation is to provide a plausible alternative based on reliable facts. Simply stating that "no planes were hijacked on 9/11" or "the fires were staged and controlled" or "it was a space beam" just doesn't cut it and 13 years later we are stuck with the NIST report because so much of what has emanated from the "Truther" World is 2+2=5.

You don't set the requirements on what I or anyone else needs to do. I don't give a fuck what you, daws or anyone else thinks needs to be proven.
It would be pretty asinine on your part to be arguing 13 years later with someone that says "it was a space beam", no??
Your motivation is clearly something other than the truth, and you demonstrate your treachery by obstructing those that seek it.

You have every right to live in your foil-hat fantasy world. I thought your presence here denoted some intent to converse intelligently on the thread's subject. I understand why you are unwilling or unable to support anything you say. Hopefully you understand that the adults here may continue to rain on your silly little parade. Enjoy, !

 

[daws101]

It's over, twoofer.

Its DIM
JED ......

why yes you are dim ...