9/11 Explosive Connections - The 9/11 Masterminds

The only seed you are planting are the seeds of ignorance.
Ignorance is strength, war is peace, freedom is slavery ....that how it goes ?
mrbean.gif

orwell.jpg
 
If you awaken one person you will have a little more than a dozen twoofers being laughed at by the nation instead an even dozen
Actually the majority of rational, free-thinking individuals outside the USA are on my side. We see you as the wacked out conspiracy theorists, and the difference is, we know we're right.
Clearly I said Americans not other inferior nations.

The difference is that you hate being proven wrong and you know you are wrong.

You have no evidence.
 
Try reading the report which is even better.

Like I said second hand claims are worthless which is why your assertions are self defeating

Thats a government report straight from the NIST you idiot.

Maybe you noticed the heading...

"Due to a lapse in government funding, the majority of this website is not being updated until further notice."
NIST websites for programs using non-appropriated funds (NVLAP and PSCR) or those that are excepted from the shutdown (such as NVD) will continue to be available and updated.
None of which proves your various assertions.
 
If you awaken one person you will have a little more than a dozen twoofers being laughed at by the nation instead an even dozen
Actually the majority of rational, free-thinking individuals outside the USA are on my side. We see you as the wacked out conspiracy theorists, and the difference is, we know we're right.
Clearly I said Americans not other inferior nations.

The difference is that you hate being proven wrong and you know you are wrong.

You have no evidence.
Clearly I meant uninformed Americans like you.
No clearly you said outside of America

I am not uninformed

You still have no evidence

Most Americans laugh at you.
 
Most Americans laugh at you.
Whatever you say Huckleberry.:71:
Internet troll: A person, usually operating under a pseudonym, who posts deliberately provocative messages to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of provoking maximum disruption and argument. They are often paid by nefarious sources but sometime are motivated to do so for their own amusement. They often try to provoke dissension and doubt by writing dis-informational letters to the editors of newspapers.

Another good definition of an internet troll: A person who purposely and deliberately starts an online or media argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by other commenters. He will often use ad hominem attacks.
Weaponizing the Term « Conspiracy Theory »: Disinformation Agents and the CIA | Mondialisation - Centre de Recherche sur la Mondialisation
 
Try reading the report which is even better.

Like I said second hand claims are worthless which is why your assertions are self defeating

Thats a government report straight from the NIST you idiot.

Maybe you noticed the heading...

"Due to a lapse in government funding, the majority of this website is not being updated until further notice."
NIST websites for programs using non-appropriated funds (NVLAP and PSCR) or those that are excepted from the shutdown (such as NVD) will continue to be available and updated.
None of which proves your various assertions.

Name a modern high rise taken down by a fire.
Not only is it extremely unlikely to happen it's also extremely unlikely it would fall in its own footprint.
 
Most Americans laugh at you.
Whatever you say Huckleberry.:71:
Internet troll: A person, usually operating under a pseudonym, who posts deliberately provocative messages to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of provoking maximum disruption and argument. They are often paid by nefarious sources but sometime are motivated to do so for their own amusement. They often try to provoke dissension and doubt by writing dis-informational letters to the editors of newspapers.

Another good definition of an internet troll: A person who purposely and deliberately starts an online or media argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by other commenters. He will often use ad hominem attacks.
Weaponizing the Term « Conspiracy Theory »: Disinformation Agents and the CIA | Mondialisation - Centre de Recherche sur la Mondialisation
Well here we go again.

The fact remains you have no evidence


In fact your claim that the CIA weapniEd the term conspiracy theory also has no evidende and is a silly claim

When it is pointed out that you have no evidence you have to resort to such lengths because you have no valid argument.


Since you only want an echo chamber with no challenges why no start your own forum and only let other conspiracy fools in ?
 
Try reading the report which is even better.

Like I said second hand claims are worthless which is why your assertions are self defeating

Thats a government report straight from the NIST you idiot.

Maybe you noticed the heading...

"Due to a lapse in government funding, the majority of this website is not being updated until further notice."
NIST websites for programs using non-appropriated funds (NVLAP and PSCR) or those that are excepted from the shutdown (such as NVD) will continue to be available and updated.
None of which proves your various assertions.

Name a modern high rise taken down by a fire.
Not only is it extremely unlikely to happen it's also extremely unlikely it would fall in its own footprint.
Who says it is unlikely ?

It is unlikely or likely as anything else and how many towers have been hit by planes.

You are no authority.and you are wrong.
 
Try reading the report which is even better.

Like I said second hand claims are worthless which is why your assertions are self defeating

Thats a government report straight from the NIST you idiot.

Maybe you noticed the heading...

"Due to a lapse in government funding, the majority of this website is not being updated until further notice."
NIST websites for programs using non-appropriated funds (NVLAP and PSCR) or those that are excepted from the shutdown (such as NVD) will continue to be available and updated.
None of which proves your various assertions.

Name a modern high rise taken down by a fire.
Not only is it extremely unlikely to happen it's also extremely unlikely it would fall in its own footprint.
Who says it is unlikely ?

It is unlikely or likely as anything else and how many towers have been hit by planes.

You are no authority.and you are wrong.

I'll ask again.....
Name one modern day high rise that has been taken down by fire......I'll wait.
 
Try reading the report which is even better.

Like I said second hand claims are worthless which is why your assertions are self defeating

Thats a government report straight from the NIST you idiot.

Maybe you noticed the heading...

"Due to a lapse in government funding, the majority of this website is not being updated until further notice."
NIST websites for programs using non-appropriated funds (NVLAP and PSCR) or those that are excepted from the shutdown (such as NVD) will continue to be available and updated.
None of which proves your various assertions.

Name a modern high rise taken down by a fire.
Not only is it extremely unlikely to happen it's also extremely unlikely it would fall in its own footprint.
Who says it is unlikely ?

It is unlikely or likely as anything else and how many towers have been hit by planes.

You are no authority.and you are wrong.

I'll ask again.....
Name one modern day high rise that has been taken down by fire......I'll wait.
The plasco building in Tehran.

Apparently Google is only your friend when it suits you
 
Thats a government report straight from the NIST you idiot.

Maybe you noticed the heading...

"Due to a lapse in government funding, the majority of this website is not being updated until further notice."
NIST websites for programs using non-appropriated funds (NVLAP and PSCR) or those that are excepted from the shutdown (such as NVD) will continue to be available and updated.
None of which proves your various assertions.

Name a modern high rise taken down by a fire.
Not only is it extremely unlikely to happen it's also extremely unlikely it would fall in its own footprint.
Who says it is unlikely ?

It is unlikely or likely as anything else and how many towers have been hit by planes.

You are no authority.and you are wrong.

I'll ask again.....
Name one modern day high rise that has been taken down by fire......I'll wait.
The plasco building in Tehran.

Apparently Google is only your friend when it suits you

I said modern day building construction.
 
None of which proves your various assertions.

Name a modern high rise taken down by a fire.
Not only is it extremely unlikely to happen it's also extremely unlikely it would fall in its own footprint.
Who says it is unlikely ?

It is unlikely or likely as anything else and how many towers have been hit by planes.

You are no authority.and you are wrong.

I'll ask again.....
Name one modern day high rise that has been taken down by fire......I'll wait.
The plasco building in Tehran.

Apparently Google is only your friend when it suits you

I said modern day building construction.
And it was
 
Name a modern high rise taken down by a fire.
Not only is it extremely unlikely to happen it's also extremely unlikely it would fall in its own footprint.
Who says it is unlikely ?

It is unlikely or likely as anything else and how many towers have been hit by planes.

You are no authority.and you are wrong.

I'll ask again.....
Name one modern day high rise that has been taken down by fire......I'll wait.
The plasco building in Tehran.

Apparently Google is only your friend when it suits you

I said modern day building construction.
And it was

LOL...they're no better than the chinese.
Besides it was built in 1962 and was fraught with code violations.
In America it would have been condemned.
So no dice,try again.
 
Who says it is unlikely ?

It is unlikely or likely as anything else and how many towers have been hit by planes.

You are no authority.and you are wrong.

I'll ask again.....
Name one modern day high rise that has been taken down by fire......I'll wait.
The plasco building in Tehran.

Apparently Google is only your friend when it suits you

I said modern day building construction.
And it was

LOL...they're no better than the chinese.
Besides it was built in 1962 and was fraught with code violations.
In America it would have been condemned.
So no dice,try again.
1962 is the modern era

You are wrong and ignorant proven fact
 
There has never been any evidence of demolition s and the argument of controlled demo is self defeating and idiotic.

A lot of engineers disagree.
9/11 destruction “controlled demolition” — fact or fiction? - constructconnect.com - Daily Commercial News
That is because engineers are a dime a dozen but disagreement and argument from authority ids not evidence and they do not have evidence,

it is AMAZING how many people describe themselves as "engineers"-------geneticists
are "MOLECULAR ENGINEERS" -------electricians of the kind that just do simple
hook-ups are "ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS" there are even "nutritional engineers"----
I have no doubt that my 98 year old mother is QUALIFIED------not to trivialize the profession--
even plumbers are "ENGINEERS"--------the barely literate person who took care of the
airconditioners in a large hospital in which I worked was called "the engineer"
 
wrong again----both buildings were struck by planes. Lots of film-----and me--eyewitness.
See a good neurologist

What the hell are you even talking about?
Nobody is disputing that the Twin Towers were hit by planes.

actually four buildings went down-------the two towers, ---the nearby office building
and a local church-------the ONLY buildings directly hit by the planes were the two
towers. --------how many people were directly hit by the atom bomb dropped in
Hiroshima? Did you pass high school physics? I did

I assume you're referring to building seven which of course is part of the tower complex.
It just caught fire and magically collapsed.....into its own footprint.

And you want to talk physics? How is it possible for two towers with more damage to one side fall straight down into their own foot prints?

wrong again----both buildings were struck by planes. Lots of film-----and me--eyewitness.
See a good neurologist

What the hell are you even talking about?
Nobody is disputing that the Twin Towers were hit by planes.

actually four buildings went down-------the two towers, ---the nearby office building
and a local church-------the ONLY buildings directly hit by the planes were the two
towers. --------how many people were directly hit by the atom bomb dropped in
Hiroshima? Did you pass high school physics? I did

I assume you're referring to building seven which of course is part of the tower complex.
It just caught fire and magically collapsed.....into its own footprint.

And you want to talk physics? How is it possible for two towers with more damage to one side fall straight down into their own foot prints?


PHYSICS------blast injury------- what it does to PEOPLE----it also does to local structures.
Simple model for the simple minded------you don't have to be hit by a bomb in order to
DIE FROM A BOMB------in fact you do not have to be HIT by anything other than the force
of the explosion. The collapse of the towers created a HUGE OUTPUT OF ENERGY--

you remember ENERGY E

You do realize that not a single modern day high rise has ever collapsed due to fire right?

what are we calling a "modern high rise"??? and how many have been struck by passenger
planes?
 
The lawyers for 9/11 truth have lots of stuff
that is not public knowledge yet, including definitive evidence of nanothermite particles in the dust at ground zero, proving that at least one of the three collapses was a controlled demolition ( Bldg 7 ).

All this will be presented to an independent grand jury this year.

797.jpg
 
I'll ask again.....
Name one modern day high rise that has been taken down by fire......I'll wait.
The plasco building in Tehran.

Apparently Google is only your friend when it suits you

I said modern day building construction.
And it was

LOL...they're no better than the chinese.
Besides it was built in 1962 and was fraught with code violations.
In America it would have been condemned.
So no dice,try again.
1962 is the modern era

You are wrong and ignorant proven fact

Do some research ya blithering idiot!
The building had a shitload of code violations and was built like shit.
 

Forum List

Back
Top