Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About The 911 Conspiracy Theory In Under 5 Minutes

Mr. Jones

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
2,501
Reaction score
161
Points
48
Location
USA
If fire can not damage the steel in a building, why do they spend money fireproofing the steel when the building is constructed?
Who said fire DOES NOT damage a
a building"? This was no ordinary "building".
One reason fire proofing is used is to keep other parts of a structure that DON'T have a the resistance to fire, like heavy thick beams and girders, from igniting, and to give time for evacuations and save lives, dip shit.
It certainly isn't because fire will melt or distort massive steel components at temps that are verified NOT to.
Office fires, or even infernos DO NOT CAUSE an exploding total collapse of skyscrapers like the WTC towers experienced, or produce the results witnessed at the WTC 7. If that were the case WTC 7 and others with emergency back up power generation capabilities, would not be allowed to store fuel for its generators.

You like to make it sound and appear that the massive WTC buildings were made with fireproof sticks of wood.
It's astonishing that none of you can explain why it is that seeking the truth about the worst attacks on American soil is wrong.
And the only facts you assholes resort to in justifying you willful ignorance are the very same ones that have been debunked by science, physics, and NIST's own failed testing.

Fire damages steel at very high temps but does not cause a total collapse at the acceleration levels witnessed in NYC on 9-11. So we know that its destruction by fire alone is not proven, and the question remains what did, and then after that who had motive and opportunity and resources. The start to answering these questions are found by asking who benefited the most from the attacks.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Jones

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
2,501
Reaction score
161
Points
48
Location
USA
CONTINUING THE THEME, THEY WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE
THIS


PLUS+THIS



EQUALS=THIS







Before you get your panties bunched up in knots little OCTASSes, I know planes were involved too, but the experts said the towers sustained the impacts very well, and concluded that FIRE was the main cause.
Also remember that NO PLANE was involved at WTC 7.

SO,How hot were the fires, how long did they "burn"? And why didn't at least ONE of these massive structures, WTC 7 in particular resemble this?









INSTEAD OF THIS-





[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUrxlSVAnm8]wtc 7 collapse.flv - YouTube[/ame]

WAKE UP AND QUIT DOING THIS-

 

LA RAM FAN

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
32,225
Reaction score
2,927
Points
1,115
Still waiting for Dawgshit or any of his buddies to post ANY facts that support their adherence to the
OCT....
Looks like they plan on NEVER answering your points you brought up.agent Moron In the Hat when confronted with your points you brought up,like clockwork,he evades it and changes the subject talking about fires being able to cause the collapse of the towers which you among many others have already debunked too many times to remember.seriously i dont know why you waste your time on these trolls.they sure as hell arent worth my time.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Jones

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
2,501
Reaction score
161
Points
48
Location
USA
Still waiting for Dawgshit or any of his buddies to post ANY facts that support their adherence to the
OCT....
Looks like they plan on NEVER answering your points you brought up.agent Moron In the Hat when confronted with your points you brought up,like clockwork,he evades it and changes the subject talking about fires being able to cause the collapse of the towers which you among many others have already debunked too many times to remember.seriously i dont know why you waste your time on these trolls.they sure as hell arent worth my time.
Why should you have all the fun making them look like the ignorant fucks that they are? :badgrin: It's too much fun.
 

daws101

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
41,527
Reaction score
3,119
Points
1,855
Location
ontario,ca not canada
Still waiting for Dawgshit or any of his buddies to post ANY facts that support their adherence to the
OCT....
Looks like they plan on NEVER answering your points you brought up.agent Moron In the Hat when confronted with your points you brought up,like clockwork,he evades it and changes the subject talking about fires being able to cause the collapse of the towers which you among many others have already debunked too many times to remember.seriously i dont know why you waste your time on these trolls.they sure as hell arent worth my time.
Why should you have all the fun making them look like the ignorant fucks that they are? :badgrin: It's too much fun.
speaking of ignorant fucks the pics of buildings that burned and not hit by planes are not evidence..
 

eots

no fly list
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
Messages
28,995
Reaction score
2,096
Points
205
Location
IN TH HEARTS AND MINDS OF FREE MEN
Looks like they plan on NEVER answering your points you brought up.agent Moron In the Hat when confronted with your points you brought up,like clockwork,he evades it and changes the subject talking about fires being able to cause the collapse of the towers which you among many others have already debunked too many times to remember.seriously i dont know why you waste your time on these trolls.they sure as hell arent worth my time.
Why should you have all the fun making them look like the ignorant fucks that they are? :badgrin: It's too much fun.
speaking of ignorant fucks the pics of buildings that burned and not hit by planes are not evidence..
wtc 7 was not hit by a plane... but you know that
 

LA RAM FAN

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
32,225
Reaction score
2,927
Points
1,115
Still waiting for Dawgshit or any of his buddies to post ANY facts that support their adherence to the
OCT....
Looks like they plan on NEVER answering your points you brought up.agent Moron In the Hat when confronted with your points you brought up,like clockwork,he evades it and changes the subject talking about fires being able to cause the collapse of the towers which you among many others have already debunked too many times to remember.seriously i dont know why you waste your time on these trolls.they sure as hell arent worth my time.
Why should you have all the fun making them look like the ignorant fucks that they are? :badgrin: It's too much fun.
that must be why you bother with them having fun watching them run off with their tail between their legs when confronted with facts and evidence.:lol::lol: oh it looks like Dawgshit has replied to you so its time for you to have some fun with him now.:lol:

Dawgshit and Moron In the Hat show what hypocrite whiners they are.Here they are whining about my fart jokes calling me immature when Moron In the Hat goes around with an avatar of Ron Paul with a tin foil hat on and Dawgshit like you mentioned earlier before,all he does is post gifs of shit half the time when confronted with evidence and facts. talk about being immature.thats the kind of behaviour i would expect to see out of a five year old kid.:lol::lol::lol::lol::lmao::lmao::lmao::lol:

those actions of theirs from the past.at least my fart jokes are funny.Those actions of theirs are just plain childish and pathetic.:lol: man what hypocrites.
 

Mr. Jones

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
2,501
Reaction score
161
Points
48
Location
USA
Looks like they plan on NEVER answering your points you brought up.agent Moron In the Hat when confronted with your points you brought up,like clockwork,he evades it and changes the subject talking about fires being able to cause the collapse of the towers which you among many others have already debunked too many times to remember.seriously i dont know why you waste your time on these trolls.they sure as hell arent worth my time.
Why should you have all the fun making them look like the ignorant fucks that they are? :badgrin: It's too much fun.
speaking of ignorant fucks the pics of buildings that burned and not hit by planes are not evidence..
They are evidence that massive blazing infernos that burned for way longer times, DID NOT EXPLODE INTO A TOTAL GLOBAL COLLAPSE. NIST says that the primary reason for their demise was FIRE, NOT THE FUCKING PLANES CAUSING STRUCTURAL DAMAGE.
The WTC towers were built in a tapered fashion with the more robust steel components at the middle and even more robust near the lower floors, so how could the weaker, lighter upper part of the skyscraper bash through the lower parts as if it didn't even exist?

The towers held up after the initial impacts and fire balls that NIST even admitted was burned away after 15-20 minutes. So now you are steering away from the fire only scenario and blaming mainly the planes despite the WTC withstanding the impacts? Despite what was said?

Bring it on dumbfuck, show us what ya got pussy.
 

LA RAM FAN

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
32,225
Reaction score
2,927
Points
1,115
Why should you have all the fun making them look like the ignorant fucks that they are? :badgrin: It's too much fun.
speaking of ignorant fucks the pics of buildings that burned and not hit by planes are not evidence..
wtc 7 was not hit by a plane... but you know that
Notice how Dawgshit and Moron In the Hat STILL wont address the amazing coincidence how bld 7 not hit by a plane fell straight down at freefall speed yet their next door neighbors of the towers much closer than bld 7 recieved far more extensive damage to them and had far more extensive fires yet they did not collapse and the only three buildings collapsed that day, were all owned by zionist jew larry silverstein and all the other buildings that stood despite far worse damage were not.Yep the fires caused the collapse of building 7 says Dawgshit troll the coincidence theorist.:rolleyes::cuckoo: and like clockwork,as always,when challenged to address the inconsistencys in this five minute video,him and moron in the hat wont do it.
 
Last edited:

LA RAM FAN

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
32,225
Reaction score
2,927
Points
1,115
Why should you have all the fun making them look like the ignorant fucks that they are? :badgrin: It's too much fun.
speaking of ignorant fucks the pics of buildings that burned and not hit by planes are not evidence..
They are evidence that massive blazing infernos that burned for way longer times, DID NOT EXPLODE INTO A TOTAL GLOBAL COLLAPSE. NIST says that the primary reason for their demise was FIRE, NOT THE FUCKING PLANES CAUSING STRUCTURAL DAMAGE.
The WTC towers were built in a tapered fashion with the more robust steel components at the middle and even more robust near the lower floors, so how could the weaker, lighter upper part of the skyscraper bash through the lower parts as if it didn't even exist?

The towers held up after the initial impacts and fire balls that NIST even admitted was burned away after 15-20 minutes. So now you are steering away from the fire only scenario and blaming mainly the planes despite the WTC withstanding the impacts? Despite what was said?

Bring it on dumbfuck, show us what ya got pussy.
as Eots just took him to school on,dont forget that bld 7 also wasnt hit by an airliner.as Dawgshit and Moron in the Hat already know,bld 7 is the crux of the 9/11 coverup commission the commission and they cant get around because of this post of mine below.:D


Notice how Dawgshit and Moron In the Hat STILL wont address the amazing coincidence how bld 7 not hit by a plane fell straight down at freefall speed yet their next door neighbors of the towers much closer than bld 7 recieved far more extensive damage to them and had far more extensive fires yet they did not collapse and the only three buildings collapsed that day, were all owned by zionist jew larry silverstein and all the other buildings that stood despite far worse damage were not.Yep the fires caused the collapse of building 7 says Dawgshit troll the coincidence theorist. and like clockwork,as always,when challenged to address the inconsistencys in this five minute video,him and moron in the hat wont do it.
 
Last edited:

daws101

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
41,527
Reaction score
3,119
Points
1,855
Location
ontario,ca not canada
Why should you have all the fun making them look like the ignorant fucks that they are? :badgrin: It's too much fun.
speaking of ignorant fucks the pics of buildings that burned and not hit by planes are not evidence..
wtc 7 was not hit by a plane... but you know that
yes I do ,but you constantly intentionally leave out the fact that wtc7 was hit by debris from wtc 1 THAT WAS STRUCK BY A PLANE...
If wtc7 had not been damage by debris, then no fires would have started and burned for 7hours collapsing it.
any contention,speculation,story or steaming pile...that leaves out that fact is invalid.

so blow me.
 

daws101

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
41,527
Reaction score
3,119
Points
1,855
Location
ontario,ca not canada
why should you have all the fun making them look like the ignorant fucks that they are? :badgrin: It's too much fun.
speaking of ignorant fucks the pics of buildings that burned and not hit by planes are not evidence..
they are evidence that massive blazing infernos that burned for way longer times, did not explode into a total global collapse. Nist says that the primary reason for their demise was fire, not the fucking planes causing structural damage.
The wtc towers were built in a tapered fashion with the more robust steel components at the middle and even more robust near the lower floors, so how could the weaker, lighter upper part of the skyscraper bash through the lower parts as if it didn't even exist?

The towers held up after the initial impacts and fire balls that nist even admitted was burned away after 15-20 minutes. So now you are steering away from the fire only scenario and blaming mainly the planes despite the wtc withstanding the impacts? Despite what was said?

Bring it on dumbfuck, show us what ya got pussy.
ahnananan(cue buzzer)
again your obsession shines. Already explained.
SEE POST#791
 
Last edited:

Mr. Jones

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
2,501
Reaction score
161
Points
48
Location
USA
speaking of ignorant fucks the pics of buildings that burned and not hit by planes are not evidence..
wtc 7 was not hit by a plane... but you know that
yes I do ,but you constantly intentionally leave out the fact that wtc7 was hit by debris from wtc 1 THAT WAS STRUCK BY A PLANE...
If wtc7 had not been damage by debris, then no fires would have started and burned for 7hours collapsing it.
any contention,speculation,story or steaming pile...that leaves out that fact is invalid.

so blow me.
Blow yourself faggot. The reasons why WTC was hypothesized to have collapsed is not because of the damage it sustained, as NIST clearly stated it came down because of fire, which is BS as well as other massive, less fortified structures sustained more severe, and longer lasting infernos and not a one of them fell down with many similarities to a CD. Even the one hirise that had a small piece collapse never experienced a global collapse.
NIST has not proven this hypothesis is even valid, therefore it is just a guess, and not even a best guess at that. Maybe they should release the computer simulation data for replication purposes, as their model is a fucking joke, just as you are.
Try again asswipe this is hilarious! :badgrin:
 

daws101

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
41,527
Reaction score
3,119
Points
1,855
Location
ontario,ca not canada
wtc 7 was not hit by a plane... but you know that
yes I do ,but you constantly intentionally leave out the fact that wtc7 was hit by debris from wtc 1 THAT WAS STRUCK BY A PLANE...
If wtc7 had not been damage by debris, then no fires would have started and burned for 7hours collapsing it.
any contention,speculation,story or steaming pile...that leaves out that fact is invalid.

so blow me.
Blow yourself faggot. The reasons why WTC was hypothesized to have collapsed is not because of the damage it sustained, as NIST clearly stated it came down because of fire, which is BS as well as other massive, less fortified structures sustained more severe, and longer lasting infernos and not a one of them fell down with many similarities to a CD. Even the one hirise that had a small piece collapse never experienced a global collapse.
NIST has not proven this hypothesis is even valid, therefore it is just a guess, and not even a best guess at that. Maybe they should release the computer simulation data for replication purposes, as their model is a fucking joke, just as you are.
Try again asswipe this is hilarious! :badgrin:
yes you are hilarious...and all the dodging in the world will not make you right.
to have any validity as evidence for something other than fire you'd have to prove that the planes or debris had nothing to do with the fires.
your other so called called evidence of other infernos is not relevant
as there was no other contributing factors other then fire.
btw shit for brains nist factored in the damage from wtc 1 as starting the fires :What caused the fires in WTC 7?
Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors-7 through 9 and 11 through 13-burned out of control. These lower-floor fires-which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed-were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began."
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

so your bullshit about fire only is just that bullshit..
you might actually learn something if you read the nist report ,not just twoofer propaganda.

no need to reply ...
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
63,366
Reaction score
9,076
Points
2,030
What took down the lightpoles if it wasn't AA77?
 

Mr. Jones

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
2,501
Reaction score
161
Points
48
Location
USA
yes you are hilarious...and all the dodging in the world will not make you right.
to have any validity as evidence for something other than fire you'd have to prove that the planes or debris had nothing to do with the fires.
your other so called called evidence of other infernos is not relevant
as there was no other contributing factors other then fire.
NIST said the main cause was fire at WTC 7. Read the report. The WTC 7 came down with many aspects of a CD. NIST was charged with proving this fire only scenario and they failed miserably. You believe NIST, and apparently sometimes don't as you go against what NIST said was the primary cause of WTC 7 demise.
You sound like a confused idiot, especially when posted pictures of other blazing infernos used to show you and others as proof that steel framed hirise buildings have, and can indeed withstand more severe fires and DO NOT COLLAPSE with any attributes of a CD.
It does not matter what starts the fire, the end results are the same... buildings on fire so much so that it became an inferno, and yet they didn't collapse. No one can be as stupid as you are displaying, you are simply being a shill and an internet message board treasonous troll, and not a very good one at that. It is you who are purposefully dodging any serious debate, while playing the role of stupid.

btw shit for brains nist factored in the damage from wtc 1 as starting the fires :What caused the fires in WTC 7?
Again the end result was sporadic fires that NIST admitted moved around the building. They did not say that the WTC 7 sustained significant enough damage from the tower to cause the collapse, it was blamed on the fire that they GUESS was started by falling debris, but it's only a guess like the rest of their fable.

Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors-7 through 9 and 11 through 13-burned out of control. These lower-floor fires-which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed-were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began."
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation
They have not to this day proven that in all likely hood this was true. They had to change their fuel loads and change the name of occupants to fit their preconceived outcome accordingly.
How much did the sprinkler system in the other hirise fires that were posted help those structures dumbass? They sustained more severe damage, from the fires and burned for many more hours without any assistance from sprinklers. You are a massive fail and don't help in any way to legitimize the NIST fire only hypothesis. Actually proof of NIST deceitful tactics also lay in the fact they wont release their computer simulation data for replication. Fires alone can not cause the total global collapse of a reinforced fireproof,
fortified hirise like the WTC 7. And could not have caused the total exploding collapse of the towers. They were 1/4 mile in height, tapered in steel thickness the lower they went.
You are a fool for not even questioning something so obviously peculiar, then staunchly defending a report that given the circumstance, you go against! Not to mention the laws of physics!

so your bullshit about fire only is just that bullshit..
you might actually learn something if you read the nist report ,not just twoofer propaganda.
So your bullshit about fire only, is just that, bullshit..
you might actually learn something if you read the NIST report ,not just LIES and propaganda.

By all means do reply this is too funny, as you are a great source of comic supply especially the way you try to turn and twist your reply's around like a lying 2 year old. :clap2: :lol: The NIST report is BS, they were caught in many instances lying and using deceitful scientific tactics, their testing didn't even back them up, so they had to come up with a BS computer simulation that does not match the viewed results, AND to top it all off
they refuse to let others in the scientific community try to replicate their results, despite this being a government entity that is funded with tax payer money, and you have the audacity and ignorance to come on a public forum and display such nonsensical ignorance.
 

Mr. Jones

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
2,501
Reaction score
161
Points
48
Location
USA
What took down the lightpoles if it wasn't AA77?
How could ACARS confirm that AA77 was still in the air around Harrisburg, PA AFTER it supposedly crashed 20 minutes earlier?
Also, how is it that terror and hijack drills were discussed, planed and run for this kind of scenario, and the Bush administration said they couldn't have ever imagined such a scenario?
Never in their wildest dreams they said..Like I said fuck you and your light poles, there are a whole host of discrepancies you have never bothered to address, the best you can do is light poles, but then a stripper that goes by the name "candycorn" should feel right at home discussing "poles".
 

LA RAM FAN

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
32,225
Reaction score
2,927
Points
1,115
Candyass troll is just seeking attention.again the troll has alzheimers diseace and will not remem,ber this answer of yours you gave him.This so much applies to candyass.I can only say it so many times.:trolls:

that so much explains his infatuation and obsession with poles.He is a stripper who performs for guys on poles.:lol::lol::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top