Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I watched videos years ago- that particular one just connected some dots, and as I said (as I've said in other threads, follow the money, see the agenda + credible testimony in that particualar video about the money trail)Did you watch the entire video?
so when you cant refute the evidence,you insult,how junvenile.9/11 Controlled Demolition Debate! Niels Harrit (Chemist) vs. Denis Rancourt (Physicist)
I am neither a Chemist, or a Physicist- but, I do know that 2+2 = 4. I also know the US gov't and it's lackey presstitutes are the lyingest entities on the planet-
There is a pod cast in the link, and no, I didn't listen to it- I did read the accompanying article though, and I have followed this 9/11 stuff for years-
From the article- if anyone cares- which I doubt- the size of a gnat attention span is what liars depend on.
As I wrote then:
On my November 6 (2010) show physics professor/activist Denis Rancourt and I spent the first hour amicably discussing 9/11, and mostly agreeing with each other. During the second hour, we had a heated debate (temperatures almost high enough to vaporize steel!) about what happened to the Twin Towers: I argued that the controlled demolition hypothesis best explains the facts, while Denis, who admits that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition, claimed that the Towers could have collapsed due to plane crashes and fires as the government says.
Let me assert- 2 planes hit 2 bldg's in 2 different locations, near the tops, and brought them down in near identical fashion- in an unprecedented manner at near free fall speed- really?
OMFG
You have no clue what intellectual is.
I have an idea, you can be the poster child for the typical American idiot.
Really.
What are you calling stupidity?Refuse stupidity?
What are you calling stupidity?Refuse stupidity?
Educate yourself- stop relying on godvernment and its lackey presstitutesthe contention that 911 was something other than a terror attack by 19 mean in 4 planes.
911truth.org
What are you calling stupidity?Refuse stupidity?
the contention that 911 was something other than a terror attack by 19 mean in 4 planes.
His ass got handed to him on a platter.Educate yourself- stop relying on godvernment and its lackey presstitutesthe contention that 911 was something other than a terror attack by 19 mean in 4 planes.
Technical Articles
AE911Truth is a nonprofit organization that represents more than 3,000 architects and engineers who are calling for a new investigation into the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 on 9/11.www.ae911truth.org
9/11 Facts: Explore the evidence, make up your own mind | 911Truth.Org
Fact-based, sourced information about the September 11th attacks. Explore the evidence and make up your own mind about what happened on 9/11.
Stupidity is being afraid as you are to look at the videos on this thread that has overwhelming facts it was an inside job shill.another troll to put on ignore.so when you cant refute the evidence,you insult,how junvenile.9/11 Controlled Demolition Debate! Niels Harrit (Chemist) vs. Denis Rancourt (Physicist)
I am neither a Chemist, or a Physicist- but, I do know that 2+2 = 4. I also know the US gov't and it's lackey presstitutes are the lyingest entities on the planet-
There is a pod cast in the link, and no, I didn't listen to it- I did read the accompanying article though, and I have followed this 9/11 stuff for years-
From the article- if anyone cares- which I doubt- the size of a gnat attention span is what liars depend on.
As I wrote then:
On my November 6 (2010) show physics professor/activist Denis Rancourt and I spent the first hour amicably discussing 9/11, and mostly agreeing with each other. During the second hour, we had a heated debate (temperatures almost high enough to vaporize steel!) about what happened to the Twin Towers: I argued that the controlled demolition hypothesis best explains the facts, while Denis, who admits that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition, claimed that the Towers could have collapsed due to plane crashes and fires as the government says.
Let me assert- 2 planes hit 2 bldg's in 2 different locations, near the tops, and brought them down in near identical fashion- in an unprecedented manner at near free fall speed- really?
OMFG
You have no clue what intellectual is.
I have an idea, you can be the poster child for the typical American idiot.
Really.
Refuse stupidity? Seriously?
That would make me an ass hole too.
No thanks, you can have the title alone.
Based on what expertise? You have none admittedly so. Now that makes it a conspiracyWhat I "think" is immaterial- what I know is; a concrete and steel structure cannot implode, or come down in it's own foot print without help, never mind free fall speed.But you think enough charges can be installed wirelessly?
It’s ok, not worth an hour watch, I agreeI watched videos years ago- that particular one just connected some dots, and as I said (as I've said in other threads, follow the money, see the agenda + credible testimony in that particualar video about the money trail)Did you watch the entire video?
Don’t have to watch, you can’t summarize what is on it. Makes me believe you didn’t watch. I don’t need to watch conspiracy videos cause you think we should.Stupidity is being afraid as you are to look at the videos on this thread that has overwhelming facts it was an inside job shill.another troll to put on ignore.so when you cant refute the evidence,you insult,how junvenile.9/11 Controlled Demolition Debate! Niels Harrit (Chemist) vs. Denis Rancourt (Physicist)
I am neither a Chemist, or a Physicist- but, I do know that 2+2 = 4. I also know the US gov't and it's lackey presstitutes are the lyingest entities on the planet-
There is a pod cast in the link, and no, I didn't listen to it- I did read the accompanying article though, and I have followed this 9/11 stuff for years-
From the article- if anyone cares- which I doubt- the size of a gnat attention span is what liars depend on.
As I wrote then:
On my November 6 (2010) show physics professor/activist Denis Rancourt and I spent the first hour amicably discussing 9/11, and mostly agreeing with each other. During the second hour, we had a heated debate (temperatures almost high enough to vaporize steel!) about what happened to the Twin Towers: I argued that the controlled demolition hypothesis best explains the facts, while Denis, who admits that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition, claimed that the Towers could have collapsed due to plane crashes and fires as the government says.
Let me assert- 2 planes hit 2 bldg's in 2 different locations, near the tops, and brought them down in near identical fashion- in an unprecedented manner at near free fall speed- really?
OMFG
You have no clue what intellectual is.
I have an idea, you can be the poster child for the typical American idiot.
Really.
Refuse stupidity? Seriously?
That would make me an ass hole too.
No thanks, you can have the title alone.
Don’t have to watch, you can’t summarize what is on it. Makes me believe you didn’t watch. I don’t need to watch conspiracy videos cause you think we should.Stupidity is being afraid as you are to look at the videos on this thread that has overwhelming facts it was an inside job shill.another troll to put on ignore.so when you cant refute the evidence,you insult,how junvenile.9/11 Controlled Demolition Debate! Niels Harrit (Chemist) vs. Denis Rancourt (Physicist)
I am neither a Chemist, or a Physicist- but, I do know that 2+2 = 4. I also know the US gov't and it's lackey presstitutes are the lyingest entities on the planet-
There is a pod cast in the link, and no, I didn't listen to it- I did read the accompanying article though, and I have followed this 9/11 stuff for years-
From the article- if anyone cares- which I doubt- the size of a gnat attention span is what liars depend on.
As I wrote then:
On my November 6 (2010) show physics professor/activist Denis Rancourt and I spent the first hour amicably discussing 9/11, and mostly agreeing with each other. During the second hour, we had a heated debate (temperatures almost high enough to vaporize steel!) about what happened to the Twin Towers: I argued that the controlled demolition hypothesis best explains the facts, while Denis, who admits that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition, claimed that the Towers could have collapsed due to plane crashes and fires as the government says.
Let me assert- 2 planes hit 2 bldg's in 2 different locations, near the tops, and brought them down in near identical fashion- in an unprecedented manner at near free fall speed- really?
OMFG
You have no clue what intellectual is.
I have an idea, you can be the poster child for the typical American idiot.
Really.
Refuse stupidity? Seriously?
That would make me an ass hole too.
No thanks, you can have the title alone.
still waiting on if you’re saying jumbo jets didn’t hit the buildings. What kind of research do your conspiracy have showing what happens when jumbo jets fly into structures like the twin towers?
publish those experiments
Ignorant by choice.I don’t need to watch conspiracy videos cause you think we should.
9/11 Controlled Demolition Debate! Niels Harrit (Chemist) vs. Denis Rancourt (Physicist)
I am neither a Chemist, or a Physicist- but, I do know that 2+2 = 4. I also know the US gov't and it's lackey presstitutes are the lyingest entities on the planet-
There is a pod cast in the link, and no, I didn't listen to it- I did read the accompanying article though, and I have followed this 9/11 stuff for years-
From the article- if anyone cares- which I doubt- the size of a gnat attention span is what liars depend on.
As I wrote then:
On my November 6 (2010) show physics professor/activist Denis Rancourt and I spent the first hour amicably discussing 9/11, and mostly agreeing with each other. During the second hour, we had a heated debate (temperatures almost high enough to vaporize steel!) about what happened to the Twin Towers: I argued that the controlled demolition hypothesis best explains the facts, while Denis, who admits that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition, claimed that the Towers could have collapsed due to plane crashes and fires as the government says.
Let me assert- 2 planes hit 2 bldg's in 2 different locations, near the tops, and brought them down in near identical fashion- in an unprecedented manner at near free fall speed- really?
Possible. When it happened, I remembered that book.In the spirit of never letting a crisis go to waste, I buy that. It was clear that the Bush/Cheney team was aching for war-- look at how they destroyed Plame just to keep the false yellow cake narrative going!I’m not saying it was an inside job. But we do know bush was warned and did nothing.It is truly amazing the degree of absurdity people are willing to believe. As well as the ocean of reality they have to ignore in order for it to be true.Why would anyone secretly rig a building for demolition on the odd chance that terrorists may hijack planes and fly into them?
I expect 13 year olds to fall for this goofy shit. But grown ass adults? Jesus.
We do know PNAC planned the invasion of Iraq before bush even stole the 2000 election.
We know bush lied us into Iraq. Even trump says so.
Im just saying the bush regime planned to use the next terrorist attack as a vehicle to invade Iraq.
But 9/11 sprang from the evil mind of Bin Laden, I do wonder if he got his inspiration from the Clancy book, Debt of Honor, that closed with a Japanese terrorist flying a plane into the Capital?
Why would anyone secretly rig a building for demolition on the odd chance that terrorists may hijack planes and fly into them?
Bush didn't lie to us to get into Iraq. He used the same intel as did everyone else - INCLUDING the Democrats who voted to invade.I’m not saying it was an inside job. But we do know bush was warned and did nothing.It is truly amazing the degree of absurdity people are willing to believe. As well as the ocean of reality they have to ignore in order for it to be true.Why would anyone secretly rig a building for demolition on the odd chance that terrorists may hijack planes and fly into them?
I expect 13 year olds to fall for this goofy shit. But grown ass adults? Jesus.
We do know PNAC planned the invasion of Iraq before bush even stole the 2000 election.
We know bush lied us into Iraq. Even trump says so.
Im just saying the bush regime planned to use the next terrorist attack as a vehicle to invade Iraq.
Was he itching to go there? Maybe, I don't know. But you can go to YouTube and easily find videos of Democrats who voted yes to invade based on the same intel
Also - and of course you want to forget, that there was a BUNCH of chemical weapons' found in Iraq. And Saddam DID use them against his own people. We know this as fact now. So at least that part of the intel was correct.
9/11 Controlled Demolition Debate! Niels Harrit (Chemist) vs. Denis Rancourt (Physicist)
I am neither a Chemist, or a Physicist- but, I do know that 2+2 = 4. I also know the US gov't and it's lackey presstitutes are the lyingest entities on the planet-
There is a pod cast in the link, and no, I didn't listen to it- I did read the accompanying article though, and I have followed this 9/11 stuff for years-
From the article- if anyone cares- which I doubt- the size of a gnat attention span is what liars depend on.
As I wrote then:
On my November 6 (2010) show physics professor/activist Denis Rancourt and I spent the first hour amicably discussing 9/11, and mostly agreeing with each other. During the second hour, we had a heated debate (temperatures almost high enough to vaporize steel!) about what happened to the Twin Towers: I argued that the controlled demolition hypothesis best explains the facts, while Denis, who admits that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition, claimed that the Towers could have collapsed due to plane crashes and fires as the government says.
Let me assert- 2 planes hit 2 bldg's in 2 different locations, near the tops, and brought them down in near identical fashion- in an unprecedented manner at near free fall speed- really?
No he didn't.Bush gave us all bad intel. Stop being naive.Bush didn't lie to us to get into Iraq. He used the same intel as did everyone else - INCLUDING the Democrats who voted to invade.I’m not saying it was an inside job. But we do know bush was warned and did nothing.It is truly amazing the degree of absurdity people are willing to believe. As well as the ocean of reality they have to ignore in order for it to be true.Why would anyone secretly rig a building for demolition on the odd chance that terrorists may hijack planes and fly into them?
I expect 13 year olds to fall for this goofy shit. But grown ass adults? Jesus.
We do know PNAC planned the invasion of Iraq before bush even stole the 2000 election.
We know bush lied us into Iraq. Even trump says so.
Im just saying the bush regime planned to use the next terrorist attack as a vehicle to invade Iraq.
Was he itching to go there? Maybe, I don't know. But you can go to YouTube and easily find videos of Democrats who voted yes to invade based on the same intel
Also - and of course you want to forget, that there was a BUNCH of chemical weapons' found in Iraq. And Saddam DID use them against his own people. We know this as fact now. So at least that part of the intel was correct.
Almost all of the intel was done BEFORE he was elected. Of course I don't expect you would know that. Because all you know is what CNN tells you.
She was First Lady.he went over to Iraq and collected all the intel huh? what was the CIA doing? who was watching the shop while he did that?Bush gave us all bad intel. Stop being naive.
Why did Clinton sign off? She was around eight years prior and had much more intelligence before bush, so how did that happen? she wasn't competent?
