I'd enjoy an intellectual discussion-

[Gdjjr]

Did you watch the entire video?

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)

 

[noonereal]

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.

so when you cant refute the evidence,you insult,how junvenile.

Refuse stupidity? Seriously?

That would make me an ass hole too.

No thanks, you can have the title alone.

 

[Gdjjr]

Refuse stupidity?

What are you calling stupidity?

 

[noonereal]

Refuse stupidity?

What are you calling stupidity?

the contention that 911 was something other than a terror attack by 19 mean in 4 planes.

 

[Gdjjr]

the contention that 911 was something other than a terror attack by 19 mean in 4 planes.

Educate yourself- stop relying on godvernment and its lackey presstitutes

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.

911truth.org

 

[P F Tinmore]

Refuse stupidity?

What are you calling stupidity?

the contention that 911 was something other than a terror attack by 19 mean in 4 planes.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

the contention that 911 was something other than a terror attack by 19 mean in 4 planes.

Educate yourself- stop relying on godvernment and its lackey presstitutes

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.

911truth.org

His ass got handed to him on a platter.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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.

so when you cant refute the evidence,you insult,how junvenile.

Refuse stupidity? Seriously?

That would make me an ass hole too.

No thanks, you can have the title alone.

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.

 

[jc456]

But you think enough charges can be installed wirelessly?

What 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.

Based on what expertise? You have none admittedly so. Now that makes it a conspiracy

 

[jc456]

Did you watch the entire video?

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)

It’s ok, not worth an hour watch, I agree

 

[jc456]

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.

so when you cant refute the evidence,you insult,how junvenile.

Refuse stupidity? Seriously?

That would make me an ass hole too.

No thanks, you can have the title alone.

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.

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.

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

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Something I have noticed over the years here and it’s probably cause of their religion is same as how posters are afraid to watch videos thst prove explosives brought the towers down,they don’t want to look at the evidence of the mossad involvement in it along with the CIA, they want to pretend that there were not five Israel’s who were seen dancing on the rooftops celebrating after 9/11 were arrested for suspicious behavior and then not surprisingly,let go later on or it hat there was a van photographed with the towers on the side of the van showing an airliner slamming into it and that was the van the Israelis were arrested in when the police saw it on the highway,the fact these Israeli people basically came out and advertised Israel’s involvement with that van and that celebration,I would say they were not discreet about advertising it with that pic on their van cause they knew the top corrupt brass of the ny police department would let them go and let them go back to Israel as they did.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

so when you cant refute the evidence,you insult,how junvenile.

Refuse stupidity? Seriously?

That would make me an ass hole too.

No thanks, you can have the title alone.

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.

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.

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

I don’t need to watch conspiracy videos cause you think we should.

Ignorant by choice.

Interesting concept.

 

[Markle]

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?

Isn't that an oxymoron? Requesting an intelligent discussion on a conspiracy thread?

 

[candycorn]

Why would anyone secretly rig a building for demolition on the odd chance that terrorists may hijack planes and fly into them?

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.
I expect 13 year olds to fall for this goofy shit. But grown ass adults? Jesus.

I’m not saying it was an inside job. But we do know bush was warned and did nothing.

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.

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!

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?

Possible. When it happened, I remembered that book.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why would anyone secretly rig a building for demolition on the odd chance that terrorists may hijack planes and fly into them?

Well of course -- those planes were hijacked by the govt as well.. Or the Jews did it.. And the one that went down in Penn -- that EVERYONE knows was shot down by the govt was just a really convincing false flag touch to the evil plan..

 

[candycorn]

Why would anyone secretly rig a building for demolition on the odd chance that terrorists may hijack planes and fly into them?

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.
I expect 13 year olds to fall for this goofy shit. But grown ass adults? Jesus.

I’m not saying it was an inside job. But we do know bush was warned and did nothing.

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.

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.
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.

It turns out the intel the Congress received from the Executive branch was cooked; the CIA relied on a source named "curveball" who fed them misinformation.

 

[flacaltenn]

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?

You under the impression that NO chemists or physicists are nuts? That EVERY ONE of them is gonna give straight analysis? You've never know that many I would guess.. Paranoia runs deep in the sciences and engineering..

 

[candycorn]

Why would anyone secretly rig a building for demolition on the odd chance that terrorists may hijack planes and fly into them?

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.
I expect 13 year olds to fall for this goofy shit. But grown ass adults? Jesus.

I’m not saying it was an inside job. But we do know bush was warned and did nothing.

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.

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.
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.

Bush gave us all bad intel. Stop being naive.

No he didn't.
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.

We went into Iraq in 2003. You're stating that Bush was relying on intelligence that was over 3 years old?

Really?

 

[candycorn]

Bush gave us all bad intel. Stop being naive.

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?

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?

She was First Lady.