I'm right about World Trade Centers and have an idea how they fell

[rightwinger]

the newest paid shill USMB'S resident troll rightwinger is now here to troll.lol. bty agent rightwinger, your the funniest dude alive,even after it was announced everywhere across the country the rams are going back to LA,the very next day you STILL were incapable of admitting you were proven wrong.

thats how this troll debates,doesnt matter what the topic is,wheter you prove him wrong about 9/11 or a simple thing like the Rams are going back to LA he is ALWAYS incapable of admitting he was proven wrong.

again he was saying the very next day to me the Rams were still playing in st louis this year.

better go tell that to the national media agent rightwinger since they are telling the whole country they are in LA now

I take him to school every day handing his ass to him on a platter wheter its about 9/11,the JFK assassination or the rams being back in LA.

he is INCAPABLE of ever admitting he is wrong no matter what the topic is.lol

Still buying the Rams/LA Hoax?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

the newest paid shill USMB'S resident troll rightwinger is now here to troll.lol. bty agent rightwinger, your the funniest dude alive,even after it was announced everywhere across the country the rams are going back to LA,the very next day you STILL were incapable of admitting you were proven wrong.

thats how this troll debates,doesnt matter what the topic is,wheter you prove him wrong about 9/11 or a simple thing like the Rams are going back to LA he is ALWAYS incapable of admitting he was proven wrong.


well agent rightwinger,i guess you better go tell jeff fisher and the rest of the rams players to stop looking for homes in LA and not to sell their houses in st louis since you are right and me and the entire world are wrong that they are in LA this year.oh and better tell that announcer of the pro bowl he made a mistake saying todd gurley of the new LOS ANGELES RAMS.



thanks for proving my point for me,that your logic is indeed I am right and everyone else in the world is wrong since according to you,its a hoax.

again he was saying the very next day to me the Rams were still playing in st louis this year.

better go tell that to the national media agent rightwinger since they are telling the whole country they are in LA now

I take him to school every day handing his ass to him on a platter wheter its about 9/11,the JFK assassination or the rams being back in LA.

he is INCAPABLE of ever admitting he is wrong no matter what the topic is.lol

Still buying the Rams/LA Hoax?

i rest my case.you just showed off to the whole world
there that your incapable of ever admitting it when you have been proven wrong.

thanks for helping me rest my case that you are indeed USMB's resident troll that your logic is I am right and everyone else in the world is wrong.

oh since you are right and everyone else in the world is wrong,you better go tell coach jeff fisher and the rest of the rams players to stop looking for homes in LA and to stop selling their homes in st louis oh and more importantly,you better call the ESPN network and tell them john gruden made a mistake yesterday in the pro bowl saying -todd gurley of the now LOS ANGELES Rams since you are always right,and the whole world is wrong on this same as me.

you need to start a comedy club paid troll you sure are good for laughs.

 

[Dale Smith]

Every time a jet airplane has hit a building, that building has fallen down

So which plane hit building 7?

 

[SAYIT]

Every time a jet airplane has hit a building, that building has fallen down

So which plane hit building 7?

No one said a plane hit 7 and how does that question explain your inability (or unwillingness) to deal with the fact that 2 planes hit the Towers igniting the chaotic fires that brought them down? Their collapse severely damaged other nearby structures - proving they did not "fall in their own footprint as you so often claim - which led to 7's fires and ultimate collapse.

This isn't rocket science we are discussing. Many would eagerly join your 9/11 CT Movement but the misrepresentations, half-truths, outright lies and paranoid lunacy of people like you have destroyed what little credibility it once had.

Why is it so difficult for you to deal honestly and rationally with the facts?

"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch, former "Truther" royalty

 

[Dale Smith]

No, I do not believe that any of my claims about that day are "garbage".

Yes Dale, they are garbage. You have presented so-called "facts" in this very thread that have been countered. Every time this has been done, instead of admitting your claim was wrong, you ignore the evidence presented and move on to other topics.

Perfect example. You claim of the towers falling in their own footprints. I provided damaged radius drawings and photos that show this particular claim to be GARBAGE.

I am not "close minded"

Yes you are! Very much so. You refuse to discuss the evidence provided that refute your claims and instead choose to move onto other topics without first finishing the others you brought up. How many different claims have you brought into this thread alone? All left hanging there without any responses. Instead, you choose to plug your ears and yell "la, la, la, la".

I beg to differ on that, my friend..... you claim that the buildings falling down in almost perfect symmetry never really happened even though the video says differently. Did some of the falling debris hit other buildings surrounding the twin towers? Certainly, but they were not that fragile that they would be gutted like Building 6 and you know why? Because that building had an explosion of it's own and it happened right around the time that the south tower was hit by the alleged plane. It was hollowed out but yet the exterior walls remained..a crater that goes all the way to the basement is there for all to see. Your "damage radius" means nothing since explosives were planted in other buildings and the pictures and video from that day bears me out. I have the book "Debunking 9/11 Myths" that was put out by "Popular Mechanics"...it was my bible when I was busting on truthers and I bought the bullshit because I wanted to believe it. They claim that Building 7 had over 42,000 gallons of diesel in case the need to back up 14 generators lest they have a "black out"...seriously? they stored this fuel on the upper floors? I don't buy this shit anymore but obviously you do and that is your right. I don't at all. You don't buy that the pentagon has secured airspace while I do but one thing that we should both be able to agree on is that there should be more video available than the 4 frames that they released where the alleged plane hit the south side of the Pentagon without marring the landscape and somewhere there should be video or pictures of the wings and tail section out on the Pentagon lawn somewhere, no? Like I said, you buy the official story, I no longer do and the reason for the need to have this false flag event and why we live in a police state with a totally unsecured borders is totally obvious to me. It's the quintessential Hegelian Dialectic....cause, affect, solution...keep the huddled masses afraid while whittling away at their privacy and liberties all in the name of "keeping them safe"....and I am calling bullshit on that.

 

[Dale Smith]

Every time a jet airplane has hit a building, that building has fallen down

So which plane hit building 7?

No one said a plane hit 7 and how does that question explain your inability (or unwillingness) to deal with the fact that 2 planes hit the Towers igniting the chaotic fires that brought them down? Their collapse severely damaged other nearby structures - proving they did not "fall in their own footprint as you so often claim - which led to 7's fires and ultimate collapse.

This isn't rocket science we are discussing. Many would eagerly join your 9/11 CT Movement but the misrepresentations, half-truths, outright lies and paranoid lunacy of people like you have destroyed what little credibility it once had.

Why is it so difficult for you to deal honestly and rationally with the facts?

"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch, former "Truther" royalty

 

[Dale Smith]

Every time a jet airplane has hit a building, that building has fallen down

So which plane hit building 7?

No one said a plane hit 7 and how does that question explain your inability (or unwillingness) to deal with the fact that 2 planes hit the Towers igniting the chaotic fires that brought them down? Their collapse severely damaged other nearby structures - proving they did not "fall in their own footprint as you so often claim - which led to 7's fires and ultimate collapse.

This isn't rocket science we are discussing. Many would eagerly join your 9/11 CT Movement but the misrepresentations, half-truths, outright lies and paranoid lunacy of people like you have destroyed what little credibility it once had.

Why is it so difficult for you to deal honestly and rationally with the facts?

"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch, former "Truther" royalty

 

[Dale Smith]

the newest paid shill USMB'S resident troll rightwinger is now here to troll.lol. bty agent rightwinger, your the funniest dude alive,even after it was announced everywhere across the country the rams are going back to LA,the very next day you STILL were incapable of admitting you were proven wrong.

thats how this troll debates,doesnt matter what the topic is,wheter you prove him wrong about 9/11 or a simple thing like the Rams are going back to LA he is ALWAYS incapable of admitting he was proven wrong.

again he was saying the very next day to me the Rams were still playing in st louis this year.

better go tell that to the national media agent rightwinger since they are telling the whole country they are in LA now

I take him to school every day handing his ass to him on a platter wheter its about 9/11,the JFK assassination or the rams being back in LA.

he is INCAPABLE of ever admitting he is wrong no matter what the topic is.lol

You nailed the Rams going back to LA and seriously, that is where they have always belonged...never felt right calling them the "St.Louis Rams" but the more shit I learn, the less importance sports are in my world. I can't believe that anyone in this day and age believes a fucking thing from the Warren Commission concerning the JFK public murder especially since it was full of people that wanted to see JFK dead...some people just do not have any intellectual curiosity and want to believe in their benevolent and all knowing "gubermint" that has made them indentured debt slaves paying them a fiat currency that isn't worth the paper it is written on...but what are ya gonna do?....(sigh)

 

[LA RAM FAN]

the newest paid shill USMB'S resident troll rightwinger is now here to troll.lol. bty agent rightwinger, your the funniest dude alive,even after it was announced everywhere across the country the rams are going back to LA,the very next day you STILL were incapable of admitting you were proven wrong.

thats how this troll debates,doesnt matter what the topic is,wheter you prove him wrong about 9/11 or a simple thing like the Rams are going back to LA he is ALWAYS incapable of admitting he was proven wrong.

again he was saying the very next day to me the Rams were still playing in st louis this year.

better go tell that to the national media agent rightwinger since they are telling the whole country they are in LA now

I take him to school every day handing his ass to him on a platter wheter its about 9/11,the JFK assassination or the rams being back in LA.

he is INCAPABLE of ever admitting he is wrong no matter what the topic is.lol

You nailed the Rams going back to LA and seriously, that is where they have always belonged...never felt right calling them the "St.Louis Rams" but the more shit I learn, the less importance sports are in my world. I can't believe that anyone in this day and age believes a fucking thing from the Warren Commission concerning the JFK public murder especially since it was full of people that wanted to see JFK dead...some people just do not have any intellectual curiosity and want to believe in their benevolent and all knowing "gubermint" that has made them indentured debt slaves paying them a fiat currency that isn't worth the paper it is written on...but what are ya gonna do?....(sigh)

you might want to tell agent rightwinger that they are back in LA what you just told me since i can never get through to him.

yeah because our government is so corrupt,i dont get into football anymore like i used to,used to be that i never missed a monday night game but i learned last year the NFL is as corrupt as our government is,that their games are as phony and as rigged as pro wrestling.

I'll still watch the Rams game though only because their uniform colors they always wore in LA are the coolest looking in the world. thats the ONLY reason,nothing else,wont get into the winning losing thing knowing they are rigged. yeah st louis rams was the most childish name to call an NFL football team.that god a wrong has finally been righted,let me know what agent rightwinger says when YOU try and tell him he was wrong and I am right that they are back okay?

got to watch it once in a while to get your mind off how corrupt out government is.many people dont understand that the jfk assassination and 9/11 events are all connected with some of the same players involved such as Bush sr.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

No, I do not believe that any of my claims about that day are "garbage".

Yes Dale, they are garbage. You have presented so-called "facts" in this very thread that have been countered. Every time this has been done, instead of admitting your claim was wrong, you ignore the evidence presented and move on to other topics.

Perfect example. You claim of the towers falling in their own footprints. I provided damaged radius drawings and photos that show this particular claim to be GARBAGE.

I am not "close minded"

Yes you are! Very much so. You refuse to discuss the evidence provided that refute your claims and instead choose to move onto other topics without first finishing the others you brought up. How many different claims have you brought into this thread alone? All left hanging there without any responses. Instead, you choose to plug your ears and yell "la, la, la, la".

I beg to differ on that, my friend..... you claim that the buildings falling down in almost perfect symmetry never really happened even though the video says differently. Did some of the falling debris hit other buildings surrounding the twin towers? Certainly, but they were not that fragile that they would be gutted like Building 6 and you know why? Because that building had an explosion of it's own and it happened right around the time that the south tower was hit by the alleged plane. It was hollowed out but yet the exterior walls remained..a crater that goes all the way to the basement is there for all to see. Your "damage radius" means nothing since explosives were planted in other buildings and the pictures and video from that day bears me out. I have the book "Debunking 9/11 Myths" that was put out by "Popular Mechanics"...it was my bible when I was busting on truthers and I bought the bullshit because I wanted to believe it. They claim that Building 7 had over 42,000 gallons of diesel in case the need to back up 14 generators lest they have a "black out"...seriously? they stored this fuel on the upper floors? I don't buy this shit anymore but obviously you do and that is your right. I don't at all. You don't buy that the pentagon has secured airspace while I do but one thing that we should both be able to agree on is that there should be more video available than the 4 frames that they released where the alleged plane hit the south side of the Pentagon without marring the landscape and somewhere there should be video or pictures of the wings and tail section out on the Pentagon lawn somewhere, no? Like I said, you buy the official story, I no longer do and the reason for the need to have this false flag event and why we live in a police state with a totally unsecured borders is totally obvious to me. It's the quintessential Hegelian Dialectic....cause, affect, solution...keep the huddled masses afraid while whittling away at their privacy and liberties all in the name of "keeping them safe"....and I am calling bullshit on that.

agent gam always ignores that the book debunking the 9/11 debunking,an answer to popular mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory by david ray griffin has debunked that book and proven it was an inside job.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The answer is FAR more sinister than anything in thread.

Our enemies have figured out how to harness...GRAVITY. "Oh universe why dost thou conspire agin us?"

 

[Gamolon]

I beg to differ on that, my friend..... you claim that the buildings falling down in almost perfect symmetry never really happened

So symmetry is a characteristic of controlled demolition? Do I have to link videos of demolitions that show non-symmetrical collapses? What exactly is your point here?

even though the video says differently. Did some of the falling debris hit other buildings surrounding the twin towers? Certainly,

So you admit that your claim of "falling into their own footprint" is incorrect? Because "falling into their own footprint" would mean that all the debris would have fallen into a 208' x 208' square (the footprint of the towers)? And since you admit "falling debris hit other buildings", that means they DIDN'T fall into their own footprint. Isn't one of the characteristics of a controlled demolition that debris is contained? Your argument is falling apart Dale.

but they were not that fragile

Nobody said they were "fragile". Quite putting words into my mouth.

that they would be gutted like Building 6 and you know why?

That's what happens when debris falls into that area. Do you see perimeter columns from the towers in the center?

Because that building had an explosion of it's own and it happened right around the time that the south tower was hit by the alleged plane.

Where's the link to evidence of this claim? I'm sorry Dale, but your word means nothing to me. You need to start posting link and evidence to your claim. That's how debate works here.

It was hollowed out but yet the exterior walls remained..a crater that goes all the way to the basement is there for all to see.

Right. Caused by impacting debris.

Your "damage radius" means nothing since explosives were planted in other buildings and the pictures and video from that day bears me out.

My damage radius PROVES your claim of "falling into their own footprint" was bogus. Sorry Dale.

I have the book "Debunking 9/11 Myths" that was put out by "Popular Mechanics"...it was my bible when I was busting on truthers and I bought the bullshit because I wanted to believe it. They claim that Building 7 had over 42,000 gallons of diesel in case the need to back up 14 generators lest they have a "black out"...seriously? they stored this fuel on the upper floors? I don't buy this shit anymore but obviously you do

Dale, I don't use Popular Mechanics nor have I ever referenced it. Stop with the false accusations/insinuations.

and that is your right. I don't at all. You don't buy that the pentagon has secured airspace while I do

You have yet to provide any link or source that says there are missile batteries around the Pentagon. So no, I don't believe it.

but one thing that we should both be able to agree on is that there should be more video available than the 4 frames that they released where the alleged plane hit the south side of the Pentagon without marring the landscape and somewhere there should be video or pictures of the wings and tail section out on the Pentagon lawn somewhere, no?

Why do you think that? What cameras were pointed to that specific location when the plane stuck? What makes you think that there should be pieces laying around like you think? What evidence are you using to come to that conclusion? Are you looking at similar impacts that show large pieces of plane laying around?

Like I said, you buy the official story, I no longer do and the reason for the need to have this false flag event and why we live in a police state with a totally unsecured borders is totally obvious to me. It's the quintessential Hegelian Dialectic....cause, affect, solution...keep the huddled masses afraid while whittling away at their privacy and liberties all in the name of "keeping them safe"....and I am calling bullshit on that.

And all your claims are based on assumptions. How many links have you provided that show what you claim is correct? You claimed the hole in the Pentagon was too small yet I provided information to you that shows you to be incorrect. You didn;t even respond to it. Like I said. You're not open minded at all. All you do is provide your "evidence" and when further evidence is provided to refute your claims, you run to other topics and continue to claim everything is bullcrap. How is that open minded Dale? You never stick to one topic.

 

[Gamolon]

Do you notice something strange in the video you linked above? Did you notice that WTC7 is BACKWARDS in that video? The penthouse was on the LEFT, not the right.

Do you enjoy posting faked/hoaxed videos to try and further your beliefs Dale? Is this just another instance of you ceasing to research any further because you found something that agreed with what you believe? One has to think so because if you DID research further, you would have found this.



Just pathetic...

 

[Gamolon]

Dale,

Where are the "flashes" from explosions in this video like we see in the cell phone video you posted above? And the penthouse mysteriously switched sides?!

 

[Skylar]

I beg to differ on that, my friend..... you claim that the buildings falling down in almost perfect symmetry never really happened

So symmetry is a characteristic of controlled demolition? Do I have to link videos of demolitions that show non-symmetrical collapses? What exactly is your point here?

even though the video says differently. Did some of the falling debris hit other buildings surrounding the twin towers? Certainly,

So you admit that your claim of "falling into their own footprint" is incorrect? Because "falling into their own footprint" would mean that all the debris would have fallen into a 208' x 208' square (the footprint of the towers)? And since you admit "falling debris hit other buildings", that means they DIDN'T fall into their own footprint. Isn't one of the characteristics of a controlled demolition that debris is contained? Your argument is falling apart Dale.

but they were not that fragile

Nobody said they were "fragile". Quite putting words into my mouth.

that they would be gutted like Building 6 and you know why?

That's what happens when debris falls into that area. Do you see perimeter columns from the towers in the center?

Because that building had an explosion of it's own and it happened right around the time that the south tower was hit by the alleged plane.

Where's the link to evidence of this claim? I'm sorry Dale, but your word means nothing to me. You need to start posting link and evidence to your claim. That's how debate works here.

It was hollowed out but yet the exterior walls remained..a crater that goes all the way to the basement is there for all to see.

Right. Caused by impacting debris.

Your "damage radius" means nothing since explosives were planted in other buildings and the pictures and video from that day bears me out.

My damage radius PROVES your claim of "falling into their own footprint" was bogus. Sorry Dale.

I have the book "Debunking 9/11 Myths" that was put out by "Popular Mechanics"...it was my bible when I was busting on truthers and I bought the bullshit because I wanted to believe it. They claim that Building 7 had over 42,000 gallons of diesel in case the need to back up 14 generators lest they have a "black out"...seriously? they stored this fuel on the upper floors? I don't buy this shit anymore but obviously you do

Dale, I don't use Popular Mechanics nor have I ever referenced it. Stop with the false accusations/insinuations.

and that is your right. I don't at all. You don't buy that the pentagon has secured airspace while I do

You have yet to provide any link or source that says there are missile batteries around the Pentagon. So no, I don't believe it.

but one thing that we should both be able to agree on is that there should be more video available than the 4 frames that they released where the alleged plane hit the south side of the Pentagon without marring the landscape and somewhere there should be video or pictures of the wings and tail section out on the Pentagon lawn somewhere, no?

Why do you think that? What cameras were pointed to that specific location when the plane stuck? What makes you think that there should be pieces laying around like you think? What evidence are you using to come to that conclusion? Are you looking at similar impacts that show large pieces of plane laying around?

Like I said, you buy the official story, I no longer do and the reason for the need to have this false flag event and why we live in a police state with a totally unsecured borders is totally obvious to me. It's the quintessential Hegelian Dialectic....cause, affect, solution...keep the huddled masses afraid while whittling away at their privacy and liberties all in the name of "keeping them safe"....and I am calling bullshit on that.

And all your claims are based on assumptions. How many links have you provided that show what you claim is correct? You claimed the hole in the Pentagon was too small yet I provided information to you that shows you to be incorrect. You didn;t even respond to it. Like I said. You're not open minded at all. All you do is provide your "evidence" and when further evidence is provided to refute your claims, you run to other topics and continue to claim everything is bullcrap. How is that open minded Dale? You never stick to one topic.

Another major hole in the 'controlled demolition' theory.....is that the collapse of the towers looks nothing like it. Actual controlled demolition starts at the bottom, with the main supports of the building destroyed with cutter charges and kicker charges firing up the height of the building to break it up. So all of the building falls at the exact same time.

The towers fell in exactly OPPOSITE that manner.

The collapse initiated at the point of impact with the planes. And then proceeded downward, one floor at a time, all the way to the ground. That means that each floor was destroyed individually. Increasing the number of explosives necessary in 'controlled demolition' by orders of magnitude. Which leads into the second major hole in the demolition theory:

The lack of cut girders. Explosive demolition uses cutter charges to literally slice through structural supports. With the building coming down top to bottom and every floor destroyed individually.....that's 249 outer panels and 47 core columns per floor...... 91 floors to the ground in one tower and 79 to the ground in the other, means more than 50,000 individual charges and cuts in the structure of the building.

Yet none of the girders were cut. We see bent girders. We see twisted girders. We see bowed girders. We don't see any cuts.

When the 'explosive demolition' theory mandates more than 50,000.

And no need to soften your language, Gam. The bomb theory is straight up, 100% natural, pure organic bullshit.

 

[Dale Smith]

I beg to differ on that, my friend..... you claim that the buildings falling down in almost perfect symmetry never really happened

So symmetry is a characteristic of controlled demolition? Do I have to link videos of demolitions that show non-symmetrical collapses? What exactly is your point here?

even though the video says differently. Did some of the falling debris hit other buildings surrounding the twin towers? Certainly,

So you admit that your claim of "falling into their own footprint" is incorrect? Because "falling into their own footprint" would mean that all the debris would have fallen into a 208' x 208' square (the footprint of the towers)? And since you admit "falling debris hit other buildings", that means they DIDN'T fall into their own footprint. Isn't one of the characteristics of a controlled demolition that debris is contained? Your argument is falling apart Dale.

but they were not that fragile

Nobody said they were "fragile". Quite putting words into my mouth.

that they would be gutted like Building 6 and you know why?

That's what happens when debris falls into that area. Do you see perimeter columns from the towers in the center?

Because that building had an explosion of it's own and it happened right around the time that the south tower was hit by the alleged plane.

Where's the link to evidence of this claim? I'm sorry Dale, but your word means nothing to me. You need to start posting link and evidence to your claim. That's how debate works here.

It was hollowed out but yet the exterior walls remained..a crater that goes all the way to the basement is there for all to see.

Right. Caused by impacting debris.

Your "damage radius" means nothing since explosives were planted in other buildings and the pictures and video from that day bears me out.

My damage radius PROVES your claim of "falling into their own footprint" was bogus. Sorry Dale.

I have the book "Debunking 9/11 Myths" that was put out by "Popular Mechanics"...it was my bible when I was busting on truthers and I bought the bullshit because I wanted to believe it. They claim that Building 7 had over 42,000 gallons of diesel in case the need to back up 14 generators lest they have a "black out"...seriously? they stored this fuel on the upper floors? I don't buy this shit anymore but obviously you do

Dale, I don't use Popular Mechanics nor have I ever referenced it. Stop with the false accusations/insinuations.

and that is your right. I don't at all. You don't buy that the pentagon has secured airspace while I do

You have yet to provide any link or source that says there are missile batteries around the Pentagon. So no, I don't believe it.

but one thing that we should both be able to agree on is that there should be more video available than the 4 frames that they released where the alleged plane hit the south side of the Pentagon without marring the landscape and somewhere there should be video or pictures of the wings and tail section out on the Pentagon lawn somewhere, no?

Why do you think that? What cameras were pointed to that specific location when the plane stuck? What makes you think that there should be pieces laying around like you think? What evidence are you using to come to that conclusion? Are you looking at similar impacts that show large pieces of plane laying around?

Like I said, you buy the official story, I no longer do and the reason for the need to have this false flag event and why we live in a police state with a totally unsecured borders is totally obvious to me. It's the quintessential Hegelian Dialectic....cause, affect, solution...keep the huddled masses afraid while whittling away at their privacy and liberties all in the name of "keeping them safe"....and I am calling bullshit on that.

And all your claims are based on assumptions. How many links have you provided that show what you claim is correct? You claimed the hole in the Pentagon was too small yet I provided information to you that shows you to be incorrect. You didn;t even respond to it. Like I said. You're not open minded at all. All you do is provide your "evidence" and when further evidence is provided to refute your claims, you run to other topics and continue to claim everything is bullcrap. How is that open minded Dale? You never stick to one topic.

You haven't posted anything that has given me pause for thought in the slightest because remember, I use to be just like you. False flag events have been used since the beginning of time and USA.INC isn't any different. Every war America has ever gotten involved in has had a false flag...take WWI...the sinking of the Lusitania wasn't done by Germany...it had explosives planted on it and it was indeed loaded down with ammunition btw. WWII, the Japanese code had been broken in January of 1941 but yet Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen in order to get the subservient debt slaves to sign up for the war that was caused by the same banking oligarch families that own your ass today via your birth certificate. There would have been no Nazi Germany without Wall Street, the Rockefellers, Harrimans and Bush crime families, etc, etc. They reaped huge war profits on the back of slave labor. The uber rich always hedge their bets and when many of the Third Reich vacated Germany? Under Operation Paperclip these rich elites picked over the remains and brought thousands of Nazis using the Vatican ratline to bring them here and whitewash their backgrounds and put them in places like the rocket program and the OSS that later became the CIA. The Third Reich did not lose the war, they simply relocated. The Gulf of Tonkin incident we now know never happened. We now know that the CIA was in on the JFK murder. The first WTC in 1993 bombing was an FBI sting that knowingly allowed an Egyptian operative to use live explosives for that attack but he got wise to this and wore a wire because he knew he was being set up to be the patsy. The OKC Murrah building bombing in 1995 was another false flag event and I would be more than happy to share with you all the things I have learned about that disgusting event.
9/11/01 was most definitely a planned event and for a multitude of reasons because I have done the reading and research because this is all I do. We have been played and our emotions played on while surrendering more and more freedoms and liberties under the UCC we are actually under....just most people do not understand it...I do. The federal "gubermint" in Washington D.C is a corporate entity and their jurisdiction is only within the city state that is the District of Columbia. As with any false flag event, always follow the money and what stands to be gained from it. "Terrorism" legislation that infringes on our right to privacy and the money to be made from implementing a total police state while leaving the borders totally unprotected while overtly and covertly flying in muslim refugees should give you a clue...no?

 

[Dale Smith]

I beg to differ on that, my friend..... you claim that the buildings falling down in almost perfect symmetry never really happened

So symmetry is a characteristic of controlled demolition? Do I have to link videos of demolitions that show non-symmetrical collapses? What exactly is your point here?

even though the video says differently. Did some of the falling debris hit other buildings surrounding the twin towers? Certainly,

So you admit that your claim of "falling into their own footprint" is incorrect? Because "falling into their own footprint" would mean that all the debris would have fallen into a 208' x 208' square (the footprint of the towers)? And since you admit "falling debris hit other buildings", that means they DIDN'T fall into their own footprint. Isn't one of the characteristics of a controlled demolition that debris is contained? Your argument is falling apart Dale.

but they were not that fragile

Nobody said they were "fragile". Quite putting words into my mouth.

that they would be gutted like Building 6 and you know why?

That's what happens when debris falls into that area. Do you see perimeter columns from the towers in the center?

Because that building had an explosion of it's own and it happened right around the time that the south tower was hit by the alleged plane.

Where's the link to evidence of this claim? I'm sorry Dale, but your word means nothing to me. You need to start posting link and evidence to your claim. That's how debate works here.

It was hollowed out but yet the exterior walls remained..a crater that goes all the way to the basement is there for all to see.

Right. Caused by impacting debris.

Your "damage radius" means nothing since explosives were planted in other buildings and the pictures and video from that day bears me out.

My damage radius PROVES your claim of "falling into their own footprint" was bogus. Sorry Dale.

I have the book "Debunking 9/11 Myths" that was put out by "Popular Mechanics"...it was my bible when I was busting on truthers and I bought the bullshit because I wanted to believe it. They claim that Building 7 had over 42,000 gallons of diesel in case the need to back up 14 generators lest they have a "black out"...seriously? they stored this fuel on the upper floors? I don't buy this shit anymore but obviously you do

Dale, I don't use Popular Mechanics nor have I ever referenced it. Stop with the false accusations/insinuations.

and that is your right. I don't at all. You don't buy that the pentagon has secured airspace while I do

You have yet to provide any link or source that says there are missile batteries around the Pentagon. So no, I don't believe it.

but one thing that we should both be able to agree on is that there should be more video available than the 4 frames that they released where the alleged plane hit the south side of the Pentagon without marring the landscape and somewhere there should be video or pictures of the wings and tail section out on the Pentagon lawn somewhere, no?

Why do you think that? What cameras were pointed to that specific location when the plane stuck? What makes you think that there should be pieces laying around like you think? What evidence are you using to come to that conclusion? Are you looking at similar impacts that show large pieces of plane laying around?

Like I said, you buy the official story, I no longer do and the reason for the need to have this false flag event and why we live in a police state with a totally unsecured borders is totally obvious to me. It's the quintessential Hegelian Dialectic....cause, affect, solution...keep the huddled masses afraid while whittling away at their privacy and liberties all in the name of "keeping them safe"....and I am calling bullshit on that.

And all your claims are based on assumptions. How many links have you provided that show what you claim is correct? You claimed the hole in the Pentagon was too small yet I provided information to you that shows you to be incorrect. You didn;t even respond to it. Like I said. You're not open minded at all. All you do is provide your "evidence" and when further evidence is provided to refute your claims, you run to other topics and continue to claim everything is bullcrap. How is that open minded Dale? You never stick to one topic.

Another major hole in the 'controlled demolition' theory.....is that the collapse of the towers looks nothing like it. Actual controlled demolition starts at the bottom, with the main supports of the building destroyed with cutter charges and kicker charges firing up the height of the building to break it up. So all of the building falls at the exact same time.

The towers fell in exactly OPPOSITE that manner.

The collapse initiated at the point of impact with the planes. And then proceeded downward, one floor at a time, all the way to the ground. That means that each floor was destroyed individually. Increasing the number of explosives necessary in 'controlled demolition' by orders of magnitude. Which leads into the second major hole in the demolition theory:

The lack of cut girders. Explosive demolition uses cutter charges to literally slice through structural supports. With the building coming down top to bottom and every floor destroyed individually.....that's 249 outer panels and 47 core columns per floor...... 91 floors to the ground in one tower and 79 to the ground in the other, means more than 50,000 individual charges and cuts in the structure of the building.

Yet none of the girders were cut. We see bent girders. We see twisted girders. We see bowed girders. We don't see any cuts.

When the 'explosive demolition' theory mandates more than 50,000.

And no need to soften your language, Gam. The bomb theory is straight up, 100% natural, pure organic bullshit.

Dude, seriously...you are absolutely clueless......stop trying to "piggyback" off of your "me too" pal....it makes you look desperate....sheeesh.

 

[Skylar]

I beg to differ on that, my friend..... you claim that the buildings falling down in almost perfect symmetry never really happened

So symmetry is a characteristic of controlled demolition? Do I have to link videos of demolitions that show non-symmetrical collapses? What exactly is your point here?

even though the video says differently. Did some of the falling debris hit other buildings surrounding the twin towers? Certainly,

So you admit that your claim of "falling into their own footprint" is incorrect? Because "falling into their own footprint" would mean that all the debris would have fallen into a 208' x 208' square (the footprint of the towers)? And since you admit "falling debris hit other buildings", that means they DIDN'T fall into their own footprint. Isn't one of the characteristics of a controlled demolition that debris is contained? Your argument is falling apart Dale.

but they were not that fragile

Nobody said they were "fragile". Quite putting words into my mouth.

that they would be gutted like Building 6 and you know why?

That's what happens when debris falls into that area. Do you see perimeter columns from the towers in the center?

Because that building had an explosion of it's own and it happened right around the time that the south tower was hit by the alleged plane.

Where's the link to evidence of this claim? I'm sorry Dale, but your word means nothing to me. You need to start posting link and evidence to your claim. That's how debate works here.

It was hollowed out but yet the exterior walls remained..a crater that goes all the way to the basement is there for all to see.

Right. Caused by impacting debris.

Your "damage radius" means nothing since explosives were planted in other buildings and the pictures and video from that day bears me out.

My damage radius PROVES your claim of "falling into their own footprint" was bogus. Sorry Dale.

I have the book "Debunking 9/11 Myths" that was put out by "Popular Mechanics"...it was my bible when I was busting on truthers and I bought the bullshit because I wanted to believe it. They claim that Building 7 had over 42,000 gallons of diesel in case the need to back up 14 generators lest they have a "black out"...seriously? they stored this fuel on the upper floors? I don't buy this shit anymore but obviously you do

Dale, I don't use Popular Mechanics nor have I ever referenced it. Stop with the false accusations/insinuations.

and that is your right. I don't at all. You don't buy that the pentagon has secured airspace while I do

You have yet to provide any link or source that says there are missile batteries around the Pentagon. So no, I don't believe it.

but one thing that we should both be able to agree on is that there should be more video available than the 4 frames that they released where the alleged plane hit the south side of the Pentagon without marring the landscape and somewhere there should be video or pictures of the wings and tail section out on the Pentagon lawn somewhere, no?

Why do you think that? What cameras were pointed to that specific location when the plane stuck? What makes you think that there should be pieces laying around like you think? What evidence are you using to come to that conclusion? Are you looking at similar impacts that show large pieces of plane laying around?

Like I said, you buy the official story, I no longer do and the reason for the need to have this false flag event and why we live in a police state with a totally unsecured borders is totally obvious to me. It's the quintessential Hegelian Dialectic....cause, affect, solution...keep the huddled masses afraid while whittling away at their privacy and liberties all in the name of "keeping them safe"....and I am calling bullshit on that.

And all your claims are based on assumptions. How many links have you provided that show what you claim is correct? You claimed the hole in the Pentagon was too small yet I provided information to you that shows you to be incorrect. You didn;t even respond to it. Like I said. You're not open minded at all. All you do is provide your "evidence" and when further evidence is provided to refute your claims, you run to other topics and continue to claim everything is bullcrap. How is that open minded Dale? You never stick to one topic.

Another major hole in the 'controlled demolition' theory.....is that the collapse of the towers looks nothing like it. Actual controlled demolition starts at the bottom, with the main supports of the building destroyed with cutter charges and kicker charges firing up the height of the building to break it up. So all of the building falls at the exact same time.

The towers fell in exactly OPPOSITE that manner.

The collapse initiated at the point of impact with the planes. And then proceeded downward, one floor at a time, all the way to the ground. That means that each floor was destroyed individually. Increasing the number of explosives necessary in 'controlled demolition' by orders of magnitude. Which leads into the second major hole in the demolition theory:

The lack of cut girders. Explosive demolition uses cutter charges to literally slice through structural supports. With the building coming down top to bottom and every floor destroyed individually.....that's 249 outer panels and 47 core columns per floor...... 91 floors to the ground in one tower and 79 to the ground in the other, means more than 50,000 individual charges and cuts in the structure of the building.

Yet none of the girders were cut. We see bent girders. We see twisted girders. We see bowed girders. We don't see any cuts.

When the 'explosive demolition' theory mandates more than 50,000.

And no need to soften your language, Gam. The bomb theory is straight up, 100% natural, pure organic bullshit.

Dude, seriously...you are absolutely clueless......stop trying to "piggyback" off of your "me too" pal....it makes you look desperate....sheeesh.

Notice how you don't actually address any of the truck sized holes in the 'explosive demolition' theory.

1) How the towers came down exactly opposite of explosive demolition.

2) The absurdity of planting and hiding 50,000 cutter charges and their apparatus in an occupied building.

3) And the complete and utter lack of any cut girders, despite the explosive demolition theory requiring tens of thousands of them.

But pretending that these theory killing holes doesn't exist doesn't magically make them disappear. You can close your eyes, but you can't make *us* unsee just how awful your explanation is.

 

[Dale Smith]

I beg to differ on that, my friend..... you claim that the buildings falling down in almost perfect symmetry never really happened

So symmetry is a characteristic of controlled demolition? Do I have to link videos of demolitions that show non-symmetrical collapses? What exactly is your point here?

even though the video says differently. Did some of the falling debris hit other buildings surrounding the twin towers? Certainly,

So you admit that your claim of "falling into their own footprint" is incorrect? Because "falling into their own footprint" would mean that all the debris would have fallen into a 208' x 208' square (the footprint of the towers)? And since you admit "falling debris hit other buildings", that means they DIDN'T fall into their own footprint. Isn't one of the characteristics of a controlled demolition that debris is contained? Your argument is falling apart Dale.

but they were not that fragile

Nobody said they were "fragile". Quite putting words into my mouth.

that they would be gutted like Building 6 and you know why?

That's what happens when debris falls into that area. Do you see perimeter columns from the towers in the center?

Because that building had an explosion of it's own and it happened right around the time that the south tower was hit by the alleged plane.

Where's the link to evidence of this claim? I'm sorry Dale, but your word means nothing to me. You need to start posting link and evidence to your claim. That's how debate works here.

It was hollowed out but yet the exterior walls remained..a crater that goes all the way to the basement is there for all to see.

Right. Caused by impacting debris.

Your "damage radius" means nothing since explosives were planted in other buildings and the pictures and video from that day bears me out.

My damage radius PROVES your claim of "falling into their own footprint" was bogus. Sorry Dale.

I have the book "Debunking 9/11 Myths" that was put out by "Popular Mechanics"...it was my bible when I was busting on truthers and I bought the bullshit because I wanted to believe it. They claim that Building 7 had over 42,000 gallons of diesel in case the need to back up 14 generators lest they have a "black out"...seriously? they stored this fuel on the upper floors? I don't buy this shit anymore but obviously you do

Dale, I don't use Popular Mechanics nor have I ever referenced it. Stop with the false accusations/insinuations.

and that is your right. I don't at all. You don't buy that the pentagon has secured airspace while I do

You have yet to provide any link or source that says there are missile batteries around the Pentagon. So no, I don't believe it.

but one thing that we should both be able to agree on is that there should be more video available than the 4 frames that they released where the alleged plane hit the south side of the Pentagon without marring the landscape and somewhere there should be video or pictures of the wings and tail section out on the Pentagon lawn somewhere, no?

Why do you think that? What cameras were pointed to that specific location when the plane stuck? What makes you think that there should be pieces laying around like you think? What evidence are you using to come to that conclusion? Are you looking at similar impacts that show large pieces of plane laying around?

Like I said, you buy the official story, I no longer do and the reason for the need to have this false flag event and why we live in a police state with a totally unsecured borders is totally obvious to me. It's the quintessential Hegelian Dialectic....cause, affect, solution...keep the huddled masses afraid while whittling away at their privacy and liberties all in the name of "keeping them safe"....and I am calling bullshit on that.

And all your claims are based on assumptions. How many links have you provided that show what you claim is correct? You claimed the hole in the Pentagon was too small yet I provided information to you that shows you to be incorrect. You didn;t even respond to it. Like I said. You're not open minded at all. All you do is provide your "evidence" and when further evidence is provided to refute your claims, you run to other topics and continue to claim everything is bullcrap. How is that open minded Dale? You never stick to one topic.

Another major hole in the 'controlled demolition' theory.....is that the collapse of the towers looks nothing like it. Actual controlled demolition starts at the bottom, with the main supports of the building destroyed with cutter charges and kicker charges firing up the height of the building to break it up. So all of the building falls at the exact same time.

The towers fell in exactly OPPOSITE that manner.

The collapse initiated at the point of impact with the planes. And then proceeded downward, one floor at a time, all the way to the ground. That means that each floor was destroyed individually. Increasing the number of explosives necessary in 'controlled demolition' by orders of magnitude. Which leads into the second major hole in the demolition theory:

The lack of cut girders. Explosive demolition uses cutter charges to literally slice through structural supports. With the building coming down top to bottom and every floor destroyed individually.....that's 249 outer panels and 47 core columns per floor...... 91 floors to the ground in one tower and 79 to the ground in the other, means more than 50,000 individual charges and cuts in the structure of the building.

Yet none of the girders were cut. We see bent girders. We see twisted girders. We see bowed girders. We don't see any cuts.

When the 'explosive demolition' theory mandates more than 50,000.

And no need to soften your language, Gam. The bomb theory is straight up, 100% natural, pure organic bullshit.

Dude, seriously...you are absolutely clueless......stop trying to "piggyback" off of your "me too" pal....it makes you look desperate....sheeesh.

Notice how you don't actually address any of the truck sized holes in the 'explosive demolition' theory.

1) How the towers came down exactly opposite of explosive demolition.

2) The absurdity of planting and hiding 50,000 cutter charges and their apparatus in an occupied building.

3) And the complete and utter lack of any cut girders, despite the explosive demolition theory requiring tens of thousands of them.

But pretending that these theory killing holes doesn't exist doesn't magically make them disappear. You can close your eyes, but you can't make *us* unsee just how awful your explanation is.

It would not take 50,000 cutter charges to bring either one of the two twin towers. If you watch the videos of that event, you can see the "squibs" that are going off ten floors below the free fall. Both buildings were built to withstand a jet impact and to think that this alleged impact caused them to crumble to the ground in free fall fashion within hours is simply ludicrous now that I have educated myself....you might want to try it....open your eyes because things are not quite what they seem.

 

[Skylar]

I beg to differ on that, my friend..... you claim that the buildings falling down in almost perfect symmetry never really happened

So symmetry is a characteristic of controlled demolition? Do I have to link videos of demolitions that show non-symmetrical collapses? What exactly is your point here?

even though the video says differently. Did some of the falling debris hit other buildings surrounding the twin towers? Certainly,

So you admit that your claim of "falling into their own footprint" is incorrect? Because "falling into their own footprint" would mean that all the debris would have fallen into a 208' x 208' square (the footprint of the towers)? And since you admit "falling debris hit other buildings", that means they DIDN'T fall into their own footprint. Isn't one of the characteristics of a controlled demolition that debris is contained? Your argument is falling apart Dale.

but they were not that fragile

Nobody said they were "fragile". Quite putting words into my mouth.

that they would be gutted like Building 6 and you know why?

That's what happens when debris falls into that area. Do you see perimeter columns from the towers in the center?

Because that building had an explosion of it's own and it happened right around the time that the south tower was hit by the alleged plane.

Where's the link to evidence of this claim? I'm sorry Dale, but your word means nothing to me. You need to start posting link and evidence to your claim. That's how debate works here.

It was hollowed out but yet the exterior walls remained..a crater that goes all the way to the basement is there for all to see.

Right. Caused by impacting debris.

Your "damage radius" means nothing since explosives were planted in other buildings and the pictures and video from that day bears me out.

My damage radius PROVES your claim of "falling into their own footprint" was bogus. Sorry Dale.

I have the book "Debunking 9/11 Myths" that was put out by "Popular Mechanics"...it was my bible when I was busting on truthers and I bought the bullshit because I wanted to believe it. They claim that Building 7 had over 42,000 gallons of diesel in case the need to back up 14 generators lest they have a "black out"...seriously? they stored this fuel on the upper floors? I don't buy this shit anymore but obviously you do

Dale, I don't use Popular Mechanics nor have I ever referenced it. Stop with the false accusations/insinuations.

and that is your right. I don't at all. You don't buy that the pentagon has secured airspace while I do

You have yet to provide any link or source that says there are missile batteries around the Pentagon. So no, I don't believe it.

but one thing that we should both be able to agree on is that there should be more video available than the 4 frames that they released where the alleged plane hit the south side of the Pentagon without marring the landscape and somewhere there should be video or pictures of the wings and tail section out on the Pentagon lawn somewhere, no?

Why do you think that? What cameras were pointed to that specific location when the plane stuck? What makes you think that there should be pieces laying around like you think? What evidence are you using to come to that conclusion? Are you looking at similar impacts that show large pieces of plane laying around?

Like I said, you buy the official story, I no longer do and the reason for the need to have this false flag event and why we live in a police state with a totally unsecured borders is totally obvious to me. It's the quintessential Hegelian Dialectic....cause, affect, solution...keep the huddled masses afraid while whittling away at their privacy and liberties all in the name of "keeping them safe"....and I am calling bullshit on that.

And all your claims are based on assumptions. How many links have you provided that show what you claim is correct? You claimed the hole in the Pentagon was too small yet I provided information to you that shows you to be incorrect. You didn;t even respond to it. Like I said. You're not open minded at all. All you do is provide your "evidence" and when further evidence is provided to refute your claims, you run to other topics and continue to claim everything is bullcrap. How is that open minded Dale? You never stick to one topic.

Another major hole in the 'controlled demolition' theory.....is that the collapse of the towers looks nothing like it. Actual controlled demolition starts at the bottom, with the main supports of the building destroyed with cutter charges and kicker charges firing up the height of the building to break it up. So all of the building falls at the exact same time.

The towers fell in exactly OPPOSITE that manner.

The collapse initiated at the point of impact with the planes. And then proceeded downward, one floor at a time, all the way to the ground. That means that each floor was destroyed individually. Increasing the number of explosives necessary in 'controlled demolition' by orders of magnitude. Which leads into the second major hole in the demolition theory:

The lack of cut girders. Explosive demolition uses cutter charges to literally slice through structural supports. With the building coming down top to bottom and every floor destroyed individually.....that's 249 outer panels and 47 core columns per floor...... 91 floors to the ground in one tower and 79 to the ground in the other, means more than 50,000 individual charges and cuts in the structure of the building.

Yet none of the girders were cut. We see bent girders. We see twisted girders. We see bowed girders. We don't see any cuts.

When the 'explosive demolition' theory mandates more than 50,000.

And no need to soften your language, Gam. The bomb theory is straight up, 100% natural, pure organic bullshit.

Dude, seriously...you are absolutely clueless......stop trying to "piggyback" off of your "me too" pal....it makes you look desperate....sheeesh.

Notice how you don't actually address any of the truck sized holes in the 'explosive demolition' theory.

1) How the towers came down exactly opposite of explosive demolition.

2) The absurdity of planting and hiding 50,000 cutter charges and their apparatus in an occupied building.

3) And the complete and utter lack of any cut girders, despite the explosive demolition theory requiring tens of thousands of them.

But pretending that these theory killing holes doesn't exist doesn't magically make them disappear. You can close your eyes, but you can't make *us* unsee just how awful your explanation is.

It would not take 50,000 cutter charges to bring either one of the two twin towers. If you watch the videos of that event, you can see the "squibs" that are going off ten floors below the free fall.

You clearly have no idea how actual controlled demolition works. First off, its bottom to top. With the structural supports being taken out at the bottom and kicker charges breaking up the building so it all falls together.

That's not how the towers fell *at all*. The towers fell top to bottom. With each floor destroyed, one at a time. Exactly opposite of controlled demolition. The supports on each floor would have to be destroyed. All 47 core columns and 249 outer panels.

Second, when an ACTUAL squib goes off, that section of the building falls like a train dropped from the sky. But your version of a 'squib' fires. And then....nothing. Nothing falls at the point of the explosion. Its not until the debris field reaches the location of the 'squib' that the location actually collapses.

Um, Dale....that's nothing like controlled demolition.

And of course, there are no cut girders. Controlled demolition cuts girders. The explosive demolition theory requiring 10s of thousands. And you have none.

That's layers and layers of obvious contradiction to your theory. And you close your eyes to all of it, pretending none of it exists. Why? Because 'nothing can convince you'. Says who? Says you.

But why would a rational person ignore what you do?