Why did they let it happen ?

[Gamolon]

When the government Commission acknowledged that "we found no evidence" for 60+ elements of the official narrative, the debate was over.

You mean like this "no evidence" instance?

The fact that they found "no evidence" of firearms (physical or sounds of) means the "Official Story" is a lie? Please explain.

 

[Gamolon]

The debate was over 20 years ago dude. When the government Commission acknowledged that "we found no evidence" for 60+ elements of the official narrative, the debate was over. When the presentation, facts and evidence, arranged by the Lawyers Committee on 911 was rejected and hidden away by the US Attorney in Manhattan, that corroborated that the debate was over. The official narrative fails at every turn.

Wait!!!

They found no evidence that one of the hijackers (or anyone else) sat in the cockpit jump seat!!!

That proves the official lie!!!!!!!!



You didn't read the report did you?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Is that how you "truth seekers" debate? Using unsupported claims?

The 100 tallest buildings on the planet are over 333 meters tall. The Twin Towers were 415 meters.

How much steel was on level 5 compared to level 105? Why is the Eiffel Tower shaped the way it is? It does not have to support double its own weight in concrete.

Physics has been History since 9/11. Self righteous dummies can believe stupid shit without asking obvious questions. All of these skyscrapers all over the world! Where is the data on the steel and concrete distributions?

 

[Gamolon]

Because the official narrative failed 20 years ago. There are many other things for the curious mind to consider.

I ask you for evidence that nuclear devices and/or explosives were used to bring the towers down and your evidence is that the official narrative failed?! It failed, therefore.....nuclear devices...explosives...

You can't be serious.

 

[Gamolon]

The 100 tallest buildings on the planet are over 333 meters tall. The Twin Towers were 415 meters.

And.... What?

How much steel was on level 5 compared to level 105? Why is the Eiffel Tower shaped the way it is? It does not have to support double its own weight in concrete.

Go look at the drawings and the materials lists. They're out there. You're just to lazy to look for them and answer your own questions.

Physics has been History since 9/11. Self righteous dummies can believe stupid shit without asking obvious questions. All of these skyscrapers all over the world! Where is the data on the steel and concrete distributions?

Right. That why you invalidated your own "paper and washer" model right? Because your understanding of physics is awesome?

 

[Gamolon]

The 100 tallest buildings on the planet are over 333 meters tall. The Twin Towers were 415 meters.

How much steel was on level 5 compared to level 105? Why is the Eiffel Tower shaped the way it is? It does not have to support double its own weight in concrete.

Physics has been History since 9/11. Self righteous dummies can believe stupid shit without asking obvious questions. All of these skyscrapers all over the world! Where is the data on the steel and concrete distributions?

It's in the drawings that show the floor levels and column materials/designs. Are you really that lazy?

 

[Gamolon]

The 100 tallest buildings on the planet are over 333 meters tall. The Twin Towers were 415 meters.

How much steel was on level 5 compared to level 105? Why is the Eiffel Tower shaped the way it is? It does not have to support double its own weight in concrete.

Physics has been History since 9/11. Self righteous dummies can believe stupid shit without asking obvious questions. All of these skyscrapers all over the world! Where is the data on the steel and concrete distributions?

I'll help you out. Here's your first clue. 5th floor plan...

 

[Gamolon]

How much steel was on level 5 compared to level 105? Why is the Eiffel Tower shaped the way it is? It does not have to support double its own weight in concrete.

Better yet. Here's the 5th floor core plan.

Here's the 105th floor core plan:

Tell me what you notice.

 

[Gamolon]

The 100 tallest buildings on the planet are over 333 meters tall. The Twin Towers were 415 meters.

How much steel was on level 5 compared to level 105? Why is the Eiffel Tower shaped the way it is? It does not have to support double its own weight in concrete.

Physics has been History since 9/11. Self righteous dummies can believe stupid shit without asking obvious questions. All of these skyscrapers all over the world! Where is the data on the steel and concrete distributions?

Oh look!!!!! Core column schedule with plate thicknesses for the box columns and I-Beam information!!!!! Imagine that!!!!

 

[EMH]

What "other angles"? You links?

Long since taken down from Youtube and Dailymotion.

One is a guy photographing his girlfriend and the North Tower blows up in the background. Perfectly clear nothing hit it and the explosion had no momentum. The other was a video even further away and it was perhaps off a building or tower, a security cam, and it showed the same thing.

 

[Gamolon]

Long since taken down from Youtube and Dailymotion.

How convenient for your stance.

One is a guy photographing his girlfriend and the North Tower blows up in the background. Perfectly clear nothing hit it and the explosion had no momentum.

First you said he was video filming his girlfriend and it was censored on YouTube in 4 hours, now it's photographing? Can't keep your lies straight? Let me guess. Photographing and video filming are the same to you right?

The other was a video even further away and it was perhaps off a building or tower, a security cam, and it showed the same thing.

So you think it was thermite combined with explosives that brought down the North tower?

There's no physical evidence of thermite anywhere. There's no heat map that shows the temperatures needed for it to be thermite. What's your proof? It LOOKED like an explosion?

 

[Gamolon]

Other angles show the back and the one side all fired out at the same time = explosion was inside and had no momentum.

Explain what the purpose of this "inside explosion" was in your opinion? What was it's purpose since the collapse didn't happen until about 1 hour and 45 minutes AFTER the initial explosion.

 

[EMH]

Explain what the purpose of this "inside explosion" was in your opinion? What was it's purpose since the collapse didn't happen until about 1 hour and 45 minutes AFTER the initial explosion.

To simulate the entry of a "plane" that did not exist.

 

[EMH]

There's no physical evidence of thermite anywhere.

So, what caused this river of molten steel to pour out of the South Tower??

911 thermite at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

 

[Gamolon]

To simulate the entry of a "plane" that did not exist.

I see.

So the perps planted explosives along the inside of the impact façade to create a plane shaped hole and cut some of the perimeter columns. Then they planted explosives INSIDE the building to create explosions on the other three facades blowing outward. All set off at the same time.

That's what you're going with?

Can you explain how the explosives in the inside of the impact wall blew up yet bent the severed perimeter columns INWARD?

 

[Gamolon]

So, what caused this river of molten steel to pour out of the South Tower??

911 thermite at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

Prove to me that it was molten steel. You can't prove that by visuals alone.

In your opinion, what caused that supposed "molten metal stream"? Thermite? Where did that "that molten steel stream" originate do you think? Core columns or perimeter columns?

 

[EMH]

Prove to me that it was molten steel. You can't prove that by visuals alone.

In your opinion, what caused that supposed "molten metal stream"? Thermite? Where did that "that molten steel stream" originate do you think? Core columns or perimeter columns?

Funny, your side used to admit it was molten steel and claimed the burning jet fuel caused it...

Now, it isn't molten steel... LOL!!!

 

[EMH]

I see.

So the perps planted explosives along the inside of the impact façade to create a plane shaped hole and cut some of the perimeter columns. Then they planted explosives INSIDE the building to create explosions on the other three facades blowing outward. All set off at the same time.

That's what you're going with?

Can you explain how the explosives in the inside of the impact wall blew up yet bent the severed perimeter columns INWARD?

This photo does not support your hypothesis. It supports "bomb inside"

 

[Gamolon]

Funny, your side used to admit it was molten steel and claimed the burning jet fuel caused it...

Now, it isn't molten steel... LOL

What, no proof that it was molten steel caused by thermite at 2200 degrees?

Sorry, there's no physical evidence of thermite ANYWHERE. There's no heat maps showing 2200 degrees in the debris pile.

Your "it's looks like molten steel" doesn't hold up against the other evidence or lack thereof.

 

[Gamolon]

This photo does not support your hypothesis. It supports "bomb inside"

How did those perimeter columns get bent INWARD if the explosion was INSIDE and exploded OUTWARD? That's quite a magic explosion!!!!

Also, what caused the wing marks/dents on the OUTSIDE of the aluminum cladding on the perimeter columns? I suppose the perps sent people out there with hammers to dent the outside?