TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 [49] 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Personal attacks and dodging again, signs of a loser.

+1

I wish Pkc knew better. Unfortuantly he is such a loser that all he can do is insult and suck balls. BIG balls MY BALLS/end discussion someone close this thread and then let is die until the gov discloses what really happended....in 50yrs.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut When is the last time you took a look at the numbers in this poll or any others for that matter. You are part of a huge minority.

oh, ok. so what moronic cretins vote for should have some kind of value in what i think? chances are there wouldnt be more than 10 people who voted that have spent as much time and effort researching this topic. their opinions mean nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Where is the video I asked you dig up that resembles anything like WTC7 collapsing due to fires? Personal attacks and dodging again, signs of a loser.

look mate, i am more than happy to engage you on this topic, insults and all! but have an honest commitment to defending your positions. ive asked you multiple questions regarding all kinds of things in the last 3-4 pages, and mroe often than not it is you dodging the issue(s). i have gone to some effort to provide you with evidence that completely contradicts your assertions. and you ignore it and go onto whatever you want next.

i dont need to "dig up" collapses due to fire. PM colonelcrisp, he's a qualified civil engineer and has plenty of evidence of steel collapsing due to fire. i dont have that data, but that isn't really a problem, because the 9/11 event was the very first of its kind that has ever happened. so of course there isn't a parallel to be drawn. no building constructed in a "tube in tube" design has ever been hit by another building and left to burn for over 5 hours.

quote:

A challenge to conspiracy theorists: 1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high 2) Which takes up a whole city block 3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design 4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7) 5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result. 6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours 7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts. And which, after all seven tests are met, the building does not fall down. Anyone dissecting this into 7 separate events is lying to you.

http://debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

^^ this ISN'T a matter of opinion. its just good science to compare apples to apples, not oranges. to argue no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire isn't a rational and logical argument. it's the equivalent in 1969 of saying "nobody has ever gone to the moon, it must be fake" . sometimes we DO see a first case scenario occuring.


i have asked you a number of questions you have ignored. such as

1- why is extreme heat at ground zero weeks after the attacks evidence of explosives? and how would it be possible for thermite to continue burning weeks after the attacks, given that termite burns very very quickly?

2- how would it be possible for the government to hide tonnes and tonnes of thermite/thermate without anyone ever noticing?

3- what "other explosive" devices were supposedly used and where were they planted? How on earth do you engineer a top-down demolition?

4- why do you believe thermite in the bottom of the towers has anything to do with a top-down collapse that we all witnessed?

5- why do you keep comparing other incidents (such as the B-25 into the empire state building) when they have virtually no similarities with the events on 911?

6- why do you ignore the testimony of firefighters at the scene of WTC7 when they (and everyone around them) believed WTC7 was due to collapse, which it did more than two hours after they stopped trying to fight it?

8- how is it possible for thermite to resist the temperatures in WTC7, which burned for over 5 hours, when thermite is ignited by spark?

i think its rather disingenuous of you to dance around the topic, pointing left and right, and then ignoring my responses when i take the time to take any particular issue to task. any neutral observer with a brain (ie not metalgear) will see my responses to your arguments are far superior in their logical content (not that this makes me right of course). they might look down on my personal attacks, but youre hardly innocent there either

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid +1 I wish Pkc knew better. Unfortuantly he is such a loser that all he can do is insult and suck balls. BIG balls MY BALLS/end discussion someone close this thread and then let is die until the gov discloses what really happended....in 50yrs.

see metalgear, i dont normally insult the contributors in the PDD that actually, you know, CONTRIBUTE. but when people just ignore arguments in favour of non-sequitur ramblings, it gets annoying. and i wouldn't insult you at all if you ever actually made coherent rational arguments. but you dont (or cant i dont know). youre the loser that cant spell, write, invest in the stockmarket, get into college etc. so dont blame me coz i have little tolerance for people like you with nothing intellectually challenging to say.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN see metalgear, i dont normally insult the contributors in the PDD that actually, you know, CONTRIBUTE. but when people just ignore arguments in favour of non-sequitur ramblings, it gets annoying. and i wouldn't insult you at all if you ever actually made coherent rational arguments. but you dont (or cant i dont know). youre the loser that cant spell, write, invest in the stockmarket, get into college etc. so dont blame me coz i have little tolerance for people like you with nothing intellectually challenging to say.

See pkc, you do normally insult people everywhere. You are an arrogant little pussy. Who is safe from my big hands choking your neck, cauing a slow and sure death. I have nothing intellectually challenging to say? You are the one who quotes everything intellectual. Nothing is in your own words, you phony.

LOL

That was really uncalled for.

Eyewitness Inside WTC 7 Reported Explosions Before Collapse


An eyewitness who evacuated WTC 7 before its collapse reported an explosion inside the building, before exiting via the lobby which had been almost completely destroyed - before either of the twin towers had collapsed nearly 400 yards away in the WTC complex.

This testimony severely undermines the flawed explanation that Building 7 collapsed as a result of the damage it sustained following the collapse of the towers, since the structure was seemingly being gutted by explosives prior to 9:59AM.

WTC 7 was not hit by a plane but collapsed in a perfect implosion in its own footprint at 5:20PM.

From a September 11, 2001 Associated Press report.

After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said.

http://911blogger.com/node/8212

quote:

1- why is extreme heat at ground zero weeks after the attacks evidence of explosives? and how would it be possible for thermite to continue burning weeks after the attacks, given that termite burns very very quickly?

You and NIST ignore the molten metal was present, it was present and lets remember the rescue workers who where actually at ground zero will tell anyone this. It is not so much of exactly what caused it but more it was there and it is ignored.

quote:

2- how would it be possible for the government to hide tonnes and tonnes of thermite/thermate without anyone ever noticing?

How the fuck do you know it takes tons of it in the first case sherlock? Has it ever occurred to you thermate was used to weaken the beams in conjunction with other explosives to take the towers down?

quote:

3- what "other explosive" devices were supposedly used and where were they planted? How on earth do you engineer a top-down demolition?

You asked a good question for once. Let's get a new proper investigation going which includes everything which transpired regarding 9/11 and all the facts and find the hell out.

Yourself and millions of others around the globe would not be asking these questions if the official report was not such a fairy tale.

quote:

4- why do you believe thermite in the bottom of the towers has anything to do with a top-down collapse that we all witnessed?

Because thermate and other devices used had to weaken the support of the buildings a hell of a lot more. Jet fuel and fires did not do it on their own. Your NIST report said that jet fuel burns off very quickly if not instantly, you sure you actually read it?

quote:

5- why do you keep comparing other incidents (such as the B-25 into the empire state building) when they have virtually no similarities with the events on 911?

I made the statement because in engineering things like planes (and their fuel) are taken in consideration when building these massive structures. I did state it was B-25 which crashed into the empire state building from the start and never said it was the same type aircraft as those used in the 9/11 inside job.

quote:

6- why do you ignore the testimony of firefighters at the scene of WTC7 when they (and everyone around them) believed WTC7 was due to collapse, which it did more than two hours after they stopped trying to fight it?

Why do you ignore the many rescue workers, firefighters, police officers, victims, families of victims, CIA agents, FBI agents, political figures saying it was an inside job?

quote:

8- how is it possible for thermite to resist the temperatures in WTC7, which burned for over 5 hours, when thermite is ignited by spark?

You forgot question #7 like NIST forgot WTC7, I cannot blame you as you are probably losing your mind trying to find another structure that has collapsed the same way WTC7 did due to fires.

Keep dodging.

The thermate being ignited by the fires is true if you actually believe in fairy tales like the official story.

You must still believe in Santa Claus as well.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut You and NIST ignore the molten metal was present, it was present and lets remember the rescue workers who where actually at ground zero will tell anyone this. It is not so much of exactly what caused it but more it was there and it is ignored.

Molten Metal cools down quickly. Fire does not stop because it has fuel to keep it going for days.

Molten metal being molten or even HOT, as a matter of fact, on September 16th (When those thermal images were taken) is just not possible. It would have been cooled after one day, tops.

Amazing you have figured out that the thermal images are not of molten metal but of the heat.

The point is what exactly got so dam hot that it did create molten metal on 9/11 and remained hot as fuck for weeks after the collapses.

Please do not post it was jet fuel and a combination of pouring water over chemicals again either. The buildings where comprised of office type work space for everyday business people, they where not science laboratories.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Amazing you have figured out that the thermal images are not of molten metal but of the heat. The point is what exactly got so dam hot that it did create molten metal on 9/11 and remained hot as fuck for weeks after the collapses. Please do not post it was jet fuel and a combination of pouring water over chemicals again either. The buildings where comprised of office type work space for everyday business people, they where not science laboratories.

Unless the 9/11 wreckage created a perfect oven/kiln scenario, that's just not possible.

Where is the molten metal after it hardened? There would have been large mounds of it. My BEST friend's dad, whom is a metal-worker, went to Ground zero, and he never said anything about molten metal. Is he part of the conspiracy too?

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Eyewitness Inside WTC 7 Reported Explosions Before Collapse An eyewitness who evacuated WTC 7 before its collapse reported an explosion inside the building, before exiting via the lobby which had been almost completely destroyed - before either of the twin towers had collapsed nearly 400 yards away in the WTC complex. This testimony severely undermines the flawed explanation that Building 7 collapsed as a result of the damage it sustained following the collapse of the towers, since the structure was seemingly being gutted by explosives prior to 9:59AM. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane but collapsed in a perfect implosion in its own footprint at 5:20PM. From a September 11, 2001 Associated Press report. After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said.

let's put it into context shall we?

quote:

Government Train Wreck: How government covers up freight train accidents� "The noise sounded like two freight trains going over a trestle right over your head; it was an ugly roar. My wife said the noise when the house went was like a giant pencil sharpener working.� http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/1953beecher/storiesFJ.php [Did a fright train pass over their head? Was there a giant pencil sharpener really over there heads?] �While I was in my kitchen I heard this terrible roar coming," she said. "It sounded like a freight train coming right down my road here� "It looks like it's been bombed. There's just a lot of destruction, a lot of debris," said Michael Bartz, a state emergency official. " http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WEATHE...nado/index.html [Was it a bomb? Did a real freight train go down her road?] "It indeed sounded like a freight train roaring past us, and when it was gone, we came out to find things a mess." http://www.offenburger.com/farmarch...p?link=20040906 It came with "the roar of forty freight trains." http://www.tornadochaser.com/UDALL/reports.htm �It sounded like a freight train�. http://www.disasternews.net/news/ne...?articleid=2954 �Before I reached the bottom of the stairs, I heard the sound of a roaring freight train� [enter image of NOAA weather map an hour before the tornado touches down.] As you can see, there was no tornado on that day, according to NOAA. So why is the government covering up train derailments?

quote:

Originally posted by culorut You and NIST ignore the molten metal was present, it was present and lets remember the rescue workers who where actually at ground zero will tell anyone this. It is not so much of exactly what caused it but more it was there and it is ignored.

perhaps, but you haven't stated WHY molten metal is significant. no other demolition in history that i have ever heard of left molten metal at the scene. explosives dont work that way.

again "so what?" is the answer to that until you show why molten metal is significant. we all saw molten metal pouring out of at least one of the WTCs before collapse, so why is it surprising to find some at ground zero after the collapse??

quote:

Originally posted by culorut How the fuck do you know it takes tons of it in the first case sherlock? Has it ever occurred to you thermate was used to weaken the beams in conjunction with other explosives to take the towers down?

because of the chemical nature of thermite, and the videos i have seen of thermite in action. it takes a large amount of thermite to burn a relatively small amount of steel. ive posted you videos of it in use previously. and the simple fact that thermite can't cut steel beams in the fashion you suspect, even more thermite would be needed to finish the job. a simple amount of research could have given you this answer you know.

here AGAIN, is a video of how much thermite is used to burn a small hole in an engine.

quote:

http://www.guzer.com/videos/thermite_car.php Note how much thermite is used. The pot is about a liter, but how much thermite is that? Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3 2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe 2 moles of Al weigh 54 g 1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g density of Al=2.64 g/cc density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc 54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al. 160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3 Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g. A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh: 0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb That much just to burn a small hole in a small car engine. I bet it's even an aluminum block but lets say it isn't. How much do you think it would take to burn a massive core column? Then add enough to burn for 6 weeks! You see where we're going. You'd need tons.

and again, in this super-secret plot, i dont understand why you think the government would try a completely new and untested method of bringing down buildings, if they actually wanted to succeed.

honestly, think about it. the collapse occured top-down. whether the foot of the structure had been "weakened" by thermite or had NOTHING to do with the collapse. if the structural integrity had been deliberately weakened at the base, why on earth do we not see any evidence of it in the collapses? the bases of both 1&2 were in perfect condition until the upper floors collapsed onto them. there is NOTHING that thermite could have achieved at the base.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut You asked a good question for once. Let's get a new proper investigation going which includes everything which transpired regarding 9/11 and all the facts and find the hell out.

actually, i was asking YOU the question, since you believe so strongly. i want to hear a rational and convincing argument for further explosives, where they were placed etc. still waiting.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Yourself and millions of others around the globe would not be asking these questions if the official report was not such a fairy tale.

see above.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Because thermate and other devices used had to weaken the support of the buildings a hell of a lot more. Jet fuel and fires did not do it on their own. Your NIST report said that jet fuel burns off very quickly if not instantly, you sure you actually read it?

this simply flies in the face of all data and the nature of thermite or thermate. again, weakening the support at the base in this manner would not aid a collapse that had begun at the top.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut I made the statement because in engineering things like planes (and their fuel) are taken in consideration when building these massive structures. I did state it was B-25 which crashed into the empire state building from the start and never said it was the same type aircraft as those used in the 9/11 inside job.

you're still comparing apples to oranges, which isn't good science. if you're going to bring into the debate of, say, the B-25 & the empire state building, you need to show WHY they are of any relevance or significance. they aren't, so stop comparing them.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Why do you ignore the many rescue workers, firefighters, police officers, victims, families of victims, CIA agents, FBI agents, political figures saying it was an inside job?

you haven't answered my question. but to answer yours-

lack of evidence. what people "believe" is of less concern to me than what they can prove or how reliable their "evidence" is. if your movement honestly has so many supporters, why after 6 years has it still born no fruit?

there is a MASSIVE difference between a firefighter's testimony regarding FIRE that they bore witness to, and families of victims and what they perceive to be true. you can't even compare the two in terms of compelling evidence, theyre poles apart.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut You forgot question #7 like NIST forgot WTC7, I cannot blame you as you are probably losing your mind trying to find another structure that has collapsed the same way WTC7 did due to fires.

hahaha. thats actually pretty funny.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut The thermate being ignited by the fires is true if you actually believe in fairy tales like the official story. You must still believe in Santa Claus as well.

see, do you even have ANY understanding of how thermite is used? thermite is completely unable to resist hot temperatures, as thermite is ignited by heat or by spark (see above video)

it is impossible for it to co-exist in an environment that is THAT hot. this isn't my opinion, its just the fact of how this particular incendiary works. so you can stop the cheeky banter and provide me with credible and scientifically valid statements if you can

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Eyewitness Inside WTC 7 Reported Explosions Before Collapse An eyewitness who evacuated WTC 7 before its collapse reported an explosion inside the building, before exiting via the lobby which had been almost completely destroyed - before either of the twin towers had collapsed nearly 400 yards away in the WTC complex. This testimony severely undermines the flawed explanation that Building 7 collapsed as a result of the damage it sustained following the collapse of the towers, since the structure was seemingly being gutted by explosives prior to 9:59AM. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane but collapsed in a perfect implosion in its own footprint at 5:20PM. From a September 11, 2001 Associated Press report. After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said.

let's put it into context shall we?

quote:

Government Train Wreck: How government covers up freight train accidents� "The noise sounded like two freight trains going over a trestle right over your head; it was an ugly roar. My wife said the noise when the house went was like a giant pencil sharpener working.� http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/1953beecher/storiesFJ.php [Did a fright train pass over their head? Was there a giant pencil sharpener really over there heads?] �While I was in my kitchen I heard this terrible roar coming," she said. "It sounded like a freight train coming right down my road here� "It looks like it's been bombed. There's just a lot of destruction, a lot of debris," said Michael Bartz, a state emergency official. " http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WEATHE...nado/index.html [Was it a bomb? Did a real freight train go down her road?] "It indeed sounded like a freight train roaring past us, and when it was gone, we came out to find things a mess." http://www.offenburger.com/farmarch...p?link=20040906 It came with "the roar of forty freight trains." http://www.tornadochaser.com/UDALL/reports.htm �It sounded like a freight train�. http://www.disasternews.net/news/ne...?articleid=2954 �Before I reached the bottom of the stairs, I heard the sound of a roaring freight train� [enter image of NOAA weather map an hour before the tornado touches down.] As you can see, there was no tornado on that day, according to NOAA. So why is the government covering up train derailments?

quote:

Originally posted by culorut You and NIST ignore the molten metal was present, it was present and lets remember the rescue workers who where actually at ground zero will tell anyone this. It is not so much of exactly what caused it but more it was there and it is ignored.

perhaps, but you haven't stated WHY molten metal is significant. no other demolition in history that i have ever heard of left molten metal at the scene. explosives dont work that way.

again "so what?" is the answer to that until you show why molten metal is significant.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut How the fuck do you know it takes tons of it in the first case sherlock? Has it ever occurred to you thermate was used to weaken the beams in conjunction with other explosives to take the towers down?

because of the chemical nature of thermite, and the videos i have seen of thermite in action. it takes a large amount of thermite to burn a relatively small amount of steel. ive posted you videos of it in use previously. and the simple fact that thermite can't cut steel beams in the fashion you suspect, even more thermite would be needed to finish the job. a simple amount of research could have given you this answer you know.

here AGAIN, is a video of how much thermite is used to burn a small hole in an engine.

quote:

http://www.guzer.com/videos/thermite_car.php Note how much thermite is used. The pot is about a liter, but how much thermite is that? Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3 2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe 2 moles of Al weigh 54 g 1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g density of Al=2.64 g/cc density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc 54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al. 160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3 Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g. A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh: 0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb That much just to burn a small hole in a small car engine. I bet it's even an aluminum block but lets say it isn't. How much do you think it would take to burn a massive core column? Then add enough to burn for 6 weeks! You see where we're going. You'd need tons.

and again, in this super-secret plot, i dont understand why you think the government would try a completely new and untested method of bringing down buildings, if they actually wanted to succeed.

honestly, think about it. the collapse occured top-down. whether the foot of the structure had been "weakened" by thermite or had NOTHING to do with the collapse. if the structural integrity had been deliberately weakened at the base, why on earth do we not see any evidence of it in the collapses? the bases of both 1&2 were in perfect condition until the upper floors collapsed onto them. there is NOTHING that thermite could have achieved at the base.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut You asked a good question for once. Let's get a new proper investigation going which includes everything which transpired regarding 9/11 and all the facts and find the hell out.

actually, i was asking YOU the question, since you believe so strongly. i want to hear a rational and convincing argument for further explosives, where they were placed etc. still waiting.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Yourself and millions of others around the globe would not be asking these questions if the official report was not such a fairy tale.

see above.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Because thermate and other devices used had to weaken the support of the buildings a hell of a lot more. Jet fuel and fires did not do it on their own. Your NIST report said that jet fuel burns off very quickly if not instantly, you sure you actually read it?

this simply flies in the face of all data and the nature of thermite or thermate. again, weakening the support at the base in this manner would not aid a collapse that had begun at the top.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut I made the statement because in engineering things like planes (and their fuel) are taken in consideration when building these massive structures. I did state it was B-25 which crashed into the empire state building from the start and never said it was the same type aircraft as those used in the 9/11 inside job.

you're still comparing apples to oranges, which isn't good science. if you're going to bring into the debate of, say, the B-25 & the empire state building, you need to show WHY they are of any relevance or significance. they aren't, so stop comparing them.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Why do you ignore the many rescue workers, firefighters, police officers, victims, families of victims, CIA agents, FBI agents, political figures saying it was an inside job?

you haven't answered my question. but to answer yours-

lack of evidence. what people "believe" is of less concern to me than what they can prove or how reliable their "evidence" is. if your movement honestly has so many supporters, why after 6 years has it still born no fruit?

there is a MASSIVE difference between a firefighter's testimony regarding FIRE that they bore witness to, and families of victims and what they perceive to be true. you can't even compare the two in terms of compelling evidence, theyre poles apart.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut You forgot question #7 like NIST forgot WTC7, I cannot blame you as you are probably losing your mind trying to find another structure that has collapsed the same way WTC7 did due to fires.

hahaha. thats actually pretty funny.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut The thermate being ignited by the fires is true if you actually believe in fairy tales like the official story. You must still believe in Santa Claus as well.

see, do you even have ANY understanding of how thermite is used? thermite is completely unable to resist hot temperatures, as thermite is ignited by heat or by spark (see above video)

it is impossible for it to co-exist in an environment that is THAT hot. this isn't my opinion, its just the fact of how this particular incendiary works. so you can stop the cheeky banter and provide me with credible and scientifically valid statements if you can

quote:

Originally posted by culorut After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said. http://911blogger.com/node/8212

i read the full article that story was pulled from, and there is nothing to suggest this occured BEFORE either tower collapsed. its just how the truth movement generates facts.

again, its interesting to see the over-reliance by the truth movement of stories written "in the heat of battle" so to speak, but ignore the fuller, more complete accounts that come out months later.

Still cannot find a fire that does the following to buildings I see....




Keep dodging.

Do you read?

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers Do you read?

its a fascinating study in self deception isnt it!

first, they ignore that everyone knew WTC7 was going to fall, which is why they pulled everyone out and cordoned off the area. they ignore the fact the building was bulging and groaning prior to collapse.

second, they argue that "a building has NEVER BEFORE fallen like this due to fire", yet ignore the fact that thermite has NEVER before been used in demolitions. for some reason the exact same argument doesn't resonate in their brain in the same way. honestly, the "a building has NEVER BEFORE fallen like this due to fire" argument is one of the dumbest and illogical ones going around, yet they don't even realise it! its like you are forced to doubt any "first occurences" of anything! where's the logic there?

and what i find the funniest, is that these internet detectives think that they somehow have a stronger grasp of the tragedy than all of the investigators, whose expertise is due to it being their profession! talk about arrogant

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Still cannot find a fire that does the following to buildings I see.... Keep dodging.

That's a fucking nuclear explosion. I don't care what the facts say

@ culorut: You're talking to some of the most conditioned and indocrinated sheep you'll ever come across, but don't let it discourage you. And don't sink to their level.

Feel free to rip on me PKC, you know I still love you bro .

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z @ culorut: You're talking to some of the most conditioned and indocrinated sheep you'll ever come across, but don't let it discourage you. And don't sink to their level. Feel free to rip on me PKC, you know I still love you bro .

haha shaolin, the feeling is mutual.

i dont understand how im an indoctrinated sheep though man. i was burying myself in marx et al. whilst you were still popping pimples in your year 8 bathrooms

EVIDENCE shaolin, evidence is all im asking for. not half-baked poor non-sequitur statements. all i find it quote cherry-picking, completely invalid comparisons (empire state building etc) totally flawed logic (never ever happened before!) and terrible science (molten metal = explosives!).

if you have anything other than the above you know i am always happy to hear it

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers That was really uncalled for.

You're in no position to say that as you haven't even bothered engaging in any real debate in this thread. Your condescending comments and ad hominems are what I would considered uncalled for. I didn't make that picture, and it's not an ad hominen attack on any participant in this thread. But it is hillarious as fuck! Jet fuel causing the buildings to "pancake" at virtually freefall speed, LOL. I think I smell waffles coming from the ministry of information next , don't forget the maple syrup... err.. jet fuel.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN haha shaolin, the feeling is mutual. i dont understand how im an indoctrinated sheep though man. i was burying myself in marx et al. whilst you were still popping pimples in your year 8 bathrooms

Indocrinated by what exactly? The Loose Change culture and establishment that has been part of the social fabric and political climate for decades now ? The Loose Change kids have been in positions of power for ages now, including Alex Jones, Steven Jones, Webster Tarbley, Luitenant Colonel Bob Bowman, Scholars for 911 Truth, and a bunch of other people LOL. Yes, they have deep pockets, political and corporate connections. Please dude, that argument will NOT work for you .

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN EVIDENCE shaolin, evidence is all im asking for. not half-baked poor non-sequitur statements. all i find it quote cherry-picking, completely invalid comparisons (empire state building etc) totally flawed logic (never ever happened before!) and terrible science (molten metal = explosives!). if you have anything other than the above you know i am always happy to hear it

There's plenty of evidence, you just "cherry pick" through it and only seem to trust sources along the establishment line. [edit] LOL, we're going in circles again BTW. Fortunately you haven't started cursing yet .

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers Do you read?

Do you think? Critically? Have you ever taken a basic elementary logic course? Have you even studied basic newtonian physics?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Indocrinated by what exactly?

haha, you paranoid freak you! i was referring to "Feel free to rip on me PKC, you know I still love you bro"

so you can recant your silly argument you yourself created

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z There's plenty of evidence, you just "cherry pick" through it and only seem to trust sources much closer to the establishment than not. LOL, we're going in circles again BTW.

hehe, i am still yet to find anything even remotely compelling my friend. so much of the 9/11 arguments are born out of poor research or analysis, and in some cases outright dishonesty. it really doesn't have anything to do with "the establishment", even though i will acquiesce to the structural engineers' opinions, which i think is just sensible.

i have no idea who provides the information i refer to, and i dont have any particular biases (in this context). its a combination of a) manipulated or dishonest research by the 911 fraternity and b) the arguments and analysis from the opposing side i find to be much more compelling. i am perpetually on the edge of my seat for when the movement finds some actual evidence.

i know you dont find the fire + structural damage = collapse to be very compelling, but i am yet to see any hypothesis that comes close to explaining the events on that fateful day. honestly, the explosive argument raises a helluva lot more questions (that remain unanswered mind you) than they solve.

yours in anticipation,

pkc.

i laugh at conspiracy theorists

these people like to think they are not taken in by appearances and are smarter than the general public. shave and go home losers.

Re: i laugh at conspiracy theorists

quote:

Originally posted by way2hi these people like to think they are not taken in by appearances and are smarter than the general public. shave and go home losers.

You are way too high, way2hi lol. And yes, I laugh at the goverments conpiracy theory too, it's fucking ridiculous! "Be very scared of the man in the cave on dialysis! And those WMDs! Sadaam Sadaam Sadaam! Terror Terror Terror! The terrorists hate our freedoms!" Yes, apparently the terrorist do hate our freedoms. The bastard just took them away, you know, the Patriot Act and Military Commisions Act? I don't like terrorists, and I want them out of the white house and out of my fucking country.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.