-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- “Star Trek: Voyager: 16 Seven Of Nine” Review by Deepspacespines.com
- Nana Visitor Joins Us to Talk About Her New Book – Star Trek: Open a Channel: A Woman’s Trek!
- Out Today: “Star Trek #26”
- Star Trek Strange New Worlds Asylum Book Review
- John Jackson Miller Books Ranked!
- “Star Trek: The Next Generation: Headlong Flight” Review by Lessaccurategrandmother.blogspot.com
- Jumping into Adventure with “Into the Void”
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Jim Johnson!
- “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: Asylum” Review by Trek.fm
- Beadle & Grimm Interview With StarTrekBookClub.com
- Movie Related Products
- “Deadpool & Wolverine” Review
- Kevin Smith Is Getting Closer and Closer to Dogma 2
- “The Garfield Movie” Review
- Disney Said to be Considering a Surprising Replacement for Bob Iger: EA CEO Andrew Wilson – IGN
- Amazon Is Shutting Down Freevee, Its Ad-Supported Video Streamer
- “Breathe” Review
- “Transformers One” Review
- Captain America: Brave New World | Official Trailer
- Marvel Studios’ Thunderbolts* | D23 Brazil Special Look | In Theaters May 2, 2025
- Mattel apologizes after mistakenly printing porn site on ‘Wicked’ movie dolls packaging | CNN Business
- Music Video DB
I know this is true. How? Because I was THERE. Yup, thats right. In the middle. It’s true, all of it.
Don’t forget Tower 7
The World Trade Center was constructed from 1966-1973. The first man on the moon was July 20, 1969. The last man to walk on the moon was on December 11, 1971.
Conclusion: the WTC was the location of the hidden studio that faked the moon landing and was destroyed because the conspiracy theorists were getting to close to the truth. Iraq is just a cover story, a conspiracy to hide the conspiracy. Gentlemen: we are through the looking glass…
We actually live in a computer generated reality… our real bodies are being used by robots as slaves…
natedog,
Various news media agencies reported that Tower 7 was going to collapse before it actually did.
Take off your tin foil hat and stop acting like an idiot.
THAT JUST MEANS THEY WERE IN ON THE CONSPIRACY!!!
I have a conspiracy in my pants. I have a feeling I’ll be releasing it to the public soon enough.
It’s not quite a jumbo jet. But it is pretty close to a tower.
10. ????
11. Profit!
Hmm.. Comic got it wrong. They really did crash the fully loaded people into the building. Saddam would NEVER sell Bush the oil, he was pissed they were stealing it out of Kuwait…….and forgot to mention…..
FACT: War is the single largest contributor to the American economy.
@The Matrix: Rebooted
you win.
@... Diabetus:
um, hello? those repeaters, er, reporters, did not say it was going to fall, they said it HAD ALREADY fallen. the BBC footage was a half hour early.
Larry Silverstien (the leaseholder of the WTC Complex, who made $6billion off 9/11) was interviewed in 2002 saying he gave to OK to bring the tower down.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100
The 47 Story STEEL framed tower fell in 6 seconds into a neat little pile just 7 hours after the other 2 towers collapsed. Here is a clip showing it falling in case anyone has not actually seen this tower fall:
Go watch this 2 second video close up of WTC7 falling and then tell yourself it wasn’t explosives:
So add it up. 2+2=4
at the very least, people that question the official bullshit spoonfed story are not crazy.
you have a two sec clip where the leaseholder of the building said “pull it”. If you look at some of the other clips that are on your own link, you’ll see that “pull it” probably means use cables to control the fall.
I have a 56-page report from NIST showing it was a structural collapse from damage. So unless you are a qualified structural engineer who can find flaws in that report, STFU.
Do you know what my problem is with the lose change explosion thing? All the examples they show of controlled demolitions are of buildings that are wider than they are tall or smaller apartment buildings, which WTCs clearly are not either. Find me some control videos of actual tall skyscrapers in a demolition and I’ll put some faith in that shit.
@...Caio:
i never said anything about Loose Change
@... Reboot:
the 2 second clip is not about Larry Silverstien. it is a close up of WTC7. the Silverstien clip is 24 seconds long.
and your explanation for ‘pull it’ is retarded. where are these cables that you speak of being used on Tower7? that video you linked to is about Tower6, after it had fallen, and was only 8 stories of rubble.
Cables were NOT used on Tower7. and certianly NOT by the Fire Department like Silverstien says in the interview.
also, i read the 56 page NIST report you linked to, and found it retarded. if you go read the thing, pay attention to pages L-19 to L-35, where they show the photos of the damage to WTC7. pay attention to figure L-22a, L-22b, and L-23c.
you want me to believe this damage caused the tower to collapse along the path of most resistance, as opposed to falling sideways as it most certainly would have done had it fallen due to the damage we can see in the photos?
i guess that’s where the cables came in handy?
Go look at Figure L-32. WTC5 & WTC6 were closer to the Twin Towers, and they were fucking gutted by the fall of those 2 buildings. yet i dare say it took longer than 6 or 7 seconds to bring down WTC6.
the rubble of WTC6 was 1/6 the size of the mostly intact WTC7.
Oh, I wasn’t reading your posts, I’m just speaking generally here. I *really* want to see a skyscraper demolished. It would be awesome, and without the feeling of guilt associated with enjoying the death of thousands of people.
@natedog:
“and your explanation for ‘pull it’ is retarded. where are these cables that you speak of being used on Tower7? ”
That’s the point. ‘Pull it’ is not an industry term for explosive demolition of a building:
www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.implosionworld.com%2FArticle-WTC%2520STUDY%25208-06%2520w%2520clarif%2520as%2520of%25209-8-06%2520.pdf&ei=CNSxR5LhOqSAigHSx5zLDg&usg=AFQjCNFFfgFVm_7mMB-mGLS4OM6lRft0_A&sig2=5DPRTKzUlgqjf2Zy5X9ZCw
As a result, Silverstien was referring to some other “it”. Like, and I’m just spitballing here, the firefighting effort.
Good effort natedog, but it’s really not worth it. Spend your energy elsewhere and give up on convincing people on internet forums who have already closed their minds.
If you don’t accept the clear PROOF given here:
www.timecube.com/
…your mind is clearly closed. What was that logical maxim? Of all competing theories, the burden of proof rests on those I disagree with?
Silverstein Quote: “I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”
“Pull it” can not refer to the firefighting team. according to the FEMA report, page 5-23 of Chapter 5, the “manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day”
the next page goes on to mention that “The average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet.” Think about that for a second. it was a 47 story skyscraper.
as to post 16, vygramul: his explanation for ‘pull it’ was a video clip of Building 6, which used cables to pull down the wall of a tower that had already collapsed. i pointed out that since WTC7 had not collapsed or had cables used on it, that his explanation was, in fact, retarded.
link to FEMA report:
www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
And yet you haven’t provided a better explanation. The clip I linked clearly shows several people using the phrase “pull it” it terms of pulling it down with cables. The most likely explanation for the Silverstein quote is the that Silverstein is a glorified landlord who doesn’t know wtf he is talking about. Or maybe he meant “pull it down with cables”, but the building collapsed on its own before they could do that. Simple explanations are the most likely to be true.
Why bother linking to FEMA if they were in on the conspiracy anyway? Why bother trusting 8-10% of the US population since that’s about how many people would have to have direct knowledge of the plan in order to pull it off?
Let’s just examine the news reporters had prior knowledge claim: That would mean that nearly everyone in the CNN and BCC studios would be in on the conspiracy. Do you have any idea how people that would be? Have you seen the credits for those shows? And none of those people have come forward? Yeah, total BS.
This is Special Olympics territory, so I’m just going to leave it at that and let you be retarded by yourself for a while.
@natedog:
What we are trying to explain to you is that “pull it” has a very narrow definition in the demolition industry, and that definition does not include explosive demolition.
If I may draw an analogy, it’s like Diabetus posting a picture of a penguin and saying, “See, THIS is a penguin,” and you saying, “look, I didn’t see any of those at the Safari I went to in Namibia, so your explanation is retarded.”
Protec says it’s not a term for explosive demolition. The PBS documentary ONLY uses it in the context of pulling a building down with cables. What we’re left with is Silverstien using a phrase that is inappropriate for the purported demolition of building 7, and therefore that can hardly be construed as proof that building 7 was a demolition.
My whole problem with the 9/11 conspiracy theories is that, in the end, the inescapable fact is that the conspiracy described is so vast as to be laughable. “Truthers” will point out that the conspiracy beforehand need only be small. But even if true, the conspiracy in the aftermath would have to be huge:
— You have to have firefighters complaining en masse they weren’t allowed to save building 7 (and ordered to keep quiet about it)
— You would have to have every seismograph operator and analyst within 30 miles on NYC be in on it. The entire staff of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory would have to refuse to answer questions as to why the seismograph analysis, which truthers claim “CLEARLY” shows the charges used in WTC 1 & 2 going off, doesn’t mention it.
— You would have to have the firms intent on “rushing” the steel out of NYC remain silent.
— You would have to silence NTSB and FAA investigators who would have to subscribe to the airplanes used (especially the one at the Pentagon).
— FAA radar operators who watched flight 93 go off their scopes in PA and two unidentified fast-movers would have to be silenced.
— If the Pentagon was hit by a missile, you’d have to have the armaments men keep silent about missing cruise missiles, not to mention launch operators, the launch technicians, down to the driver of the TEL or maybe an entire base. (Missiles are freaking loud.)
— Everyone who participated in setting the demolitions would have to be silenced or kept quiet, along with the building security and maintenance personnel, some of whom would HAVE to know (either be told to stand down or to facilitate).
— The insurance company itself would have to be prevented from expressing doubt about the building’s fate. What’s THEIR incentive for keeping quiet?
— The airlines would have to be involved: ground crews, schedulers, maintenance guys, all saying that the flights EXISTED.
The list goes on.
And to add to what Vygramul had to say — yeah, there are some questions around the margins about why particular things happened the way they did. That’s for a number of reasons:
1) It was literally an unprecedented event. (Strangely, we didn’t have a lot of data on what happens when a 110-story skyscraper gets hit by airplanes and falls to the ground.) Any model — which is at best an approximation of reality anyway — is therefore likely to have minor inaccuracies.
2) Emotions were running high that day, and some of the best witnesses regarding the details didn’t survive to be interviewed.
3) Data collection was not set up beforehand, and was not a high priority during the event. So you’re left with what you just happen to have.
Anyone of us who has had to reconstruct and analyze real world events (which, incidentally, includes Vygramul and I) do not find the frayed edges of this explanation at all surprising. But the conspiracy nuts point to the handful of data points that are curious, add another handful that they willfully misinterpret, and then argue that the vast majority of the data is the result of a conspiracy. Why? Well, it seems to me there are three possible explanations:
1) The conspiracy nuts are ignorant. They do not have a firm grasp of either the facts or how to connect the dots;
2) They suffer from delusions or other psychological problems, and really should be seeking treatment as soon as possible; or
3) They are themselves part of a conspiracy to discredit those who don’t believe there is a conspiracy.
Hmmm, the more I think about it, the more I think the third possibility is probably it. After all, why else would they continue to insist on this theory of theirs, when all common sense and evidence indicates otherwise? I’m sure if they asked them, they would deny it, which is about as good an indicator of being part of the conspiracy as we can find. (After all, if they weren’t part of a conspiracy, then they couldn’t deny it’s existence, because they wouldn’t know about it, so a denial of its existence is as good as admitting membership!)
You guys are a bunch of fucking idiots.
I remember that day on 9/11 when the news reported that tower 7 was going to collapse minutes before it actually did. Maybe MSNBC was part of the conspiracy as well?
The footage is on youtube, search for it, that is if you can trudge through all that Loose Change bullshit jewtube-tards keep bumping up.
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troofer
@chrisweuve:
“all common sense and evidence indicates otherwise”
i call bullshit. “all” the evidence does NOT indicate otherwise.
271 9/11 Smoking Guns pulled from the Mainstream Media:
killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As to not having “a lot of data on what happens when a 110-story skyscraper gets hit by airplanes” I suggest you look at the Empire State Building.
Empire State Building: 1,250 feet/102 stories tall, built in 1931
1 WTC: 1368 feet/110 stories tall, built in 1972
2 WTC: 1362 feet/110 stories tall, built in 1973
The difference is about 100 feet and 8 stories, well within the realm of comparability.
At 9:49 a.m. on Saturday, July 28, 1945, a ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The plane hit 2 floors and burned for 40 minutes. Many floors were open for business 2 days later.
Obviously, the Empire State Building did not fall, and today is once again the tallest building in NYC.
Compare to the WTC:
American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767-200 wide-body aircraft, crashed into the northern side of the North Tower (WTC1) at 8:46 a.m., hitting 5 floors (94-98th) It burned for 102 minutes.
United Airlines Flight 175, a Boeing 767-200, crashed into he South Tower (WTC2) at 9:02 a.m., hitting 8 stories (78-85th). It burned for 56 minutes.
Now, i realize that much bigger planes hit the WTC than hit the ESB, as well as fewer floors were hit and the WTC burned for a longer time.
However, the stats are comparable.
ESB = 2 floors hit, burned for 40 mins
WTC1 = 5 floors hit, burned for 102 mins
WTC2 = 8 floors hit, burned for 56 mins
The WTC complex had the benefit of 4 DECADES of technological advancement and a Fire Suppression System, which the ESB did not have.
@natedog
the only problem being that in those 4 decades of technological advancement, they decided that a thin exo skeletal structure would be better then a internal support structure. Ultimately it was the design of the building that brought down the towers, combined with the obvious heat from the fires.
tiki is right, the Twin Towers were framed tube structures. Very, very different from the Empire State Building.
lol @... framed tube structures. sounds like you’re describing macaroni art.
Tiki, is that what happened to WTC7? a ‘thin’ exo-skeleton?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wtc#Design_innovations
“The core supported the weight of the entire building and the outer shell containing 240 vertical steel columns called around the outside of the building, which were bound to each other using ordinary steel trusses. In addition, 10,000 dampers were included in the structure.”
infowars.net/articles/march2007/280307blueprints.htm
“Within each trade tower there were 47 steel columns at the core and 240 perimeter steel beams. 287 steel-columns in total. According to the official story, random spread out fires on different floors caused all these columns to totally collapse at the same time and at a free fall speed, with no resistance from undamaged parts of the structure.
Professor Steven Jones points out that the total annihilation of the building, core columns and all, defies the laws of physics unless it was artificially exploded:
“Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case – somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans.”
and what about the 9/11 families that think the official story is bullshit?
www.911pressfortruth.com/
without them fighting BushCo., LTD. we wouldn’t have even had a 9/11 Commision
“all common sense and evidence indicates otherwiseâ€Â, MY ASS
Conservation of Momentum FTW
“and what about the 9/11 families that think the official story is bullshit?”
I’m sure they’re all trained in building construction, and demolition, and aren’t being puppeteered by nutjobs like you exploiting their emotions for TV sensationalism.
Also:
“Professor Steven Jones points out that the total annihilation of the building, core columns and all, defies the laws of physics unless it was artificially exploded”
So, Professor Steven Jones says that artificial explosions CAN defy the laws of phsyics?
i call bullshit. “all†the evidence does NOT indicate otherwise.
All the EVIDENCE does, what nutjobs and psychos cull together to support their ridiculous claims isn’t evidence, it’s a lack of evidence that they think suggests some massive conspiracy. So which is it, is President Bush a bumbling simpleton who can’t even give a speech without clusterfucking the English Language, or is he a brilliant military mastermind?
schulz, learn to read and comprehend someone’s posts before commenting, please.
#32: you counldnt even name one of the family members, let alone know what their respective careers or areas of expertise are.
#33: the annihilation defies the laws of physics UNLESS it was artificially exploded.
#34: I have put forth several evidences that the official story is bullshit. just because you ignore them does not mean they aren’t real. i mean, really. Conservation of Momentum?
Tower 7 and its average debris field radius? News reports that jumped the gun? The Leaseholder who made BILLIONS? The obvious demolition wave?
Comparison to ESB?
the Fema Report?
The NIST report?
The 9/11 families?
271 smoking guns?
oh, wait, i am misinterpreting it all. You’re right, NONE of it even remotely suggests that 9/11 was anything other than what the news media and our trustworthy gub’mint tell us it was.
Not to mention the concrete that was pulverized form the very onset…
Not to mention the LIVING hijackers…
www.welfarestate.com/911/
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/telegraph_stolenids.html
Not to mention 9/11 STEEL that they sold off, melted down, and threw away within 2 weeks of 9/11.
We have laws in this country concerning any disasters that happen, i.e. plane crashes, fires, bridge collapses, space shuttle crashes, etc…
Protocol demands the debris must be saved and analyzed so we can improve our building codes and fire codes and recreate what happened for official reports.
When the space shuttle exploded and all the pieces fell down to earth, they collected all of it. If someone was to take a piece of evidence, they were arrested and criminally charged with a crime.
When planes crash in the ocean, the government goes out and drudges every piece up so they can put the plane back together and recreate what happened.
However, none of this was done with the WORLD TRADE CENTER.
oh wait, nevermind. you called me names and said i was crazy, so i obviously am.
so let’s act like we are chasing OSAMA BIN LADEN through afghanistan (where the Taliban is still in charge), but really we are going to invade Iraq…
it’s bullshit.
#32: you counldnt even name one of the family members, let alone know what their respective careers or areas of expertise are.
No, I couldn’t, except for Cindy Sheehan. Which is more than I want/need to know.
#33: the annihilation defies the laws of physics UNLESS it was artificially exploded.
Yeah, no shit. Good catch.
#34: Rule 34?
#32: geez, man! get it right! Cindy Sheehan has nothing to do with 9/11, except that her son died in action in Iraq.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_sheehan
“Cindy Lee Miller Sheehan (born July 10, 1957) is an American anti-war activist, whose son, Casey, was killed during his service in the Iraq War on April 4, 2004. She attracted international attention in August 2005 for her extended demonstration at a camp outside President George W. Bush’s Texas ranch garnering her both support and criticism. In May 2007, Sheehan officially ended her involvement as an anti-war activist.”
and you’re so right. that bitch dared to protest the war because her son died in it. how dare she?
so you believe something totally wrong about 9/11. shocker.
#33: please read the first line of #35
#34: yes, rule 34. you are currently being fucked in the ass by several segments of society. enjoy.
Well, at least I didn’t have to read a college thesis this time.
sorry to test your mad reading skills.
It’s not my reading skills, it’s the fact that I’m forced to read some extremely long diatribe from someone who clearly has no grasp on reality, but chooses to hold onto some fleeting hope that, what, I’m not even sure what the end result of 9/11 truthers want. Do they want the government to admit they blew up the twin towers so that we could go to war? Not gonna happen, even if it’s true (and it’s not). Or perhaps…I don’t get it. I like reading, but I prefer fiction, because it’s 1) less controversial, and thus less likely to get into pissing matches like this, and 2) far more interesting characters.
this is not a pissing match!
this is pillaging and murder at taxpayers expense.
as for the end result of the Truth Movement, refer to Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution:
“The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
i mean, it’s not as bad as a blow job in the oval office, but still…
I can’t believe how hard it is for you Yanks to get rid of your execs. In most parliamentary systems it’s so easy it can happen by accident.
.
This thread has totally lost my interest till it reaches the 69th post, which I’ll try grabbing, and then giggle myself silly like a little girl. Then I’ll let you people nutjob it some more till, say, 100?
.
just lttn u no, cheers till then
Considering this is an internet argument, yes, pissing match applies. Neither of us (well me for sure, I’m only assuming you) has any direct effect on the government, and, even if 9/11 truthers manage to convince EVERYONE that 9/11 was a conspiracy, how do we go about changing the world with that knowledge?
Also, I know this is going to spark another long-winded response, but, how does the president commit treason? Threaten suicide? High crimes seems like another thing that could be a bit iffy in the wording. That’s like my mom saying “don’t do anything bad.” Sort of a general wording meaning that it’s open to interpretation.
And, it wasn’t the fact that he got a BJ in the oral office, it was 1) He was married, and, I wouldn’t put up with that shit from my spouse (from my wife, if you want to get fuzzy on the logistics, or if I was a woman, from my husband) and 2) he lied to the *entire* world about it (not open for debate, and his infidelity/illicit affairs have happened on several occasions).
I kinda lost my train of thought. I’m sure it’ll come back to me.
Caio:
Yeah, fucking checks and balances and shit. Like that Louisiana guy who had like $90k in his freezer? Wtf, uhhh, that sounds totally legit, move along.
Anyway, I’m not 100% thrilled with the government, but it’s far better than a lot of them out there. As long as government = power, then government will also = corruption. None of them will ever be perfect.
Natedog, you’ve proved my point — you’d have to be delusional to equate a B-25 (max weight 21 tons) moving at 230 mph with a Boeing 767 (max weight 197 tons) moving at 500 mph. A B-25 is a tiny, slow airplane, with half the range of a 767.
But he, don’t let rationality get in the way of a good screed…
@Chris:
What, and order of magnitude heavier aircraft matters? Is that what you’re saying? I want to be sure I understand. You’re trying to say, with a straight face, that having the equivalent of NINE B-25’s hit the WTC at twice the airspeed would actually mean MORE damage was done?
Clearly, you have bought into BushCo if you believe that.
@vygramul
As a matter of fact, it’s far more than the equivalent of nine B-25s, because the kinetic energy calculation squares the velocity. It’s more like FORTY times the Ke. ( “More like” means that this is approximate, because it depends on a variety of variables — e.g., the actual aircraft velocity — not fully defined.)
And that’s just kinetic energy from the impact — it doesn’t include the energy contained in the burning fuel. And none of this accounts for differences in target construction.
Like I said earlier — people who actually KNOW anything about the subject are not surprised by the results, however many questions they may have about a few of the particulars. Only the ignorant and/or delusional think otherwise.
so what about the whole conservation of momentum thing and the path of most resistance and all that rot?
why don’t you compare pics/video of a pancake collapse to Ground Zero?
and you guys really need to take Bush’s dick out of your mouths before you lose your hemisphere
youtube.com/watch?v=g_Cg3rPwzQI
pancake collapse? did you even see the pile from after the fall?
@tiki god:
Let’s not confuse the issues with the facts.
no, i’ve never seen any pics or footage of the collapse.
link to some images of Ground Zero that resembles a pancake collapse, please.
I think Natedog is making the argument that, because it was a pancake collapse (at least, when the collapse of the upper stories were viewed from a distance), the pile on the ground should be a nice, neat stack, like a set of dinner plates. Never mind that the only reason to think this is due to a set of dramatic assumptions based on fundamental ignorance of physics and a disadvantageous view of the event.
I still like my idea about the conspiracy of anti-conspiracy nuts. (Notive how cleverly he has deflected the conversation away from that theory…)
“no, i’ve never seen any pics or footage of the collapse.”
So, what you’re saying, is that with no direct knowledge of what happened you feel qualified to diagnose the cause?
I think that’s just about all we need to know. We’re done.
All I care about is the creator spelled seize wrong in the 8th panel. Friggin’ moron.
Holy shit.
.
Even if it was blowed up and you lot are right…who cares? Nothing will change. I kind of wish Bush would get on TV and be like..”yup I blew that fucker up har har. You don’t like it? So? Fuckoff. What you think don’t matter nothin to noone.”
.
Because he’d be right and his days would probably just be easier from here on in.
.
Whoever made Loose Change or Zeigiest or any of those other wastes of time gas redefined loser. They’re no better than the guy on the highway with the ‘Jesus is Coming’ sign.
.
I have no tolerance for preachy, crazy, overly opinionated rags of douche.
@...#54:
vygramul, that was sarcasm. sorry i didnt use my sarcasm font. of course i have seen the fucking pile of rubble left after the towers collapsed.
but still, no one has posted any links to 9/11 pics that even remotely resemble a pancake collapse (which usually happen during earthquakes). here are some images of pancake collapses. note that these are NOT from 9/11:
www.restoringearth.co.uk/education/science/geography/geohazards/earthquake/building_failure/pw3.shtm
911.yweb.sk/images/wtc/pancake_collapse.png
world.columbia.edu/images/profile-middleEast-turkey-1.jpg
@...#56: “Even if it was blowed up and you lot are right…who cares?”
fuck you, magnus. plenty of people care.
@...#23, #26, #34, and especially the last line of #12:
www.ae911truth.org/
“Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!
268 architectural and engineering professionals and 957 other supporters including A/E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation.
Architects, Engineers and all others may sign the petition!
We will post your name after verifying your A/E credentials”
List of DEGREED & LICENSED ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS:
www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_AES_
at least they are “preachy, crazy, overly opinionated rags of douche” with degrees.
and careers.
@natedog
so you’ve seen the destruction after 9-11, and we can agree that it looked nothing like a pancake collapse?
@natedog
u must be the biggest fuckin moron in the world. are u really comparing the images u linked to of some 20 foot buildings with the WTCs? And come on, a B-25 is like a mosquito compared to the 767 which in this case would be a seagull.
I’d say u’ve lost this pissing contest to shulzbrianr.
I dunno Love Shack was a pretty good song.
tiki, i never said it was a pancake collapse.
the official story is (or has been) that a progressive collapse, also known as a pancake collapse, is what happened when the twin towers disintegrated.
i totally disagree thatWTC1 or WTC2 were pancake collapses. i do and always have contended that the 3 towers at ground zero fell because of controlled demolition.
post #49 was me saying that 9/11 was nothing like a pancake collapse; and i linked to those pics in #57 because ground zero looked nothing like a pancake collapse before they carted away the steel to sell it off, melt it down, and throw it away.
and please, pay no attention to the hundreds of architects and engineers who know 9/11 was an attack on America by domestic enemies.
i mean, what could they possibly know about buildings?
I prefer to pay attention to the THOUSANDS of architects and engineers who know 9/11 was what the government says it was.
In fact, one architect was in the second building, working on the 80th floor. She was 72 at the time, and when the first building was hit, she said, “that’s coming down,” and started making her way down to the street.
Being 72, it took her some time to get there. In fact, she was still on about the 20th floor when her building was hit. She made it out, thank God.
Bottom line: an architect with her life on the line made the bet that a building hit by a 767 was going to come down, WTC or not. She bet right, and I’ll take the word of someone whose life was on the line and was correct.
Go to sleep little Yankees. Big Brother will take care of everything for you. Stay scared and pay your taxes, and keep watching TV News.
@58
.
You’re listing those why? It makes them no less crazy or douches. Or wrong.
.
Americans love to hate their own government. Makes them feel special. Be thankful you live in a country where you’re allowed to. In some natedog would be buried up to his neck right now with rocks being thrown at his head.
@natedog
I think you’d be hard pressed to find any official governmental agency that had anything to do with the clean up or post event investigation that claimed it was a standard pancaking of the floors that caused the ultimate destruction of the building.
You’ve bought into a story, and sadly the only way for you to be convinced otherwise is by accepting that you could have been possibly wrong. You’re repeating some paranoid crazy bullshit that’s been pulled out of some idiot’s ass, and seem to believe someone else’s opinion than believe your own eyes. There’s plenty of material out there on the net for both sides of the argument, but one side is firmly wrapped in tin foil and has been in the microwave for too long. I’m backing out of this thread for a bit, if only cause I can’t argue with an idiot.
It’s ok to be paranoid, but a good shrink might help you out of your misery nate.
Snag for win?
Snag for the win! Fucking a the prophecy is complete!
Let’s keep this thread going! I want a chance to snag 420.
If we’re gonna keep this thread going, we’ll have to force ourselves reading more of natedog’s ridicoulus conspiracy “facts”.
I’d rather play russian roulette.
tin foil hat?
the things i mentioned in this thread:
i made mention of a 3rd tower that fell on 9-11 that most people dont know about
i brought up a video interview of the WTC leaseowner saying ‘pull it’, which people said referred to the firefighting team (which all had been pulled earlier in the day) or a totally different building (tower 6).
i brought up the fact that several news agencies reported a half hour early that WTC7 was going to fall. i guess that was just a big coincidence.
i brought up a FEMA report
i brought up nearly 300 smoking guns pulled from the mainstream media
i brought up an example with the Empire State Building
i brought up the Law of Conservation of Momentum
i brought up how many of the 9/11 families call bullshit on the official story of 9/11
i brought up 268 architectural and engineering professionals who call bullshit
you people are hanging on to shit like a video of tower 6, the moon landing, computer generated reality, dick jokes, quibbling over words, and name calling
but i’m crazy
THIS IS SERIOUS BUSINESS, MOTHERFUCKERS
/pissmatch