patrick.net

Squatting in East CoCo says

Maybe. What is the point?

What exactly do you think Homeboy is basing his arguments on? And you?

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby says

Squatting in East CoCo says

Maybe. What is the point?

What exactly do you think Homeboy is basing his arguments on? And you?

Internet Info.

What is the point I am missing?

He's referencing scientific reports. You and your ilk are using Youtube videos with 130 views.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Can you define and describe your ilk?

People who don't rely on Youtube videos posted by unqualified 9/11 conspiracists to form their opinions.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby

Do you believe the official story 100%?

Do you believe the engineers at www.ae911truth.org/ are 100% wrong?

I believe that your opinion that the WTC buildings (along with the Pentagon) were blown up as part of an inside job (with an enormous cover up ever since) is wrong if that's what you are asking me.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I don't want to believe it either.

Oh, I think you do.

coriacci1 says

you know nothing of physics, obviously.

Obviously I know more than you, which isn't saying much.

Look, this is very easy to settle. Those of you who are claiming that the "normal" way for a skyscraper to fall down is sideways, simply provide your scientific evidence to prove that fact. You are making a very specific claim:

YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT BUILDINGS CANNOT COLLAPSE VERTICALLY UNLESS EXPLOSIVES ARE USED, AND YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT THE TOWERS COLLAPSING VERTICALLY IS PROOF THAT EXPLOSIVES WERE PLANTED.

The burden of proof is on those of you claiming that something happened OTHER than what we saw in the video footage. I already posted a video of a very tall model tower falling, which shows that gravity causes tall structures to fall vertically. The principle is the same, whether it's a scale model or a full size building. If you believe otherwise, all you have to do is show us your evidence - EVIDENCE, not just somebody SAYING it. Just SAYING something does not prove it is true.

If you cannot prove that skyscrapers ALWAYS fall over sideways in the absence of explosives, then your point has no merit, and you have no business posting that nonsense here.

Bigsby says

Squatting in East CoCo says

I don't want to believe it either.

Oh, I think you do.

Yep, desperately.

bgamall4 says

You got better eyewitnesses??? I didn't think so.

You are reading into it what you want to hear. Ask another dozen firemen who were in the same place at the same time and you'll more than likely get 12 different opinions about what was going on.
Ask those same firemen today, in the cold light of day, what they think happened.
Ask them what they actually meant when they talk about 'explosions.' I don't see how that automatically translates into a controlled explosion except in the mind of someone who wants to hear that.
And there are a million eyewitnesses, and no doubt a million different versions of what happened, which is precisely why eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable.
And I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but didn't they say they escaped from the lobby? Isn't that the lobby that you lot think was rigged with explosives to bring down the building?

bgamall4 says

They cannot be pulverized into dust on the way down without explosives. There is some grey matter between your ears right? Think about it.

A. They weren't "pulverized into dust".

B. Explosives don't pulverize buildings into dust anyway.

C. Prove that skyscrapers always fall down sideways, or shut up.

"Think about it" is not proof. That's very weak.

But it did make clouds of dust. You obviously have no clue how heavy a 110 story building is, or how much energy is released when it falls. It's not like when you play with your legos.

bgamall4 says

If you dare watch that video, you will see absolute evidence that the government was totally involved in 911. I dare you to watch it.

Wait. Are you saying the building was undergoing a controlled demolition, the firemen were INSIDE the building as the explosive charges were detonated, and they got out alive? You actually believe that, huh?

Man, you are even dumber than I thought.

O.K, I think I'm starting to understand what happened. Apparently, Enron hired some hijackers to fly planes into buildings, but they also planted thousands of pounds of explosives in the buildings, because they wanted to make it look like the planes made the buildings fall down. Except they demolished the buildings in a very precise, controlled way, so it didn't actually look like the planes did it. I'm not sure why they wanted it to look controlled if they were trying to make it look like it was uncontrolled, but apparently they just did that for no particular reason. Oh, and they planted explosives in one of the buildings but didn't fly a plane into it. Again, it's not clear why they would leave huge clues like that for us to discover and figure out their plot, but I guess we shouldn't question that.

Oh, but also, the hijackers learned on small planes, so they didn't actually know how to fly a passenger jet well enough to crash it into a building, so maybe the planes were some sort of illusion or remote-controlled or something. And they also crashed another plane into the ground, also for no particular reason, I guess. But maybe that one was an illusion also. And then they blew a hole in the side of the pentagon and said a plane flew into it, but they forgot to make the hole the right size. So they wanted us to see planes flying into the twin towers, but they DIDN'T want us to see a plane flying into the pentagon, even though they wanted us to think it did, so they confiscated all the film (apparently there are a whole bunch of movie cameras pointing at the pentagon at all times). Also they somehow got ahold of every tape made that day and cleverly erased the sound of deafening explosions that would be heard during a controlled demolition, but somehow managed to leave all other sounds on the tape.

Yes, that makes perfect sense. You guys are geniuses.

What are you talking about Homeboy? They weren't planes, they were missiles. I saw it on a Youtube video.

homeboy says:

Obviously I know more than you, which isn't saying much.

obviously you missed that paragraph in your 8th grade physics textbook on resistance and free fall speed, huh?

That was 3rd grade physics at my school.
What sort of developmental disabilities did you inherit?

coriacci1 says

obviously you missed that paragraph in your 8th grade physics textbook on resistance and free fall speed, huh?

WTC 7 imploded [collapsed in on itself]. The entire upper part of WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet. That means all the supporting structure was removed in a precisely controlled manner. This video is enough for a reasonable objective person.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=p3uUQUZQC_A&NR=1
If you need more:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/hZEvA8BCoBw

SoftShell says

That was 3rd grade physics at my school.
What sort of developmental disabilities did you inherit?

thank you for highlighting one of the myriad benefits of a"good catholic school" education.

coriacci1 says

You have overwhelming evidence.

you also had then mayor of san francisco, willie brown, receive a warning not to take his flight to ny next morning.

bgamall4 says

Silverstein said they were going to pull WTC7. Get it man!

If it was supposed to be a secret conspiracy, why would he later publicly admit to it? Could you at least explain that?

Also, how many people were involved in this conspiracy? So far we seem to have Bush, Cheney, Enron, Silverstein, Chevron, Saudi Arabia, Warren Buffet, David Boren, Unocal, PNAC, and presumably all the security and maintenance people at the World Trade Center and the pentagon.

Would it be easier if I asked who WASN'T in on the conspiracy?

robertoaribas says

since a controlled demolition is only about 10,000 times harder than a simple destructive event, (not to mention taking months to set up with people drilling and wiring it up... and leaving tons of evidence of your plot] It would make zero sense to any terrorist ever.

THEN, if you are going to bomb the building, why bother with the slightly difficult part of hijacking planes and flying them into them?

Maybe they're like James Bond villains, where they give away their whole secret plot and then leave Bond in a position where he can escape.

Leonard Nimoy comments on the 9/11 conspiracy theory:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/wlMegqgGORY

Jesus H Christ, people are still talking about this? This is so far beyond insane that it takes the light from insane 50 years to get to it...

Homeboy says

Leonard Nimoy comments on the 9/11 conspiracy theory:

911 trekkie poker game.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ysa8sVGllQI

bgamall4 says

bdrasin says

This is so far beyond insane that it takes the light from insane 50 years to get to it...

If you are afraid to face the facts, I can understand it. Your life will have moments of misery that you can avoid by being oblivious to the obvious.

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

You must be as happy as a pig in shit then.

bgamall4 says

bdrasin says

This is so far beyond insane that it takes the light from insane 50 years to get to it...

If you are afraid to face the facts, I can understand it. Your life will have moments of misery that you can avoid by being oblivious to the obvious.

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

When are you going to put up any facts to face?

bgamall4 says

You don't watch videos? Look at the dust at the WTC with the towers and the dust on any imploded building. Exactly the same.

If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.

And therefore?

A witch!

bgamall4 says

bob2356 says

When are you going to put up any facts to face?

You don't watch videos? Look at the dust at the WTC with the towers and the dust on any imploded building. Exactly the same.

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

Watching dust in video's is fact? The only fact there is buildings create lots of dust when they fall. Anything beyond that is OPINION. There is a big difference between fact and opinion that you clearly don't understand. Here's a video of small building that just fell down on it's own. Notice the big cloud of dust. Was this also a secret demolition? I'm pretty sure bush(marvin&george/silverman/rice/buffet(jimmy&warren/saudi's/jews/boren/ACLU/everyone else/etc. were all involved in this building also. Very suspicious how this building was destroyed. http://www.youtube.com/embed/40DOOsMSL04&feature=related

Please keep posting these lists of "facts", I'm always in need of a good laugh in the mornings.

I notice you still haven't addressed the issue of how the explosives managed to survive 8 hours of a raging inferno.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

I notice you still haven't addressed the issue of how the explosives managed to survive 8 hours of a raging inferno.

Actually I did. Aluminum allows them to withstand the heat.

Who are you Bigsby?

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

What do you mean who am I? I'm the person who has to read nonsensical answers like the one you supplied above.

bgamall4 says

WTC7 didn't rip any holes into anything. And most demolitions are undermined from the bottom. While there was some undermining of the towers, it was mostly a top down implosion, to make it look like the planes took the towers down. That is the cause of the shrapnel being spread around. It is quite simple to understand, really.

Oh, I see. It was exactly like a controlled demolition, except it wasn't.

Do you conspiracy retards even listen to yourselves?

Right, right, and there are weapons of mass destruction, so many lies told, so many media programmed people. Keep tellin yourself it was the planes alone.

KILLERJANE says

Right, right, and there are weapons of mass destruction, so many lies told, so many media programmed people. Keep tellin yourself it was the planes alone.

Just keep your blinders on! Common sense is a myth.

Oh yes, because one automatically leads to the other. Or not.

This is pointless. What do you mean by pulverized? Were you down on the site examining the state of the concrete after an 8 hour inferno and a building collapse? What do you expect the concrete to be like? What was it like? How is that supposed to be unusual given the circumstances? Why are you so completely changing the topic?
I think the issue about how a huge amount of explosives and all the necessary wiring managed to stay completely intact throughout a prolonged fire is a rather important issue. In fact, I think it points to a very obvious conclusion.

Squatting in East CoCo says

For all of you deniers.

Do you believe the official story www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/ 100%?

Do you believe the engineers at www.ae911truth.org/ are 100% wrong?

I still do not want to believe our government is involved in murder, coverup, and false flag attacks. Maybe they are trying to protect us from some bigger truth?

And for all you conspiracy theorists, how do you explain the explosives and wiring surviving an 8 hour fire that engulfed a large part of the building?

Oh for FFS, 'Rockets at the WTC.' Moronic crap of the worst kind.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby says

What do you mean by pulverized? Were you down on the site examining the state of the concrete after an 8 hour inferno and a building collapse?

The big clouds of pulverized concrete that filled lower Manhattan, from river to river.

Oh, you mean when enormous skyscrapers collapsed, they created huge clouds of debris. I'm stunned.

bgamall4 says

For you guys worried about the big fires in WTC7 this video makes the case that the fires were very small, and listen to the expert:

&feature=related

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

Oh my, an appeal to authority and a selective video. I'm convinced! Or not.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Again, answer the question? 100% either way? Or is the truth somewhere in the middle?

I believe that the buildings came down because a bunch of religious fundamentalists flew a couple of planes into the WTC. Does that answer your question? And what about those fire resistant explosives and wiring? A bit far-fetched, wouldn't you say? Actually, scratch that, I've seen your posts.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I do have questions about the www.ae911truth.org but their arguments are compelling.

To you, not to me.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby says

Squatting in East CoCo says

I do have questions about the www.ae911truth.org but their arguments are compelling.

To you, not to me.

What about the NIST report? Do you accept their findings 100%?

What a pointless question. I haven't gone over it with a fine toothcomb. Whether I accept it 100% or not is totally irrelevant. I don't accept what you are arguing. At all.