patrick.net

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.

bgamall4 says

That is your problem, not mine. You wanted more info on how the fires in WTC7 affected the explosives. I gave you the video as an answer and you are having trouble with it. So what? It is not my problem.

Er, except there are plenty of other videos that show WTC7 being engulfed by rather more than 'very small' fires. Talk about not believing your own eyes.

bgamall4 says

And as for the towers, squibs, which are only caused by explosives, were seen clearly below the collapsing floors. Squibs are those little puffs of smoke below the collapse. They only happen with explosives.

Strange, I didn't know explosives were the only known cause of little puffs of smoke.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

bgamall4 says

That is your problem, not mine. You wanted more info on how the fires in WTC7 affected the explosives. I gave you the video as an answer and you are having trouble with it. So what? It is not my problem.

Er, except there are plenty of other videos that show WTC7 being engulfed by rather more than 'very small' fires. Talk about not believing your own eyes.

Show them instead of just talking. You didn't even bother to watch the video did you? The video lasted 4 minutes and you posted a reply in two minutes. Don't waste my time little boy. Be a brave little boy and watch the videos.

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

Scroll up. I've already posted one before. Obviously your video viewing is very selective. And I've watched the videos. It's time I will never get back.

Give me fucking strength. Look at what was happening above those little puffs of smoke. Do you see a possible connection?

bgamall4 says

Again Bigsby, you didn't watch the whole video as it is 9 minutes long and you responded to my posting of it in 5 minutes.

You are arguing against yourself, certainly not against any proof I show, since you don't even watch it.

Serious character flaw, Bigsby.

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

I'm not wasting my time watching an entire video of that nonsense. I've seen variations of that sort of crap many times. More than likely I've seen that video several times before as well. A few minutes of it and you can see the fatal flaw in your argument. Did you notice anything with all those controlled explosions? Did you notice how distinctly they contrasted with what happened on 9/11? I suppose that aspect is irrelevant to you.

bgamall4 says

The connection was that the squibbs undermined the towers. You need to watch and study instead of responding before you even watch the videos.

Squib videos have done the rounds a million times. What exactly was new in this one? Sweet FA. What you show for 9/11 and what happens in a CD are two entirely different things. You idiots show the bloody things one after the other. 'Look, look, look at these CDs. Look at the squibs. Now look at 9/11!' Yes, I'm fucking looking. They are entirely bloody different.

bgamall4 says

You are arguing against yourself, certainly not against any proof I show, since you don't even watch it.

Serious character flaw, Bigsby.

Serious character flaw? Ha. Everyone knows what's in these videos. It's the same bloody arguments again and again. Do I have to sit through several minutes of different controlled explosions to get the gist of what a video is about? I don't think so. That's why these videos have a control bar - so you can fast forward through the painful music and repetitive nonsense and get a damn accurate idea of the crap that is being peddled. Or do you think I missed something important by only spending 3 minutes instead of 4 watching this nonsense?

bgamall4 says

I think you all should see this entertaining video and then look at WTC towers and WTC7 in the context of these explosions.

Why should we watch those? First you said it was exactly like a controlled demolition, then you said it was different than a controlled demolition. You contradicted yourself. You change your argument depending upon what's convenient to you at the moment. You are full of shit. End of story.

bgamall4 says

NIST ignored the squibs in WTC7 in the report, an obvious coverup.

There were no squibs. The NIST did not ignore the puffs of smoke (and debris); they explained it perfectly.

bgamall4 says

I don't believe you do. You didn't watch them.

I've been posting throughout this thread. I've posted in response to 9/11 nut jobs a number of times before. You all have the same arguments and the same videos. You seem to directly avoid responding to the most pertinent questions and just post up another Youtube video.
Again, how could the explosives survive a fire that raged for the better part of 8 hours? And please explain to everyone the glaring differences between all those CDs posted up in that video (the video I've watched) and what actually happened on 9/11.