Just Wondering...

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Where did I say that truthers were anti-Semites? Please do show me that. I did nothing of the sort.

Yes, he does suck.

a reply to: seagull

I just stated that's the spin I love and no, now I won't call you Mum. Thanks for the reply.

You obviously didn't mean to be rude. But I do take offense to be put on the same page with a group that does such stupid things.

Actually France just approved a law, that puts "9-11 truthers" on the same page with anti-Semites. Did you know that as you wrote it?

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

No such thing as indestructible.

Remember the heat under all that rubble? More shocking would have been finding 'em, than not.

What heat under all that rubble ???

Methinks your idea of what the story is , has nothing to do with either the many official stories brewed up, or the other (unofficial) ones concocted by the same group.

The best parts are how the towers blew away in the wind, and somehow all that crushing weight couldn't fill the parking garages.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Oh no how will I excuse a video that proves molten steel bends?
You post that and claim structural technician? You'll just
have to do better to even be worth refutation.
I'm giggling at you.

a reply to: ParasuvO

What heat under all that rubble ???

This heat.

For the record at this point. I've experienced no opposition in
this thread that could begin to challenge any of the argumentation
I've disintegrated in the past. Why, because I stick to what I know.

a reply to: randyvs



But... but... but... that didn't sound like an explosion!
Sounds more like something pancaking down, you just got fooled via youtube fakery.

Steel never would have done that, we need some proof for your theory first.
Oh wait... did you suggest pre-collapse fires? Ok then, move on!

Agenda-driven we advance!

The people they claim are responsible had no motive and gained absolutely nothing and the one's that did gain from it have gotten away with murder repeatedly since and profited in the same manner continuously since. They wanted control. They wanted money. They wanted war. They wanted to get rid of investigations. They wanted to eliminate. They had motive. Larry Silverstein, The Bush family, The Carlyle Group, Haliburton just to name a few. This has been documented. The trade centers (1&2) were full of asbestos, not only is that a fire retardant itself, it is extremely toxic and expensive to remove. Building 7 was relatively new and housed some very sensitive material and investigations that disappeared that day, too. How convenient? There are way to many motives for these people. 3 trillion dollars unaccounted for wiped out by a strategic plane crash to the pentagon? Also, very convenient? That pipeline they wanted. Documented.

I did not make this stuff up. Really, it does not take a genius to connect all the dots. Denying the ignorance that was displayed that day is actually worse than what did happen. Anyone that continues to believe any part of the OS is adding insult to injury and is not paying tribute to the lives that were lost then and since in the name of justice.

You want justice? True justice? It would be impossible to bring any of the offending parties to justice, they control the courts. They control the media. They control the monetary system. They can manipulate all of it to their satisfaction whenever they want to. That by definition is a conspiracy. They did and will continue to do so because we have given them that opportunity by buying into all the rhetoric.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

You can keep repeating about the money that was unaccounted for but that doesn't change that it was known about well before 9/11 and is still being accounted for. Nothing was "wiped out" at the Pentagon as far as the money goes.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

In your opinion, what is the endgame for all these people that control everything and masterminded this thing?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: waypastvne

I know, but it's fun to watch them dance.

No.1 shows some fairly convincing power with the admission that
no iron was used that approaches any where near the gage involved
with 46 verticle risers that have nothing and I mean nothing to do
with any explanations involving " Beams " or " Supports " or trusses
or steel joists or outside aluminum curtain wall glass captures.

ABRACADABRA!

No Silly, the question was not: Can you find a youtube video with C4 in it.

The question is: Why do you believe that 1.25 pounds of nitrogen, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide gas can destroy steel and 250,000 pounds of airplane can not. Take your time, think about it, don't be afraid to use some math.

I bet I can dance better than you.

Dance around the question for us.

a reply to: waypastvne

No refute will be coming, just like the pics and vids I posted.

This is where I'm at now

a reply to: randyvs

Oh no how will I excuse a video that proves molten steel bends?

You exposed your lack of knowledge on iron and steel when you posted:

" Oh no how will I excuse a video that proves molten steel bends? "

You say that molten steel bends??? Can you bend syrup? Can you bend molasses? An iron-knowledgeable person would not have posted such a question in a serious manner.

It is evident that the curved steel beam was never in a molten state and it is apparent that you are unaware of what annealing is.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

I did not make this stuff up.

Apparently someone did. For an example, it was posted that "3 trillion dollars unaccounted for wiped out by a strategic plane crash to the pentagon?"

That is false! The Pentagon was unable to handle $2.3 trillion at a time. However, most of that $2.3 trillion has now been accounted for.

Building 7 was relatively new and housed some very sensitive material and investigations that disappeared that day, too.

Headquarters of the NSA, CIA, and FBI, housed sensitive materials as well and yet, they were not struck.

a reply to: waypastvne

Your big comparison question is like asking how spliting an
atom can wipe out an entire city. It's really not that much of a challenge
and kind a lame.

Again
For the record at this point. I've experienced no opposition in
this thread that could begin to challenge any of the argumentation
I've disintegrated in the past. Why, because I stick to what I know.

a reply to: skyeagle409

And you don't even rate a reply anymore.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: waypastvne

Your big comparison question is like asking how spliting an
atom can wipe out an entire city. It's really not that much of a challenge
and kind a lame.

Again
For the record at this point. I've experienced no opposition in
this thread that could begin to challenge any of the argumentation
I've disintegrated in the past. Why, because I stick to what I know.

You have yet to refute the pics of the building I posted with obvious sagging/connection loss etc. Or the simulation from Purdue.

Saying you have disintegrated something isn't the same as actually doing it.

a reply to: Gh0stwalker

From the post of yours that I replied to..

"If anyone, I'll take the word of those who were actually there at ground zero. Like the firefighters who witnessed explosions before and after the planes hit.

Like the investigators who found nearly every engine melted in every vehicle within a five block radius of the buildings. Yet, the abundance of unscorched paper was staggering."

Do you believe the above statements are accurate? If so, you are falling prey to disinformation/misinformation and incomplete information.

a reply to: In4ormant

You have yet to refute the pics of the building I posted with obvious sagging/connection loss etc. Or the simulation from Purdue.

There is no obvious sagging. Pics aren't evidence.