9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

The buildings were 110 floors and aprox one acre each in size. The damage from the plane was limited to the top one third of the buildings. What kind of force can take damaged pieces of a building falling straight down damage the undamaged bottom 2/3rds of those buildings? They fell in almost free fall speed and the concrete along with all other material and bodies were turned to powder. No stacked stories one upon another like in a normal collapse. Also the engines of a 767 are almost indestructable. The hub of the engine found at WTC was too small to be from a 767. In fact there wasn't any engines found in Penn. But the plane was spread over 5 miles. It didn't bounce but was probably shot down.
Inside job!

This site is all you need.
Case closed!
www.patriotsquestion911.com...

Actually you'll want this site too

www.debunking911.com...

1. Most reports state the buildings withstood the planes impacts.

2. I have already shown steel buildings that had longer lasting fires and more structural damage then the towers or building 7 and they did not collapse.

OOPS, you forgot to post the rest of what I wrote.


There's simply no point in going round and round with this. You either are trying to screw with people for fun or you simply don't understand what you're reading. Either way, it just keeps going round in circles with you.

Well i am sorry if my facts and evidence get in the way of your theories.

This is the last time I will say this as I don't want to be accused of bickering.

You have not posted facts and evidence to suggest what we have been talking about. You have simply misunderstood what your own posts have described or you are purposely misleading people for your own amusement. That being said, obviously any further discussion with you will not achieve anything for one of the two above listed reasons. Good luck in your future endevours.

reply to post by ULTIMA1

---

No need for apologies because you've failed to actually prove anything related to a conspiracy. I wouldn't be the only one here hoping to see something solid but so far - nothing. You abandoned the DFDR angle (in another thread actually) when the 'inconsistencies' you claimed existed proved to be explainable in non-conspiracy terms after a detailed look at the data and limitations of the recording.

What is it you believe you're proving?

well I've always belived something fishy was going on after I saw a 9/11 video showing how the fbi went and confiscated all the video tapes along the route the plane took to hit the tower. maybe the goverment wasn't directly involved but they knew about it that much is for sure.

Why must you lie?

I have psoted several steel buildings that had longer lasting fires and more structural damge then the towers and buidling 7 and did not collapse.

Gee you really keep proving how immature you are and that you cannot read. I never have been trying to prove a conspiracy i have been facts and evidence, something you and others seem to fail to do.

How is it that i can post sources to the photos i post but you and others cannot?

Well it's common practice for police to confiscate security cam tapes as part of an investigation and let's not forget that 9/11 was the biggest attack on the US since Pearl Harbor.

Obviously the FBI would be VERY motivated to collect the tapes as part of an investigation like that.

Wait a minute ! What about building 1 and 2 ????
Now all of a sudden you're no longer talking about 1 & 2 as part of your argument and ONLY talking about 7 ????

You can deny you're trying to prove a conspiracy all you want but your posts make it very obvious you are trying to prove a conspiracy. You've decided in your mind that there is a coverup and now you're trying to manipulate data to prove your case. You've already decided the government is guilty and now you're looking for evidence to prove it.

Oh by the way, when the best argument you can give is call someone immature or a lier, you have no argument. Everyone else backs up what they say with facts, you back up what you say with claims

Why must you lie?

I have posted tons of facts of evidence. And by the way i am the only one on here that has posted sources for photos i post, no one else has.

Which means that i have posted evidence to support what i post you and others only post statments or theories.

Classic...

I'd sig this if I had room. Kudos to the posters who have more patience than I with the puerile.

See. Yet another example

He pulls this in every thread so I honestly don't know why the mods haven't simply banned him??? Maybe they don't want trouble with the NSA ?

Becasue the mods know i can post facts and evidence to support my post and you cannot.

Just like i can post sources for the photos i post and you and others cannot.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

You obviously completely missed the meaning of "pulls this" .
I mean you keep using circular logic without posting factual claims in threads or you misrepresent facts, twist facts, take facts out of context to manipulate them for your argument. Hopefully that is more clear. Sorry for the confusion.