It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by ReptileRipper
Forget the airplane engines. You're trying to sell me on some convoluted story that whoever planted the engines in broad daylight planted the wrong ones. I can't buy that. It's just not reality.
But back to the towers.
Your claiming that the collapse defied the laws of physics. Did you come to this conclusion on your own or are you relying on some 9/11 conspiracy site for this info?
How about this:
What about this collapse is defying the laws of physics in your estimation?
*facepalm* ..... LOOK AT THAT PICTURE !!! Jesus your either retarded or just plain old ignorant ........ show me a steel structure that`s collapsed exactly like that with or without explosives and i`ll personally come to your house and suck your toes.
Originally posted by anoncoholic
A C130 was seen climbing in altitude at the Pentagon and what is a C130 but a cargo carrier and why would it be climbing (unless the Pentagon were a landing/takeoff strip) if not to drop off cargo and in this case speculating it was plane parts seems more logical than all the jumbo-jets pieces turning to vapor.
Originally posted by ReptileRipper
what about the fireman who keyed in on the radio and said it was dying out ? was he lying too ? i guess he was also "up there" huh ?
Originally posted by ReptileRipper
*facepalm* ..... LOOK AT THAT PICTURE !!! Jesus your either retarded or just plain old ignorant ........ show me a steel structure that`s collapsed exactly like that with or without explosives and i`ll personally come to your house and suck your toes.
and no .... dont forget the engines , the engines are the key problem with the official story ..... why would i forget them ? that`s just rediculous , you want proof , i give you proof, you tell me to forget it ??? oO ? Oo ? get real dude , get real.edit on 18-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Varemia
Originally posted by ReptileRipper
what about the fireman who keyed in on the radio and said it was dying out ? was he lying too ? i guess he was also "up there" huh ?
Sorry about not getting to you on this. I was at work.
The fireman who called in the small fires was on the very lowest floor of impact. The ones with the main fire and damage were still above him.
I imagine you must have to try really, really hard to come up with these inane points to argue which you think defraud the entire OS.
Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by randyvs
I know , the fact that he`s ignoring theres nothing forcing the building down is just beyond me , and the way its spewing out , i mean , it fell in ten seconds , his stupidity amazes me.
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by ReptileRipper
Your logic is lacking once again. No surprise there.
So planes crashed at each site. Good we can agree on something now.
So why would there be a reason to lie about the types of plane? Why not just say it was an American Eagle commuter plane if that's what it was?
Wheres the logic?
Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by PhotonEffect
Well explain to me what is making that building fall like that (without explosives) , remember it fell in 10 seconds ...... then tell me it doesnt laugh in the face of physics. C`mon .... how many times have i asked you numbskulls for an in depth explaination .... ive gave evidence supporting my claim .... where is yours ?
Originally posted by ReptileRipper
well .... people would say ..... wheres 77 ? or wheres 93 ? .... seriously , your an idiot .
and as for -> They did not fall in 10 seconds. That's a myth. You need to use a different 9/11 conspiracy site because your info is way outdated.
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by ReptileRipper