User Pass
Home Sign Up Contact Log In
Forum > General Discussion > Politics and Religion > Watch the video... then call me a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.
Page:
 
wormser1971
no title
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by seths99
lol, you fucking halfwit. there are thousands of things which could have happened during that event which could have sounded like bombs. There's literally only one thing that can look like a plane flying overhead at that altitude. why are you equating them in terms of testimony?
oh, that's right, because equating them helps fit your little narrative here.


Thousands? Name them
 
Venkman
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by wormser1971
You refuse to believe testimony from people in the buildings, but believe people who were near the pentagon.. cool.


and you refuse to admit that.....they could have been wrong.

Originally posted by wormser1971
Thousands? Name them


solid debate tactic there. take the obvious hyperbolic portion of a statement and argue it. nice.
 
Gnosis
offline
Link
 
Denial and willful ignorance.
 
Sapper06
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Gnosis
Denial and willful ignorance is obedience to CT dogma.


 
Gnosis
offline
Link
 

You exude ignorance Sapper. I feel sorry for you.
 
rams78110
ROIT
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by wormser1971
1) Seriously? That's where you're going? WTC 7 collapsed because it was taller... WTF kind of logic is that? They (and that means all engineers including nist) agree that debris had nothing to do with the collapse, so now a tall building on fire will collapse straight down symmetrically. Great. Stay out of buildings forever if you believe that garbage.

2) It was 1,200 feet tall. I think they did a pretty good job keeping it all near the tower.

3) Because it collapsed symmetrically. It fell at free fall. It fell due to fire.

here is what 7 contained
http://www.wtc7.net/background.html


I think the fact that you don't understand the simplicity of 'tall, skinny things are less stable' speaks a lot about your expertise in engineering.

Nah. Not really. Demolished a building, heavily damaged more. Controlled demos are nowhere near that messy.

A symmetrical building collapsed symmetrically? Was Caption Obvious alerted?

 
wormser1971
no title
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by rams78110
I think the fact that you don't understand the simplicity of 'tall, skinny things are less stable' speaks a lot about your expertise in engineering.

Nah. Not really. Demolished a building, heavily damaged more. Controlled demos are nowhere near that messy.

A symmetrical building collapsed symmetrically? Was Caption Obvious alerted?



It was 8 stories high. I would like your explanation of how high a building has to be to collapse from fire? According to engineers, no fire would cause collapse, except in the remarkable case of wtc 7 (although that explanation is pretty questionable since they only say total collapse was inevitable with no explanation of why).

Your second point is idiotic

third point is even more idiotic

 
wormser1971
no title
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by seths99
solid debate tactic there. take the obvious hyperbolic portion of a statement and argue it. nice.


OK... name any of them
 
wormser1971
no title
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by wormser1971
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2AnDy2zDL8

1;11 man witnessed bombs

1;20 bomb goes off

You will never live in the reality.

2;10 description of bombs

it goes on like that through the whole video. enjoy your denial


Ignoring the evidence of explosives still? It is right here ^

So seth, 100% of the witnesses to the explosions were wrong/lying?
 
SwagOnLock
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by wormser1971
Ignoring the evidence of explosives still? It is right here ^

So seth, 100% of the witnesses to the explosions were wrong/lying?


lol this really tells us everything we need to know about the level of intellect we're dealing with here.

So 100% of these people were supposed to know it was a plane that caused the explosion in the immediate aftermath? How would they know if they weren't looking up in the .5 seconds that it would have been visible from the streets of Manhattan? They heard a loud bang and called it a bomb. That doesn't make it a bomb.
 
wormser1971
no title
offline
Link
 
Let me make sure you duh-bunkers are making your poiont loud and clear

The first tower is hit by a plane at a very specific angle causing the maximum amount of damage to columns. the impact knocked all of the fireproofing off on several floors. The jet fuel only burned the absolute minimum on the initial fireball, allowing it to heat the now unprotected steel to temperatures that were not represented in the samples taken from the site. Even though thermodynamics shows that steel takes more than 2 hours at the temperature of that fire to show weakness, it was accelerated that day. The fuel also sent fireballs down elevator shafts, even though only 1 service elevator actually went to those floors from the lobby and obviously, it's doors were open to allow the fuel to find it's way down that shaft. The 10k gallons of fuel, which math shows will only cover the area of one floor of either tower by 1/10 th of an inch, somehow had enough fuel left over from the initial fire ball, and starting fires all over the floors at impact, also had enough to shoot down 900 feet of elevator shaft while making sure not to explode out onto any other floor, and also making sure not to go through any other elevators, which would have shown elevators exploding at the floors where the transfer of elevators happened at the 78th floor. Then, the building was no longer able to hold itself up, and the top portion collapsed ferociously onto the part that was not on fire or hit by an airplane. That bottom part of the building , although made of massive core columns, gave no resistance to the falling mass, allowing it to fall at near free fall speed, because that's how steel works, it just gives up. It fell symmetrically, straight down.

The next tower, which was hit in a completely different angle and manner, also had the maximum amount of damage and fireproofing material removed from several floors. The fire, however, acted in the exact same way. It found it's way to parts of the building that the plane was nowhere near, so that it could weaken that steel, again violating thermodynamics on this magical day. The same scenario happened in the elevators, where the fireball and jet fuel conveniently avoided every elevator except the 1 service elevator, and again the doors were open, allowing that fireball to travel 900 feet to the lobby and nowhere else. Then that building collapsed in the exact same way as the tower that was struck in a completely different area, at a completely different angle. It also had steel that refused to resist in any way the top portion of the building crashing through it. We must ignore that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" so that the top portion remains intact enough to crash through the rest of the building rather than demolishing that portion as it impacts.

Then, the debris from those collapsing buildings crashes down on nearby buildings. The debris causes no collapses, but ignites fires in several buildings. One of those buildings, wtc7, was designed so poorly that fire at column 79 (which had all of its fireproofing removed as well) caused the entire thing to collapse, symmetrically, at free fall speed, with no resistance from any of the steel in the entire building, into it's own footprint.

All the while, firefighters, police and civilians who claimed to hear bombs were collaborating on an elaborate lie to create the truth movement. Every witness to any bombs was either wrong or lying, including video evidence that shows an explosion while firemen are on the payphone.

Oh, yeah... I forgot to mention that 4 guys armed with box cutters, overwhelmed air passengers, flight crews and pilots, that included former military. Then they flew airplanes that they had never been trained on using maneuvers that experienced pilots say they could not have done themselves.
The US air force was unable to stop the hijacked planes from flying wherever they wanted, which was the first time in US history that they were unable to intercept a hijacked plane (they missed all four planes that day).

Is that about right? And after that, you think I am crazy, while your stuff makes total sense?
 
wormser1971
no title
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by SwagOnLock
lol this really tells us everything we need to know about the level of intellect we're dealing with here.

So 100% of these people were supposed to know it was a plane that caused the explosion in the immediate aftermath? How would they know if they weren't looking up in the .5 seconds that it would have been visible from the streets of Manhattan? They heard a loud bang and called it a bomb. That doesn't make it a bomb.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2AnDy2zDL8

watch it... you'll love it
 
baumusc
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Gnosis
Denial and willful ignorance.


That is basically where you guys are right now. You want to make up fantasy stories to help ease your lonely existences,
 
baumusc
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by wormser1971
It was 8 stories high. I would like your explanation of how high a building has to be to collapse from fire? According to engineers, no fire would cause collapse, except in the remarkable case of wtc 7 (although that explanation is pretty questionable since they only say total collapse was inevitable with no explanation of why).

Your second point is idiotic

third point is even more idiotic



There you go again with the asinine, 'no fire could cause a collapse' argument when it is obvious that it wasn't just fire that caused the WTC 1, 2 and 7 to collapse but was instead a combination of massive structural damage and fire.
 
Link
 
Originally posted by baumusc
That is basically where you guys are right now. You want to make up fantasy stories to help ease your lonely existences,



And when that doesn't last they'll find something else to blame on the JOOOOOOOOOOOOS.
 
Page:
 


You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.