Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Gnosis
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1456744_592826564128317_2142674759_n.jpg

Wow, this is what you are hanging on to? lmao

Originally posted by rams78110
Also one more thing that hampers my ability to believe in a conspiracy on this scale: No one involved has said a thing. The NSA can't even think about reading an email without two whistleblowers, 13 national news stories, and 3 congressional hearings, how in the hell did the government get absolutely every single one of the thousands of people it would take to do this silent?

Exactly

Originally posted by wormser1971
WTC 7 did... amirite?

Did the Spanish tower have a building fall on it? You guys are hanging out on the Infowars website too much.

Originally posted by wormser1971
Baum... You don't believe any witness that conflicts with the official story, right?

Why do you even debate this topic? I could understand the smell of kerosene making it to the lobby... not the fireball. You refuse to see how that could not have happened.

An explosion in the elevator shaft happens.
It could not have been anything but jet fuel traveling 800 ft and then igniting, even though you claim it blew open every other door on the way down, which means it was already ignited... Oops... someone forgot their own story!



First of all it wasn't just fire that blew doors open it was concussion forces from the impact and explosion plus pressure changes inside the building and in small spaces. Not all the Jet Fuel ignited on impact. Lots of it was spread around the building and down places like elevator chutes where it later ignited. One of the eye witnesses to the second plane crash inside the tower at the point of impact was sprayed with jet fuel and knocked back into the stair well and the fuel didn't ignite on him. You are telling me that the firefighters in the lobby who smelled jet fuel and saw it catch fire in the elevator shaft and watched people in the elevators cook alive are all lying? Why do you hate American heroes so much?

Originally posted by wormser1971

Anyway... I get it. I am enough of a grown up to say that there is a possibility of a plane hitting the pentagon because of the 87 witnesses who say they saw something hit, and the 23 who say it was an airplane. You are so narrow minded and wrapped up in pushing the government story that you refuse to believe even 1 witness to the contrary.

If anything, you are an intellectual coward. And as for larry... You are the epitome of idiocy! You do realize that you still have contributed zero to this or any conversation, right? It must be intentional, or you are an actual, lives under a bridge, eats hobbits, fucking troll!




You are pushing the Infowars story. I don't really need the government to tell me what happened because I watched it unfold. Planes hit the WTC towers, they damaged the towers severely and set them on fire. The towers eventually collapsed because of the combination of fire and structural damage. End of story.
Think about it for a second, why would the US government need to go to such great lengths as blowing up three WTC buildings and the Pentagon and then crashing a plane in PA to get us involved in a Middle East conflict. All they had to do to do that is place a bomb in the WTC building and repeat what happened in '93. That there would be enough of an excuse to get us into a war with any force in the Middle East that they deemed worthy. Also a conspiracy on the grand scale that you are claiming would require hundreds of people to pull off and then remain quite. It didn't happen, you just want it to have happened because you can't fathom that a bunch of terrorists could create such turmoil state side.

Originally posted by baumusc
You are pushing the Infowars story. I don't really need the government to tell me what happened because I watched it unfold. Planes hit the WTC towers, they damaged the towers severely and set them on fire. The towers eventually collapsed because of the combination of fire and structural damage. End of story.
Think about it for a second, why would the US government need to go to such great lengths as blowing up three WTC buildings and the Pentagon and then crashing a plane in PA to get us involved in a Middle East conflict. All they had to do to do that is place a bomb in the WTC building and repeat what happened in '93. That there would be enough of an excuse to get us into a war with any force in the Middle East that they deemed worthy. Also a conspiracy on the grand scale that you are claiming would require hundreds of people to pull off and then remain quite. It didn't happen, you just want it to have happened because you can't fathom that a bunch of terrorists could create such turmoil state side.

And demolition experts worldwide have been wasting all of there time and energy figuring out how to bring a building down... All they needed was to blow out one floor then set a few office fires! They suck at their jobs!

WTC 7 is a great example of how stupid demolition companies are. All it took was a wrecking ball on on corner and a fire next to column 79... stupid experts

Originally posted by wormser1971
And demolition experts worldwide have been wasting all of there time and energy figuring out how to bring a building down... All they needed was to blow out one floor then set a few office fires! They suck at their jobs!

WTC 7 is a great example of how stupid demolition companies are. All it took was a wrecking ball on on corner and a fire next to column 79... stupid experts

If you want a demolitions expert's viewpoint on the WTC collapses just go to implosionworld.com. Or you can continue ignoring the experts and make up your own bullshit.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno

The only scientifically legitimate way to ascertain if explosives were used is to cross-
reference the fundamental characteristics of an explosive detonation with independent
ground vibration data recorded near Ground Zero on 9/11. Fortunately, several
seismographs were recording ground vibration that morning, and perhaps more
fortunately, all available data is consistent and appears to paint a clear picture.
Seismographs at Columbia University’s Lam
ont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades,
New York, recorded the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7. This data was later released to
the public and currently appears on their website. Additionally, on 9/11 Protec field
technicians were utilizing portable field seismographs to continuously record ground
vibrations on several construction sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn for liability purposes.
In all cases where seismographs detected the collapses, waveform readings indicate a
single, gradually ascending and descending level of ground vibration during the event.
At no point during 9/11 were sudden or independent vibration “spikes” documented by
any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data.
This evidence makes a compelling argument agai
nst explosive demolition. The laws of
physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have
transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would
certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough
to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data
reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events.

If C4 is used, maybe. Rdx as well.... Why do you insist that those were the things that would have been used? This wasn't planned out by the bad news bears or something!

What is thermite? It is not an explosive... it is and incendiary.

Here is a video with Neils Harrit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3yhDQUuYzw

But you think they needed too much thermite, so you will go back to that discussion. Even though they found nano thermite in the dust. But hey, you need that to feel good.

Thermite video

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

Originally posted by wormser1971
So, now I am supposed to do the entire investigation myself... You do realize that what I want is a new, thorough investigation, right? I don't have access to all of the evidence. I don't have access to the transcripts of testimony. I don't have pentagon videos that were confiscated. But you believe I should have those things? I should be able to tell the world who did it and why?

I want a proper investigation done

I'm saying that if you don't want to be a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist, you need to stop wearing that hat when you are telling us about your theories regarding a massive conspiracy.

Except I won't call you that, because you aren't even at that point. You don't have a theory about who did it.

You: The evidence of what happened doesn't explain what happened

You would need people on the inside planning and planting

Us: No motive, no explanation of how such a thing could be kept secret. That makes the official story more believable, because it involves the things we all saw, like planes being crashed into buildings, buildings falling, and a mastermind behind the whole thing that had a motive.

Originally posted by Time Trial
I'm saying that if you don't want to be a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist, you need to stop wearing that hat when you are telling us about your theories regarding a massive conspiracy.

Except I won't call you that, because you aren't even at that point. You don't have a theory about who did it.

You: The evidence of what happened doesn't explain what happened

You would need people on the inside planning and planting

Us: No motive, no explanation of how such a thing could be kept secret. That makes the official story more believable, because it involves the things we all saw, like planes being crashed into buildings, buildings falling, and a mastermind behind the whole thing that had a motive.


He's just yammering to yammer. This is his moment (on the net, and perhaps in real life) to be "edgy", and he imagines that people look upon him with respect when he spews his special brand of nonsense.

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

He's just yammering to yammer. This is his moment (on the net, and perhaps in real life) to be "edgy", and he imagines that people look upon him with respect when he spews his special brand of nonsense.

^^^ anti-semite ^^^

Originally posted by Time Trial
I'm saying that if you don't want to be a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist, you need to stop wearing that hat when you are telling us about your theories regarding a massive conspiracy.

Except I won't call you that, because you aren't even at that point. You don't have a theory about who did it.

You: The evidence of what happened doesn't explain what happened

You would need people on the inside planning and planting

Us: No motive, no explanation of how such a thing could be kept secret. That makes the official story more believable, because it involves the things we all saw, like planes being crashed into buildings, buildings falling, and a mastermind behind the whole thing that had a motive.

Your ignorance on this topic knows no bounds.

Originally posted by Gnosis
Your ignorance on this topic knows no bounds.

I know what really happened:

Terrorists crashed planes into the WTC. You will recall their bombing of the North tower in 1993 (you might agree with them, since they were also fighting for the US to end its aid of Israel). Those buildings collapsed.

These are based on evidence of a terrorist plot, a motive to perform the attacks, and evidence of the plot being enacted.

For this plot to work in conjuction with "an inside man" would mean that someone had to orchestrate the terrorist attack as a cover for the actual attack. This does not make sense and is therefore rejected.

Originally posted by Time Trial
I know what really happened:

Terrorists crashed planes into the WTC. You will recall their bombing of the North tower in 1993 (you might agree with them, since they were also fighting for the US to end its aid of Israel). Those buildings collapsed.

These are based on evidence of a terrorist plot, a motive to perform the attacks, and evidence of the plot being enacted.

For this plot to work in conjuction with "an inside man" would mean that someone had to orchestrate the terrorist attack as a cover for the actual attack. This does not make sense and is therefore rejected.

You simply have not done due diligence in your research nor does it appear you feel a need to look deeper. This makes you willfully ignorant.

Originally posted by Gnosis
You simply have not done due diligence in your research nor does it appear you feel a need to look deeper. This makes you willfully ignorant.



The time you seem to have wasted getting misinformed makes my willful ignorance seem like a pretty good choice.

The fact that you have no common sense and you disapprove of my choices only reinforces my choices and opinions.