Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

[Say the Truth]

Little Blue Ignoramus wrote:

Meep Moo Beep Gloop

That is the most intelligent thing you've said all day.

[AussieBobby]

Dr_Zorderz wrote:

.
There should certainly be a new independent TRUTHFUL investigation of 9/11. The world is owed an explanation no matter where it leads.

Twoofers will only accept one out come..It was an inside job.
So why bother

[Doctor REALITY]

Can you REALLY afford to put off making the 'right' decision about the Lord Jesus Christ?! I mean,you've got PLENTY of time to worry about Judgement Day and meeting the Lord,right?! Don't be so sure. TODAY is the RIGHT DAY for your salvation,for you are not promised another opportunity to have your soul saved...tomorrow. Just keepin' it R-E-A-L: http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Timesten]

Timesten wrote:

He's got a name...If you really want to know it send the video to the NYPD/NYFD on their website and ask them Sherlock
When Silverstein said "the smartest thing to do is Pull IT", he wasn't referring to pulling People.(PEOPLE ARE NOT CALLED IT'S) The correct wording, if there were any people in the bldg, which there wasn't, would have been....
"The fire is out of control. Pull your men out of there."
.
By saying the words "The best thing to do is pull (it"), and they decided to pull (it), it means take the building down, not the firemen.
Pull it meaning take it down while they still have the control to do so.
"A cop/firemen said this building is gonna blow up and will be coming down so get back."
more...
https://sites.google.com/site/911whatyoumight...
.
Also
https://sites.google.com/site/911whatyoumight...
.
https://sites.google.com/site/911whatyoumight...

Also...
Bldg 5 was totally engulfed in flames anmd did not collapse
http://fightingforliberty.ning.com/forum/topi...

[Timesten]

Dr_Zorderz wrote:

<quoted text>
.
The forensic investigation and re-creation of the aircraft is usually to find out why the crash occurred. In the hopes of maybe preventing a like scenario in the future.
.
In the case of 9/11 the bwunkers on this forum will tell you this wasn't done because they already knew why the crashes happened. The planes were allegedly flown by bad men into the buildings on purpose. Ergo, mystery solved, let's move on shall we.
.
They didn't even bother to identify any serial numbered parts from the little pieces of wreckage they claim were from these alleged aircraft back to the known records of the planes in question.
.
This is the first time in the history of the investigation of aircraft mishaps in this country that this sort of forensic investigation was not completed.
.
Same thing goes for not looking for evidence of explosives. They simply hand wave away any such evidence, claim there isn't any, and then claim such a forensic explanation is not called for in the most heinous and catastrophic event as the complete destruction of these huge buildings with people in them.
.
In fact they separate the plane crashes from the building falling down in their investigations. And the so-called investigations stopped at the moment the buildings started to fall.
.
All they can come up with is a "probable collapse sequence" and once "collapse initiation" began it was "inevitable".
.
There should certainly be a new independent TRUTHFUL investigation of 9/11. The world is owed an explanation no matter where it leads.
.
Jet Fuel ha ha h ahha ha ha ha
.
That's A Good One Huh eh !

Agreed Dr Z..
https://sites.google.com/site/911whatyoumight...

[Say the Truth]

AussieBobby wrote:

<quoted text> Twoofers will only accept one out come..It was an inside job.
So why bother

Exactly. Even if they get their supposed "independent" investigation and that activity finds that the event occured precisely as the "government" said, twoofers would then turn around and say their own investigators were corrupted.

Happy New Year!

[Say the Truth]

Timesten wrote:

<quoted text>
Also...
Bldg 5 was totally engulfed in flames anmd did not collapse
http://fightingforliberty.ning.com/forum/topi...

IDIOT:
"The major fire-induced collapse that occurred in WTC 5 involved the portion of the building that had Gerber framing (girder stubs welded to columns, and simply supported central girder spans with shear connections to the ends of the stubs (Figure 2)), but not other areas of the building where girders spanned the full distance between columns. This fact, and observations at the site suggesting that the failure was early in the fire, raised the possibility that this structure had a vulnerability that led to premature failure, perhaps during the heating phase of the fire. "

http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx...

[Timesten]

Say the Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly. Even if they get their supposed "independent" investigation and that activity finds that the event occured precisely as the "government" said, twoofers would then turn around and say their own investigators were corrupted.
Happy New Year!

Ha Ha ha says the blind shill sheeple. If we get our investigation you and your blind bat gullible buds will be saying "We knew all along 911 was an inside job and we tried to tell you that but you would not listen."

We know you shills all too well... baaaaaaa
http://red-pill.org/are-you-one-of-the-sheepl...

[Timesten]

Serious fires raged through WTC 5 for hours. Despite the massive structural damage shown by the holes, and fires far more severe than those in WTC 1, 2, and 7, WTC 5 did not collapse. FEMA's report has a number of photographs of Building 5 wreckage, and concludes that fires caused the collapse of portions of this building, without making a convincing case.

Destruction

WTC 5 was demolished 'PULLED' as part of the clean-up of Ground Zero
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search...

[Timesten]

Was Building 7 Crushed by the Towers?

Damage to Building 6 shows that the heavy fallout from the North Tower didn't cross Vesey Street.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/collater...

And bldg 6's core was blown out, that's obvious The center core gone while the rest of the building is standing
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/collater...

[RADEKT]

how did WTC 5 catch fire and what was burning that caused such big fires !?!?!?!?!?

Timesten wrote:

Serious fires raged through WTC 5 for hours. Despite the massive structural damage shown by the holes, and fires far more severe than those in WTC 1, 2, and 7, WTC 5 did not collapse. FEMA's report has a number of photographs of Building 5 wreckage, and concludes that fires caused the collapse of portions of this building, without making a convincing case.
Destruction
WTC 5 was demolished 'PULLED' as part of the clean-up of Ground Zero
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search...

[Timesten]

RADEKT wrote:

how did WTC 5 catch fire and what was burning that caused such big fires !?!?!?!?!?
<quoted text>

That's what I'd like to know...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
.
Wiki says it sustained little damage..not true
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_World_Trade...
.
The fires in 5 were worse than the fires in 7
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/docs/w...
.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v411/DoYouE...

[Porkpie Hat]

increasing mass wrote:

<quoted text>
kinetic energy and momentum increased...mass cannot increase unless you can figure out how to create new matter from thin air. You don't get it, do you Einstein?
Besides, how much kinetic energy and momentum does dust blowing in the wind generate in order to provide a sufficient downward force to collapse an entire steel framed structure?
Think about that for a moment, Einstein, and then show me your equations. Maybe you can consult with Bazant to provide you with the algebraic hieroglyphics.

It really is funny when you losers try pretending you have even the slightest clue about the science behind the collapses.

Such efforts have brought us hilarity in the form of "free fall speed" and elevators that can't go up or down.

Couple that with your claim that the mass of the buildings majikally disapoofed all while claiming reality is a fairy tale and your position begins to move into the hysterical.

P=mv

F=ma

So junkie sock-sheep of elevator boy-sheep 20 pilots, show us the equation(s) which explain your conspirastupid claim that all mass above the impact zone superfragi-majikally disappeared.

Oh and your parents still owe me money for teaching you free fall is an acceleration, not a speed.

[Porkpie Hat]

Timesten wrote:

<quoted text>
Have you had that proness long...
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_sRckAjHOyuQ/THOCqRq...
.
And as far as your govie links go...
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04...

None have anything to do with government and your idiotic attempt at using the "poisoning the well" fallacy will only work on your fellow braindead twoof-sheep.

And wtf is a "proness" wendy?

Again, you can't address anything because you're too dumb to do anything aside from mindlessly shill bs that ca't make it past an obscure message forum.

Good luck with that jinn martini!

[Porkpie Hat]

RADEKT wrote:

how did WTC 5 catch fire and what was burning that caused such big fires !?!?!?!?!?
<quoted text>

Happy New Year!!!!

[Say the Truth]

Timesten wrote:

Serious fires raged through WTC 5 for hours. Despite the massive structural damage shown by the holes, and fires far more severe than those in WTC 1, 2, and 7, WTC 5 did not collapse. FEMA's report has a number of photographs of Building 5 wreckage, and concludes that fires caused the collapse of portions of this building, without making a convincing case.
Destruction
WTC 5 was demolished 'PULLED' as part of the clean-up of Ground Zero
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search...

READ IT AGAIN, IDIOT:
"The major fire-induced collapse that occurred in WTC 5 involved the portion of the building that had Gerber framing (girder stubs welded to columns, and simply supported central girder spans with shear connections to the ends of the stubs (Figure 2)), but not other areas of the building where girders spanned the full distance between columns. This fact, and observations at the site suggesting that the failure was early in the fire, raised the possibility that this structure had a vulnerability that led to premature failure, perhaps during the heating phase of the fire. "

So to spell it out for idiot twoofers, particular STRUCTURE DESIGNS are vulnerable, so where similar events (e.g., unabated fire) occurred, dissimilar results may be expected, or vice versa.

[Porkpie Hat]

YellowPissreality wrote:

“...and I said,'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'”
Let’s use some logic. Was Silverstein saying,
“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to blow up my building,”
or was he saying,
“We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to withdraw firefighters to prevent further loss of life”?
Be honest,Which statement makes sense, and which is completely absurd?
Next, did Larry Silverstein, a real estate developer, have the world’s largest fire department at his beck and call? Of course not. Larry Silverstein had no say in how firefighting operations in New York City were conducted. He may have liked to think that the FDNY was calling him for a consultation, but that idea is laughable. It was a courtesy call.
“And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
Who made the decision to pull? They. The fire department. Not “Me,” not “We.” They. This is ridiculously obvious to anyone but a Twoof Twit. Does the FDNY demolish buildings with explosives? No, they pull their people away from buildings that are too dangerous to be near. The “we” in “we watched the building collapse” is Silverstein and his wife. Silverstein was not at the WTC site <quoted text>

The fire fghting operation was referred to as "it".

End of story.

The fact that little losers like Tom (I'm not israelity) Fontaine from Pittsfield Ma still cling to such a weak argument just proves how little they have and how negligable their 11 years of progress has been.

[Say the Truth]

Porkpie Hat wrote:

<quoted text>Happy New Year!!!!

HNY, gents!

[Porkpie Hat]

Timesten wrote:

Was Building 7 Crushed by the Towers?
Damage to Building 6 shows that the heavy fallout from the North Tower didn't cross Vesey Street.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/collater...
And bldg 6's core was blown out, that's obvious The center core gone while the rest of the building is standing
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/collater...

No one aside from you losers say it was crushed...just another example of the fallacious logic that makes your ilk a laughing sock truck driver tommy!

[Porkpie Hat]

Timesten wrote:

Serious fires raged through WTC 5 for hours. Despite the massive structural damage shown by the holes, and fires far more severe than those in WTC 1, 2, and 7, WTC 5 did not collapse. FEMA's report has a number of photographs of Building 5 wreckage, and concludes that fires caused the collapse of portions of this building, without making a convincing case.
Destruction
WTC 5 was demolished 'PULLED' as part of the clean-up of Ground Zero
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search...

Pictures of wtc 5 show beams with extreme sagging and given that 5 was not straddling the ConEd power station (meaning the entire construction and design was different) this is yet another examples of scientifically illiterate fools pretending they have a point to make.

I know barb, you don't get it...just like fossil fuels and man landing on the moon.