Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I think we should research into that baseball guys history. Religion, Family history, for the sake of it.

Yes, he's an Illuminati masquerading as a Terrorist....


This happened almost 6 Hours ago, and you already want to find a Conspiracy....

The guy lost control of the plane, from the looks of it.

The incident just happen yesterday. There is already a conspiracy??? Gosh, you guys work fast!

I wonder what the apologists for the official version of 9-11 have to say for the fact that the planes fires did not cause the apartment complex to collapse like the fairy tale version of the 9-11 report that the jets FIRES caused the towers collapse.what they have to say about this.I been trying to tell the apologists who blindly defend the 9-11 version that no plane in history has ever caused a tower to suddeny collapse.Heres the proof in the pudding.It was all over the front pages of the major news papers with pics of the building STILL standing.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
The incident just happen yesterday. There is already a conspiracy??? Gosh, you guys work fast!

see thats the difference between someone like me,ashtar or deano and this thread starter.I think its pretty obvious that this was hardly a conspiracy like 9-11 and I think Deano and ashtar would agree with me on this,that the pilot of the plane,a yankeee pitcher just lost control of the plane.

What apologists Mr Parker? Those were muslims extremists who flew the planes into the buildings. The planes in 9/11 were much bigger than the one from yesterday's crash.

the ones who ignorantly think that the fires caused the towers to collapse and blindly defend the fairy tale version of the 9-11 commission.THOSE apologists.true that the planes that hit the towers were much bigger but as i said before,there have been other cases in the past as well where jets have slammed into buildings before,yet just like that apartment building didnt,THOSE buildings did not collapse either.the towers were the first ones in history to ever collapse due to fire.

Inconceivable!

Originally posted by Mr Parker
the ones who ignorantly think that the fires caused the towers to collapse and blindly defend the fairy tale version of the 9-11 commission.THOSE apologists.true that the planes that hit the towers were much bigger but as i said before,there have been other cases in the past as well where jets have slammed into buildings before,yet just like that apartment building didnt,THOSE buildings did not collapse either.the towers were the first ones in history to ever collapse due to fire.

Dude, remember the 9/11 thread, where your points failed, entirely


The Fire isn't what destroyed the buildings.....the already weakened supports from having a Plane flown through it, burned, they weakened more, then Gravity took it's course


2 Rooms does not cause a building's supports to weaken

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Dude, remember the 9/11 thread, where your points failed, entirely


The Fire isn't what destroyed the buildings.....the already weakened supports from having a Plane flown through it, burned, they weakened more, then Gravity took it's course


2 Rooms does not cause a building's supports to weaken

yeah I remember,they didnt fail though,you just chose to ignore ashtar and my points that shot down that laughable explanation . ashtar and myself repeatedly proved YOUR points failed entirely. again as always you ignore points I bring up.like i said,the apologists at it again anyways Im not going to get into that with you,you dont want to know the truth.I finished that conversation with you a long time ago.

Dude, the guy wasn't flying a commercial jet...

Kreiger wins.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
yeah I remember,they didnt fail though,you just chose to ignore ashtar and my points that shot down that laughable explanation . ashtar and myself repeatedly proved YOUR points failed entirely. again as always you ignore points I bring up.like i said,the apologists at it again anyways Im not going to get into that with you,you dont want to know the truth.I finished that conversation with you a long time ago.

Yea, your explanation for everything, we're blind and don't want to accept the truth, this isn't a Movie......


Anycrap, if you payed attention to the last 10-15 pages of that thread, when we actually did bother to prove you wrong, we did, with ease. I proved that it was not explosives, I remember someone proved the Steel weakened enough for collapse, and a Plane could have taken those down.

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Yea, your explanation for everything, we're blind and don't want to accept the truth, this isn't a Movie......


Anycrap, if you payed attention to the last 10-15 pages of that thread, when we actually did bother to prove you wrong, we did, with ease. I proved that it was not explosives, I remember someone proved the Steel weakened enough for collapse, and a Plane could have taken those down.

Quote this someone, because no one proved that the steel was weakened enough to cause a collapse. I even asked several times for someone to calculate how much strength would the steel have to be weaken in order to collapse, I'm still waiting for an answer.

And the laughable thing is, the official stories don't even have a solid explanation as to how and why the towers fell. NIST say's "Truss failure theory" FEMA say's "Pancake Collapse" none of which have any science to back it up.

Parker do yourself a favor and stop posting here, krieger just likes playing devils advocate. Don't waste time and energy on tthis, it's not worth it.

Originally posted by Bespin Bart
Dude, the guy wasn't flying a commercial jet...

Kreiger wins.

I know.I can concede that for the first time in his life,he actually made a good point.Too bad it wasnt a commercial airliner so he would have seen that the results would have been the same. what I am talking about and what my point was is that there has never been a case prior to 9-11 where a commerical airliner crashed into a building and made that building collapse freefall like the towers did.that in each case in the past when a commerical airliner crashed into a building,the buildings did NOT collapse freefall.THATS the point I was taliking about that Krieger ignored and ALWAYS ignored so on that point,he loses.I know this because I have been to 9-11 conferences and they were showing PICS.I REPEAT "PICS" fo commercial airliners that crashed into buildings,yet THOSE buildings did not collapse,yet for the first time in history,the towers did collapse .so except for this one time of course about that this building wasnt a commerical airliner which he wins on that one.THAT point he loses on as always.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Parker do yourself a favor and stop posting here, krieger just likes playing devils advocate. Don't waste time and energy on tthis, it's not worth it.

Oh I wont be responding to kreiger anymore.I stopped debating him ages ago.Because like you said,nobody was ever able to disprove what you said in your first post that the fires were not intense enough to be able to cause them to weaken.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Oh I wont be responding to kreiger anymore.I stopped debating him ages ago.Because like you said,nobody was ever able to disprove what you said in your first post that the fires were not intense enough to be able to cause them to weaken.

How long ago did you say that? You never lived up to it, and actually we did disprove anything, but your Reverse-Scientific Method theories disregard 99% of proof.

As to Ashtar, the Steel was at least, 50% Strength from fire alone, 1/4 of it was missing, and as seen in a video I provided, it fell on a slant downwards, from there the Floors could not hold it up, but oh well, dsregard our Logic



When in History has a Commercial Jet crashed intentionally at full speed directly into a building....oh that's right, never

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Yes, he's an Illuminati masquerading as a Terrorist....


This happened almost 6 Hours ago, and you already want to find a Conspiracy....


1. It's 'Illuminatus' when referring to one.

2. Of course.

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger


As to Ashtar, the Steel was at least, 50% Strength from fire alone, 1/4 of it was missing, and as seen in a video I provided, it fell on a slant downwards, from there the Floors could not hold it up, but oh well, dsregard our Logic




The steel was at most 50%, the fires were not hot enough. I already provided proof with the smoke.

That's funny, according to you, a building which is designed to hold 5 times it's maximum weight capacity. Magically, collapsed under it's on weight. Unless there was a marching band and 20 grand piano's with elephants, I don't see how you can.

And of course no solid explanation on the structural behavor of the towers.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
The steel was at most 50%, the fires were not hot enough. I already provided proof with the smoke.

That's funny, according to you, a building which is designed to hold 5 times it's maximum weight capacity. Magically, collapsed under it's on weight. Unless there was a marching band and 20 grand piano's with elephants, I don't see how you can.

And of course no solid explanation on the structural behavor of the towers.

Each floor is built to hold the floor above it, by way of Engineering, it holds up the entire thing. When about 10 floors fall onto 1, that weight capacity, which is 1/4 Destroyed, and about 50% weakened, comes down, and then the Pancake Effect comes into play, of course with the North Tower, it just fell down.

Explosives could not have done this again, it fell top to bottom, and if they had been placed where the Plane hit, they would have gone off prematurely, and it would go down instantly

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Each floor is built to hold the floor above it, by way of Engineering, it holds up the entire thing.

That's not how the towers were build sadly, and even if they were, why would the floors fall under their own weight when they are designed to hold much more times than their own limit?


Originally posted by Darth Kreiger

When about 10 floors fall onto 1, that weight capacity, which is 1/4 Destroyed, and about 50% weakened, comes down, and then the Pancake Effect comes into play, of course with the North Tower, it just fell down.

To bad the towers were not built that way, the central column is what supports the towers. The floors don't really support the weight of the building. ad how does that explain a building falling from it's own weight, when it's designed to hold 5 times more?


The steel at most was weakned 60%, yet fell gave up under it's own weight?



Originally posted by Darth Kreiger

Explosives could not have done this again, it fell top to bottom, and if they had been placed where the Plane hit, they would have gone off prematurely, and it would go down instantly

why would they be placed where the plane hits, your supposed to place them near the base of a building, Not at the very top.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Inconceivable!

Is it...conceivable?

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
The steel was at most 50%, the fires were not hot enough. I already provided proof with the smoke.

That's funny, according to you, a building which is designed to hold 5 times it's maximum weight capacity. Magically, collapsed under it's on weight. Unless there was a marching band and 20 grand piano's with elephants, I don't see how you can.

And of course no solid explanation on the structural behavor of the towers.

now what was it you were telling me ashtar about ignoring Krieger? seems your not listening to your own advise? this guy does nothing but troll all the time,he's not interested in knowing the truth about 9-11,stop taking his bait.thats all he does is try to bait people and you took his bait.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
now what was it you were telling me ashtar about ignoring Krieger? seems your not listening to your own advise? this guy does nothing but troll all the time,he's not interested in knowing the truth about 9-11,stop taking his bait.thats all he does is try to bait people and you took his bait.

Yeah, I contradicted myself, my bad.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
That's not how the towers were build sadly, and even if they were, why would the floors fall under their own weight when they are designed to hold much more times than their own limit?




To bad the towers were not built that way, the central column is what supports the towers. The floors don't really support the weight of the building. ad how does that explain a building falling from it's own weight, when it's designed to hold 5 times more?


The steel at most was weakned 60%, yet fell gave up under it's own weight?





why would they be placed where the plane hits, your supposed to place them near the base of a building, Not at the very top.

1.)They were not built for it to collapse above them
2.)5 times more? Do the Math, 1/4 destroyed on about 4 floors, and the Structure weakened to 50%, 10 floors at least falling from above.
3.)Considering how we proved the Building fell top to bottom, instead of Bottom to top, the only place Explosives COULD have been placed, was at the area where the Plane hit, since that's where the building Collapsed

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
1.)They were not built for it to collapse above them
2.)5 times more? Do the Math, 1/4 destroyed on about 4 floors, and the Structure weakened to 50%, 10 floors at least falling from above.
3.)Considering how we proved the Building fell top to bottom, instead of Bottom to top, the only place Explosives COULD have been placed, was at the area where the Plane hit, since that's where the building Collapsed

Wow, all these questions are really incompetent, especially the last one. Why would it matter if the explosives let off when the plane hit, obviously if they were explosives there it would be set to detonate as soon as the plane hit. So, how would the plane setting them off on impact be a bad thing?

Oh, and even if the building was reduced to 50% of it's original strength, it would still be able to support two and a half times it's load.

Common sense should tell you that if the steel structure is able to support 5 times it's rated load with 100% of it's load, than at half the strength it can carry half the load.

I've wasted enought time here, I'm done.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Wow, all these questions are really incompetent, especially the last one. Why would it matter if the explosives let off when the plane hit, obviously if they were explosives there it would be set to detonate as soon as the plane hit. So, how would the plane setting them off on impact be a bad thing?

Oh, and even if the building was reduced to 50% of it's original strength, it would still be able to support two and a half times it's load.

Common sense should tell you that if the steel structure is able to support 5 times it's rated load with 100% of it's load, than at half the strength it can carry half the load.

I've wasted enought time here, I'm done.

I don't believe I made a question.....

So wait, you're not doing the Explosives at the Bottom thing anymore? If explosives had been set to detonate when the Plane hit, the building would come down immediately.

2 and a half times it's load, again, the structure was made to hold up the floor above it, when about 10-15 floors come down on top of it, it can no longer hold, 1/4 of the structure is missing , 50% weakened, it can no longer hold the floors above it


You wasted it before you even got here....

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
I don't believe I made a question.....

So wait, you're not doing the Explosives at the Bottom thing anymore? If explosives had been set to detonate when the Plane hit, the building would come down immediately.

2 and a half times it's load, again, the structure was made to hold up the floor above it, when about 10-15 floors come down on top of it, it can no longer hold, 1/4 of the structure is missing , 50% weakened, it can no longer hold the floors above it


You wasted it before you even got here....

Man krieger, how old are you?
Besides the fact that's not how the towers were even built, how would floors falling on floors change the weight it's designed to support?

Also, the lower you go the stronger the floors, since the lowest floors would be designed to support the most weight. So, how would floors falling suddenly effect that? (If they were built that way, since their not built that way)

And the building did come down almost immediaetly, you really need to think before you post.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Man krieger, how old are you?
Besides the fact that's not how the towers were even built, how would floors falling on floors change the weight it's designed to support?

Also, the lower you go the stronger the floors, since the lowest floor would be designed to hold the most weight. So, how would floors falling suddenly effect that?

And the building did come down almost immediaetly, you really need to think before you post.

They were designed in the way that each floor held up the floor on top, when about 10 floors fall together in a Pancake way, it can no longer hold, the building falls

53 Minutes is Immediately? Wow, I must be slow

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
They were designed in the way that each floor held up the floor on top, when about 10 floors fall together in a Pancake way, it can no longer hold, the building falls

53 Minutes is Immediately? Wow, I must be slow

Ah, the pancake collapse, which has no scientific explanation behind it, Can you explain it.

And the towers weren't designed that way, like I said before.

Yeah, it was, consider the amount of explosives that would be needed to destroy the tallest building in the world. The chain reactiion from the plane impact wouldn't have been enough to reach the support columns which are pretty much underground.

you two do know thats what the 9-11 thread is for dont you?

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Man krieger, how old are you?
Besides the fact that's not how the towers were even built, how would floors falling on floors change the weight it's designed to support?

Also, the lower you go the stronger the floors, since the lowest floors would be designed to support the most weight. So, how would floors falling suddenly effect that? (If they were built that way, since their not built that way)

And the building did come down almost immediaetly, you really need to think before you post.

Thinking before he posts is something he obviously never does.well I know your going to keep responding to him here so something else you will have to explain to him is that all you got to do to see the obvious that it was exposives that were set off in the towers is look at all the photos of the towers that were taken afterwards and you can see huge holes coming from the bottom of the ground and that the place looks like a war zone.That is not a typical sight for what a building looks like when it collapses.It doesn look like a war zone.I have seen pics of buildings that collapsed in california due to earthquakes and they collapsed by tipping over sideways which is what the towers would have done if they indeed collapsed.Those buildings also received fire done to them and those buildings where they collapsed,in those photos,they hardly looked like a war zone like the towers did.again Darth just cant seem to grasp it that buildings that do collapse due to fires dont collapse FREEFALL instantly like the towers did.they tip over when they collapse and it doesnt happen freefall within seconds.Now when you set off explosives to buildings,it IS typical for the buildings to collapse freefall and for the place to look like a war zone.when they blew up the kingdom -the building where the seattle seahawks football team used to play,that building collapsed freefall like the towers did and looked like a a war zone had hit it.But darth never thinks before he posts so its useless explaining any of that to him.

anyways you two,you really need to take this over to the 9-11 thread if your going to continue it again.