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

In all honesty what point do we have trying to put the various Theorists in here down? Is this not the Conspiracy forum, a place for you to post conspiracies? I notice a lot of people coming in here just to point out how stupid these people and there conspiracies are. Who are we to tell them to stop posting conspiracies in the conspiracy forum?

If you really think all of there conspiracy stuff is BS then just ignore this part of the forum. That's what this forum was created for, right? So the GDF and OTF wouldn't get cluttered with this stuff?

Okay. Now hear my side of the story.

As a conspiracy theorist myself, I want to see the truth behind the US government and bring a stop to it. Yet, there are people here, making up crap, taking stuff out of context, and giving conspiracy theories a bad image. I'd like to discuss conspiracies, but being attacked by propoganda and retarded claims that are just there to bad mouth the government, then I'm going to oppose it. I don't want a bunch of stories being made into truth, I want the real truth.

Think of me as the skeptical conspiracy theorist.

Xyz has a point, an incompetent conspiracy theorist does more harm than good.

I believe that we have every right to debate over the conspiracies posted in these boards.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Okay. Now hear my side of the story.

As a conspiracy theorist myself, I want to see the truth behind the US government and bring a stop to it. Yet, there are people here, making up crap, taking stuff out of context, and giving conspiracy theories a bad image. I'd like to discuss conspiracies, but being attacked by propoganda and retarded claims that are just there to bad mouth the government, then I'm going to oppose it. I don't want a bunch of stories being made into truth, I want the real truth.

Think of me as the skeptical conspiracy theorist.

Uhh....am I seeing what I think I just saw? lol.

Lord...what have you done in the past 6 months that has anything to do with what you claim you are above?

Because I haven't seen you try to prove the Government wrong on anything. Instead, I see you picking on Mr. Parker and others like Deano who have the ability to post whatever they wish inside this forum.

This forum was created for anybody who wants to post anything they want to. It doesn't say Lord XYZ's Conspiracy Forum. lol. Cuz if it did I wouldn't be typing in here.

This thread should be called leave the truth seekers alone because thats what the government labels people who dont accept the official versions of the kennedy assassination,9-11,ect is conspiracy theorists.yeah Lord has NEVER tried to prove my sources wrong when I have provided them for him.anytime i have challenged him to look at documentary tapes that document how clinton has had people killed off because they knew too much about his evil doings and where he can order those tapes,he just repeats the same damn thing over and over asking me to list my sources.He has got the worst memory of anybody I have ever encountered in my entire life.Thats why I wont bother with him anymore.he never trys to disprove me when i take him up on the challenge to do so.He just goes off and calls you an idiot ect when you give him your sources whether it be me,you,Deano,or Emporar Ashtar.

Sadly thats how most the people here are in the conspiracy forum when you challenge them to disprove you.The only poster I have ever found to be reasonable in thier posts when they dont agree with me on something,is Grand Moff who made the 9-11 thread.Me and Emporer Ashtar debated with him and he didnt agree with us on most things we said,but we both got along with him just fine and enjoyed our chats with him because unlike people like Lord and Kharma Dog he didnt go and call us names and insult us when he didnt agree with us.They could learn something from Grand.

I can see why you believe all these hardcore conspiracy theories.

Originally posted by NuclearWinter
Uhh....am I seeing what I think I just saw? lol.

Lord...what have you done in the past 6 months that has anything to do with what you claim you are above?

Because I haven't seen you try to prove the Government wrong on anything. Instead, I see you picking on Mr. Parker and others like Deano who have the ability to post whatever they wish inside this forum.

This forum was created for anybody who wants to post anything they want to. It doesn't say Lord XYZ's Conspiracy Forum. lol. Cuz if it did I wouldn't be typing in here. Are you disabled?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Then how come George H. W. Bush, a CIA agent at the time, said to the CIA he was in Dallas at the time of the assassination, then they put him on a plane to washington? How do you explain that? Well, it's simple. The CIA had made a pistol which could fire a drat made of ice. The dart contains a drug which gives the victim a heart attack and the only evidence of a homicide is a small pin prick in the victim. The CIA threatened the FBI with these pistols. In simple terms, the FBI was the CIA's *****. But J. Edgar Hoover is a master mind. He wrote a memo called "Assassination of JFK" and in it he labels GHW Bush as the prime suspect. George Bush was working with E. Howard Hunt and Richard Nixon to bring down Kennedy for people like the Rockefellars and the Harrimans. In fact, In the 1970s, the haed of the CIA at the time said Hunt was in Dallas with George H. W. Bush and they were incharge of the shooters! He also said they were taking orders from the rockefellars. After that, Vice President Rockefellar fired him for some mystrious reason, and then GHW Bush became Director of the CIA. How do you explain this? How do you explain how Bush, Nixon, Hunt and Connoly (The guy who was in kennedy's car at the time of the assassination) all were in the white house in 1970, and then only 4 years later, watergate happened? There is piles of evidence to suggest something fishy is going on. But this was supposed to be a quick reply, I'm not in the mood to debate at the moment, maybe another time. Here I am rejecting the official JFK story.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I'm going to be weird and agree with Deano. I'm not fully convinced, but I'm open to the possibility that he could be right. And there are a few facts in there. The illuminati, I know hardly anything about.

If kharma, kinneary and dalak thoink this is stupid, please debunk it for us. Here I am supporting Deano.

I never said they couldn't post here. I'm just saying they are a joke. My reason for thinking this is in the post you just quoted which shows you haven't read it.

Thankyou. I might've called you an idiot in the past, but compared to those people, you're a genius!

Well, 2 claps for XYZ. 2 paragraphs, one that he just wrote a week or so or ago, and another from who knows when.

Here is a better question. WHEN THE HELL HAVE U POSTED SOMETHING RELATED TO CONSPIRACY SINCE I'VE BEEN WATCHING HERE FOR MONTHS!!!! lol.

I got a little game for everyone.

Take a look at all of the threads made by XYZ in this forum on page 1. Starting from the first to last.

How many of them have anything to do with trying to present a valid conspiracy theory?

Answer: Almost NONE!

How many of them have to do with attacking REAL conspiracy theorists?

Answer: Almost Every Single One!

Originally posted by lord xyz
Are you disabled?

Here I am supporting Deano.


Awww. How sweet of you to support Deano Lord. In fact, what a 360 degree turn from the Lord XYZ I know of below:

Originally posted by lord xyz
Let me tell you something Deano, unless you get your shit together and know what you're talking about, shut the **** up and don't copy and paste the first piece of shit you see that's against the government.

It's a plane, therefore you by saying it wasn't makes you wrong, which lowers your credibility -- if it could get any lower.

Now thats the LordXYZ I know.

You don't see cockroaches pretending to be bunnyrabbits do you Lord?

No comparison..... just a question.

You aren't a conspiracy theorist Lord. You're a false authority. There is a difference.

Originally posted by NuclearWinter
I got a little game for everyone.

Take a look at all of the threads made by XYZ in this forum on page 1. Starting from the first to last.

How many of them have anything to do with trying to present a valid conspiracy theory?

Answer: Almost NONE!

How many of them have to do with attacking REAL conspiracy theorists?

Answer: Almost Every Single One! So what? I'm a skeptic you dope. Just because I don't believe some or most conspiracies doesn't mean I don't believe all of them or I'm a government follower. do you honestly believe there are only two types of people in the world? Those who follow the government, and those who follow all conspiracy claims?

Than call yourself what you are Lord.

A conspiracy theorist skeptic.

Or if you want to call yourself a conspiracy theorist than do it, but don't expect other people to believe you if you don't churn out much of anything relating to that title.

Originally posted by NuclearWinter
Than call yourself what you are Lord.

A conspiracy theorist skeptic.

Or if you want to call yourself a conspiracy theorist than do it, but don't expect other people to believe you if you don't churn out much of anything relating to that title. yeah, conspiracy theorist doesn't mean idiotic sheep. I believe there is a cover up in JFK and 9/11, but I don't think the WTC was brought down by... a controlled demolition. See, I'm not as gullible as the rest of you.

Well I don't know bout all of that, but all I know is that I never claimed to be a conspiracy theorist. lol.

That title doesn't mean jack to me.

Finding the Truth is all I care about.

It's like with Kharmadog. I want to know the truth of what happened to Atlantis (And I believe I have found it).

Kharmadog seems to be satisfied with what scientists DON'T know.

I can't do that. I have to dig deeper.

What title?

Originally posted by NuclearWinter
It's like with Kharmadog. I want to know the truth of what happened to Atlantis (And I believe I have found it).

You found it? Bully for you. It would be the greatest discovery in history, yet you believe that a little known wanna be archeoligist has found a continent that most likely never existed at all.

Originally posted by NuclearWinter
Kharmadog seems to be satisfied with what scientists DON'T know.

Yes, I see, those are exactly my words. No...wait...they aren't. Have you noticed that I have been able to expose your theories or sources as complete garbage, but the only way that you feel that you can get a head up on me is by trying to twist my words, trying to interpret what I say instead of reading what I type, or intentionally misrepresenting my points or arguments.

Those who can't speak/think for themselves either use the words of others (like both you and Deano) or try to misrepresent the words of others in order to try and make their point seem valid (you and Parker).

Originally posted by NuclearWinter
I can't do that. I have to dig deeper.

The deeper one digs into a pile of sh*t the more the get covered by it, and the more they get used to it.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
The deeper one digs into a pile of sh*t the more the get covered by it, and the more they get used to it. But if that person digs into a pile of gold, they will not only question it's purity, but after they have all the gold, set out and dig for more gold or something more worthful.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Okay. Now hear my side of the story.

As a conspiracy theorist myself, I want to see the truth behind the US government and bring a stop to it. Yet, there are people here, making up crap, taking stuff out of context, and giving conspiracy theories a bad image. I'd like to discuss conspiracies, but being attacked by propoganda and retarded claims that are just there to bad mouth the government, then I'm going to oppose it. I don't want a bunch of stories being made into truth, I want the real truth.

Think of me as the skeptical conspiracy theorist.

yes some people really do give them a bad image like sparton005 sayin that an alien ubducted him and made him have butt sex with him

Originally posted by Blaxican
In all honesty what point do we have trying to put the various Theorists in here down? Is this not the Conspiracy forum, a place for you to post conspiracies? I notice a lot of people coming in here just to point out how stupid these people and there conspiracies are. Who are we to tell them to stop posting conspiracies in the conspiracy forum?

If you really think all of there conspiracy stuff is BS then just ignore this part of the forum. That's what this forum was created for, right? So the GDF and OTF wouldn't get cluttered with this stuff? [/QUOTE

You're trying to silence us because of your world conquering agenda.

Originally posted by NuclearWinter
Well, 2 claps for XYZ. 2 paragraphs, one that he just wrote a week or so or ago, and another from who knows when.

Here is a better question. WHEN THE HELL HAVE U POSTED SOMETHING RELATED TO CONSPIRACY SINCE I'VE BEEN WATCHING HERE FOR MONTHS!!!! lol. Originally posted by NuclearWinter
I got a little game for everyone.

Take a look at all of the threads made by XYZ in this forum on page 1. Starting from the first to last.

How many of them have anything to do with trying to present a valid conspiracy theory?

Answer: Almost NONE!

How many of them have to do with attacking REAL conspiracy theorists?

Answer: Almost Every Single One! Originally posted by NuclearWinter
Awww. How sweet of you to support Deano Lord. In fact, what a 360 degree turn from the Lord XYZ I know of below:



Now thats the LordXYZ I know.

You don't see cockroaches pretending to be bunnyrabbits do you Lord?

No comparison..... just a question. Originally posted by NuclearWinter
You aren't a conspiracy theorist Lord. You're a false authority. There is a difference.

You do realize that there's an "edit" button, don't you?

Originally posted by Spartan005
You do realize that there's an "edit" button, don't you? I already told him this, his responce was he forgets and posts after the 15 minute limit.
This error is too frequent to say he forgets. Instead he simply doesn't bother. That's my opinion anyway.

Originally posted by Rohangiga
yes some people really do give them a bad image like sparton005 sayin that an alien ubducted him and made him have butt sex with him

This must be a joke. He was obviously making fun, or did that go over your head?

Originally posted by Rohangiga
yes some people really do give them a bad image like sparton005 sayin that an alien ubducted him and made him have butt sex with him

*kills self*

Originally posted by Spartan005
*kills self* From laughing too hard? Or did you commit suicide out of disgust or disappointment?

Originally posted by lord xyz
From laughing too hard? Or did you commit suicide out of disgust or disappointment?

A bit of both actually

Originally posted by lord xyz
brought down by... a controlled demolition. See, I'm not as gullible as the rest of you.
Then can you explain why they fell like a building does during a demolition. According to the FEMA, the building went through a "Pancake Collapse". You mind posting the science behind that?

infact, XYZ answer in this thread http://www.killermovies.com/forums/445315_1-can-someone-please-prove-the-official-version-of-911

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Then can you explain why they fell like a building does during a demolition. According to the FEMA, the building went through a "Pancake Collapse". You mind posting the science behind that?

They were designed to collapse like that. Buildings that tall are not designed so as to collapse sideways and take out entire city blocks. The two towers were designed to fall straight down to reduce damage to nearby buildings.

Mind explaining why the towers shouldn't have collapsed like that?

Originally posted by J-Beowulf
They were designed to collapse like that. Buildings that tall are not designed so as to collapse sideways and take out entire city blocks. The two towers were designed to fall straight down to reduce damage to nearby buildings.



Where is this said, please offer a source.
And, since when are buildings designed to collapse?

And, to answer your question, it should not have fallen like that because there is no way for floors to fall on floors in a progressive fashion, get smashed into into pieces that fly out of windows and still maintain it's velocity I.E. how did the collapse reach terminal velocity while having it's mass objectively changed?

EDIT: if your going to respond, please do it in the new thread I made.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
And, since when are buildings designed to collapse?

All skyscrapers are designed with potential structural collapse in mind. If they weren't they would have to be placed the distance of their height aeay from each other. Stop reading conspicay websites and research architecture.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
All skyscrapers are designed with potential structural collapse in mind. If they weren't they would have to be placed the distance of their height aeay from each other. Stop reading conspicay websites and research architecture.

I'm aware that but, the claim that the towers were designed to pancake is just plain false.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I'm aware that but, the claim that the towers were designed to pancake is just plain false.

yeah people need to stop living in a fantasy world that the towers collapsed due to fire.Its funny how you can view videos of where demolition experts have set off explosives to blow up buildings and in all those videos they show the same thing that the buildings topple down in a freefall manner in the same EXACT way the towers fell.Yet people cant deal with it that they were lied to,that the towers fell due to explosives going off.Pitiful.

thats hysterical on his flimsy point about architecture.That means nothing because it was the first time in history that a scyscraper collapsed due to fire even though the other towers were subjected to far more intense heat and burned for hours without collapsing.Not only that,you can also view pics of those buildings where bombs were set off to bring down the buildings and the place looks like a war zone,you view pics of skyscrapers in california that collapsed due to earthquakes,those buildings remained intact and collapsed sideways,yet the in new york,you view all the photos of the towers collapse,in just like the photos of buildings that blown up,new york looks like a war zone as well unlike the towers in california that collapsed due to earthquakes.some people just dont want to learn the truth though.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
yeah people need to stop living in a fantasy world that the towers collapsed due to fire.Its funny how you can view videos of where demolition experts have set off explosives to blow up buildings and in all those videos they show the same thing that the buildings topple down in a freefall manner in the same EXACT way the towers fell.Yet people cant deal with it that they were lied to,that the towers fell due to explosives going off.Pitiful.

thats hysterical on his flimsy point about architecture.That means nothing because it was the first time in history that a scyscraper collapsed due to fire even though the other towers were subjected to far more intense heat and burned for hours without collapsing.Not only that,you can also view pics of those buildings where bombs were set off to bring down the buildings and the place looks like a war zone,you view pics of skyscrapers in california that collapsed due to earthquakes,those buildings remained intact and collapsed sideways,yet the in new york,you view all the photos of the towers collapse,in just like the photos of buildings that blown up,new york looks like a war zone as well unlike the towers in california that collapsed due to earthquakes.some people just dont want to learn the truth though.

1) It was not just fire that caused the collapse, you have a Boeing 767 flying 500 mph into the side of the building. Certainly you consider that when arguing about the forces that caused the collapse? Oh wait, you didn't. Apparently it's not important enough.

2)Call my opinions pitiful all you want, if it makes you feel better. Just fyi, I could care less what you think. This from the guy who is always criticizing others for resorting to insults?

3) An Earthquake did not bring down the towers, a Boeing 767 flying 500 mph slamming into the side of the tower and the subsequent burning of the jet fuel did. Don't compare apples to oranges, please.

4) A warzone? Elaborate please. What did you expect, exactly? Two neat piles of debris? Of course the area is going to look like a warzone. Two towers each over 1,000 feet tall collapsing can do that to an area, especially a congested area like a city.

5) Enough with your "people don't want to learn the truth" crap. It's your opinion, nothing else. Because I don't think like you doesn't mean I'm wrong; I have my opinions.

I do have to thank the Conspiracy Theorists for one thing...

They've given me the topic to an essay I have to write, which I will write about how stupid the 9-11 conspiracies are. vin

I hate them when they say we don't want to learn the truth,Well bullshit, we just don't believe in your shit. But I do believe in the conspiracy of 9/11.

Anyway I am new here but PARKER HAS PISSED ME OFF ALREADY.

Oops sorry for caps but they are rather fitting.

Originally posted by Captain REX
I do have to thank the Conspiracy Theorists for one thing...

They've given me the topic to an essay I have to write, which I will write about how stupid the 9-11 conspiracies are. vin

kinda like how stupid the governments 9-11 conspiracy is that it was Muslins and Bin Laden behind it and George Bush is innocent of all this. thats the stupid 9-11 conspiracy you should write about.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I'm aware that but, the claim that the towers were designed to pancake is just plain false.

Exactly.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
kinda like how stupid the governments 9-11 conspiracy is that it was Muslins and Bin Laden behind it and George Bush is innocent of all this. thats the stupid 9-11 conspiracy you should write about.

Thank you for ignoring my post completely.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Then can you explain why they fell like a building does during a demolition. According to the FEMA, the building went through a "Pancake Collapse". You mind posting the science behind that? You obviously don't know how a demolition works. Those who do however, don't agree that the WTC was brought down by planted explosives. Ever thought why that is? Well they have reason to suggest it:

1. Squibs are visible on every floor starting from the bottom and moving upwards before the collapse
2. Loud simultaneos bangs are heard, not just one or two, but a shitload, especially for a 110 story building.
3. There is not just one hole, there are many holes, which are visible
4. Controlled demolitions do not cause that amount of smoke

Originally posted by lord xyz
You obviously don't know how a demolition works. Those who do however, don't agree that the WTC was brought down by planted explosives. Ever thought why that is? Well they have reason to suggest it:

1. Squibs are visible on every floor starting from the bottom and moving upwards before the collapse
2. Loud simultaneos bangs are heard, not just one or two, but a shitload, especially for a 110 story building.
3. There is not just one hole, there are many holes, which are visible
4. Controlled demolitions do not cause that amount of smoke

1)And, that's a problem why, and considering the unique design of the towers it was mostl likely used to destroy the outer wall.
2)How is that a problem, last I checked bombs are loud.
3)Holes whwere, please be specific?
4)It was not only smoke, it was cement and steel that were blasted into Microns
EDIT: The thing is XYZ, I can claim it was control Demoltions, Mini Nukes, or a Freakin' Death ray for all it matters. The bottom line is that those theories that are put forth are alternatives to the the official story.The official Story is so full of holes and the investigation of 911 was so terrible that an alternative is needed. Fema at one point didn't even display the core correctly, and till now there is no explaination for the Structural Behavior of the collapse.

Also, about the dark dust rolling off of those few core columns, steel Most likely was the source of it.

When something is broken up into dust and then it comes off, it'll just linger in the air, but this stuff is just rolling off in great quantities and expanding upwards as if heated. Also, all fireproofing I've ever seen is white/light gray.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
yeah people need to stop living in a fantasy world that the towers collapsed due to fire.Its funny how you can view videos of where demolition experts have set off explosives to blow up buildings and in all those videos they show the same thing that the buildings topple down in a freefall manner in the same EXACT way the towers fell.Yet people cant deal with it that they were lied to,that the towers fell due to explosives going off.Pitiful.

thats hysterical on his flimsy point about architecture.That means nothing because it was the first time in history that a scyscraper collapsed due to fire even though the other towers were subjected to far more intense heat and burned for hours without collapsing.Not only that,you can also view pics of those buildings where bombs were set off to bring down the buildings and the place looks like a war zone,you view pics of skyscrapers in california that collapsed due to earthquakes,those buildings remained intact and collapsed sideways,yet the in new york,you view all the photos of the towers collapse,in just like the photos of buildings that blown up,new york looks like a war zone as well unlike the towers in california that collapsed due to earthquakes.some people just dont want to learn the truth though.

well looks like I got to post this again since it was ignored earlier.AGAIN all you got to do to come to the conclusion that bombs were set off is just look at buildings were they DID set off bombs in buildings to bring them down such as when they destroyed the kingdome where the seatte seahawks used to play to build a new stadium.In instances like that,the place looked like a war zone afterwards.Look at pics of buildings in california that collapsed due to earthquakes and they toppled over sideways like the trade centers should have.Instead New York looked like a war zone afterwards the same way sites do when buildings are set off by bombs not to mention the towers fell in the same freefall manner buildings do when explosives are set off like the kingdome did .

Originally posted by Mr Parker
well looks like I got to post this again since it was ignored earlier.AGAIN all you got to do to come to the conclusion that bombs were set off is just look at buildings were they DID set off bombs in buildings to bring them down such as when they destroyed the kingdome where the seatte seahawks used to play to build a new stadium.In instances like that,the place looked like a war zone afterwards.Look at pics of buildings in california that collapsed due to earthquakes and they toppled over sideways like the trade centers should have.Instead New York looked like a war zone afterwards the same way sites do when buildings are set off by bombs not to mention the towers fell in the same freefall manner buildings do when explosives are set off like the kingdome did .

Oh, so instead of responding to me refutation of this exact post, you just post it again?

Interesting.

Originally posted by J-Beowulf
Oh, so instead of responding to me refutation of this exact post, you just post it again?

Interesting. He doesn't understand how to debate.

Originally posted by J-Beowulf
1) It was not just fire that caused the collapse, you have a Boeing 767 flying 500 mph into the side of the building. Certainly you consider that when arguing about the forces that caused the collapse? Oh wait, you didn't. Apparently it's not important enough.

2)Call my opinions pitiful all you want, if it makes you feel better. Just fyi, I could care less what you think. This from the guy who is always criticizing others for resorting to insults?

3) An Earthquake did not bring down the towers, a Boeing 767 flying 500 mph slamming into the side of the tower and the subsequent burning of the jet fuel did. Don't compare apples to oranges, please.

4) A warzone? Elaborate please. What did you expect, exactly? Two neat piles of debris? Of course the area is going to look like a warzone. Two towers each over 1,000 feet tall collapsing can do that to an area, especially a congested area like a city.

5) Enough with your "people don't want to learn the truth" crap. It's your opinion, nothing else. Because I don't think like you doesn't mean I'm wrong; I have my opinions.

1.The designer of the building Leslie Robertson was on tape initially saying the towers were designed to withstand a hit from a jetliner.Later on months down the road he changed his story for Nova-obviously the government got to him.

2.likewise,I could care less what you think either so were even.

3.My point I brought up on point one still stands.Ple if you do any research you will find that that the experts have said the heat from the jet fuel was not intense enough to melt the structures.

4.thats dodging the issue that the buildings that normally collapse like those towers in san fran for instance dont look like a war zone.however again it IS normal for a place where bombs were set off to look like a war zone.there should not have been HUGE craters in the underground underneath the buildings for one thing if it was just a collapse due to the fires. thats just logic and common sense and they should have toppled over sideways if it was going to collapse,it should not have fallen in a freefall manner in seconds the same way buildings do when explosives are used. those arent my words,those are the words of the experts.

5.if you have looked at that video by alex jones 9-11 the road to tyranny and you are still defending the official version with these absurd points then your living in denial like many others are.

Originally posted by lord xyz
He doesn't understand how to debate.

No thats you that doesnt.I am not the one that ignores sources that prove that Clinton is evil and corrupted and shows you where you can order those documentary tapes that prove this and then never even bother to do so and just repeat the same damn thing over and over again asking me where I get my sources. Nuclear Winter hit the nail right on the head about you,you never do any research when someone challenges you to check out their sources. I just didnt address his points because normally he engages in insults in his posts so I have had him on my ignore list for a long time.I chose to address them this time because for once he wasnt throwing insults at me when he couldnt counter my points.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
1.The designer of the building Leslie Robertson was on tape initially saying the towers were designed to withstand a hit from a jetliner.Later on months down the road he changed his story for Nova-obviously the government got to him.

2.likewise,I could care less what you think either so were even.

3.My point I brought up on point one still stands.Ple if you do any research you will find that that the experts have said the heat from the jet fuel was not intense enough to melt the structures.

4.thats dodging the issue that the buildings that normally collapse like those towers in san fran for instance dont look like a war zone.however again it IS normal for a place where bombs were set off to look like a war zone.there should not have been HUGE craters in the underground underneath the buildings for one thing if it was just a collapse due to the fires. thats just logic and common sense and they should have toppled over sideways if it was going to collapse,it should not have fallen in a freefall manner in seconds the same way buildings do when explosives are used. those arent my words,those are the words of the experts.

5.if you have looked at that video by alex jones 9-11 the road to tyranny and you are still defending the official version with these absurd points then your living in denial like many others are. 1. It was designed to withstand a 707 crashing into the building due to loss of control or vision, not a 767 -- which is much bigger -- used as a missle to crash directly into the building. Where is evidence of a story changing?

2. Not too be arsey, but isn't it "couldn't care less"?

3. For ****s sake, will you please listen to a credible source?
NO ONE SAID IT MELTED!! THE STORY WAS IT SOFTENED AT UNEVEN TEMPERATURES CAUSING THE STEEL TO GIVE WAY.
The film "The truth and lies of 9/11" even admits that.

4. The key word here is collapse. The fact that the 2 towers are 110 stories and not like normal towers, kinda destroys any example you have.

5. You're the one living in denial. You won't even accept you heard the official story wrong!

again your ignoring the fact that many experts have gone on record saying despite that, even so that it was a boeing 747, it should never have collapsed like that.That it should never have collapsed in a freefall manner within seconds the same way buildings do when explosives are set off. it should have TOPPLED over.thats just logic and common sense. and yes I have heard that one before as well that it softened which weakened the structures.all B.S as well.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
again your ignoring the fact that many experts have gone on record saying despite that, even so that it was a boeing 747, it should never have collapsed like that.That it should never have collapsed in a freefall manner within seconds the same way buildings do when explosives are set off. it should have TOPPLED over.thats just logic and common sense. and yes I have heard that one before as well that it softened which weakened the structures.all B.S as well.

And you are ignoring that many more experts have gone on record saying that it was never designed to take the impact of sucha large plane and that the freefall theory is bullsh*t.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
again your ignoring the fact that many experts have gone on record saying despite that, even so that it was a boeing 747, it should never have collapsed like that.That it should never have collapsed in a freefall manner within seconds the same way buildings do when explosives are set off. it should have TOPPLED over.thats just logic and common sense. and yes I have heard that one before as well that it softened which weakened the structures.all B.S as well. 1. 767
2. What experts?
3. No, not B.S. and can you even prove it?

Originally posted by Mr Parker
No thats you that doesnt.I am not the one that ignores sources that prove that Clinton is evil and corrupted and shows you where you can order those documentary tapes that prove this and then never even bother to do so and just repeat the same damn thing over and over again asking me where I get my sources. Nuclear Winter hit the nail right on the head about you,you never do any research when someone challenges you to check out their sources. I just didnt address his points because normally he engages in insults in his posts so I have had him on my ignore list for a long time.I chose to address them this time because for once he wasnt throwing insults at me when he couldnt counter my points. "No thats you that doesnt."?

When you say insults, do you mean those we say after we've debunked what you've said, or the ones that aren't addressed to anyone personally, but just humour?