Hi, me again, just another thread about WTC 7

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



lord xyz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtYrArNibHo&NR=1

Yeah, I go by ManlySlut's comment.

Bicnarok

lord xyz

Mr Parker

lord xyz
Originally posted by Mr Parker
it ALSO doesnt counter that link that explosives indeed were planted that he helped provide on that other thread by posting that link there,where when you view one of the other videos to that 9-11 thread there called TOTAL PROOF THAT BOMBS WERE PLANTED IN THE BUILDINGS.you got firefighters saying on those tapes they found explosive devices in the buildings and the mainstream media-"who obviously did not know this at that time that that wasnt going to be their official version obviously",because the mainstream media is on hand as reporting that explosions were going off in the buildings.that video CANT be debunked that bombs indeed were planted in the buildings.

Plus you have firefighters going around the country saying they know it,the police know it,that bombs were planted in the buildings,but they have all been instructed to keep their mouths shut and they have done so with the mainstream media because they fear for not only their jobs,but the lifes of their familys as well since some have received death threats to keep their mouths shut about this. but of course,the mainstream media wont report that important issue though.they never report REAL news. *sigh*

1. How can they plant bombs in the buildings? It takes weeks to prepare, costs a lot, needs many people in at once etc.

2. How can they be undetected? Bare in mind that a bunch of demolition experts entering a building is VERY suspicious, and is something that would get reported. Not only that, but bombs are not hard to find, neither is a guy placing a bomb in a building.

3. Why demolish Building 7 in the first place? They didn't get any money off it. Rebuilding the building cost the insurance and way more. What a huge, unlikely **** up.

4. It can still be a conspiracy without a controlled demolition. You assholes don't realise that you have to be skeptical of conspiracy theorists and that they don't have to fake everything to be a conspiracy. JFK for example was said to be a conspiracy because of a second rifle-man, not all the lies told.

5. Someone saying "It sounds like this" or it "looks like whatever" DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING! It's important for a "truth seeker" to know that. Screw Loose Change made that point, which proves you didn't watch that video. What are you afraid of?

6. The fact that the only evidence is people saying they sound like bombs is as stupid as saying Flight 77 looked like a missle. And we all know what happened there don't we?

Counter these 6 points respectively before calling me stupid.

Mr Parker

lord xyz
Originally posted by Mr Parker
that link kinda reminds me of the book CASE CLOSED in the kennedy assassination which endorces the warren commission that oswald did it.The book is very cleverly written.so much so that even after watching the film JFK and reading so many books out there that shoot down the governments theory that it was a lone gunman and prove there was a conspiracy,even after reading all those books beforehand,the first 50 pages or so of that book are so cleverly wriiten that it had me thinking at the time-Hmmm,maybe Im wrong,maybe I have been wrong all this time,maybe oswald really did kill kennedy.its that cleverly written the first 50 pages or so that it had me thinking that oswald really did kill kennedy because its so very cleverly written to make you start thinking.But after that,the storys got so redicules and stupid with made up nonsense,that I knew it was just a bunch of lies.for example,the author would say things that witnesses said,witnesses that I have interviewed over the years who said they never said any of those things Posner said they said,that after reading through it all.i knew it was just a bunch of lies and written to try and fool people that the warren commission was right.

well same thing with this link,I can understand why people like XYZ may think that bombs were not planted in the buildings by just initially looking at this link of that video.at least with this link,it does a much better job of trying to convince you of something,where that last link he posted,that video was so moronic and that guy was such an idiot you couldnt take anything that idiot had to say on that video seriously.But as I was saying,after looking at this link,I can understand why some people like xyz might be brainwashed into believeing that bombs went off in the buildings because like that book case closed that endorces the warren commission,this link is cleverly done to make someone who hasnt done much research into the case,into thinking that the fires caused the building to collapse.
But the thing they conviently left out though is that there were other buildings in that area that were far more seriously damaged than building 7 was.I have seen photographs of them and yet THOSE buildings which ALSO were hit by debris,the structures itself stayed intact and did not collapse.so that shreads to death the theory that building 7 wasnt caused by bombs.you can view those videos to see those buildings that were far more damaged than builiding 7 by going to youtube.com and type in coincidences in 9-11 videos and watch the videos 10 through 15 and you can see that.so again when you watch those videos,that pretty much shoots down this theory that bombs were not planted in building 7.again though I can see why people after seeing this video,would make the mistake that the towers collapsed due to just fire.because this video,just like that book case closed was written brilliantly,is brilliantly done to make you think that inititally.

1. I'm not brainwashed. It's obvious who around here is.

2. This video is a counter on the claims, not trying to make people believe the official story (intentionally), it's saying those conspiracy claims are wrong. He's right.

3. The firefighters could get to the fires in the other buildings. They fouldn't in Building 7. Now, you dcould say that's suspicious, I can handle you thinking that, but don't give me this explosives bullshit. There's no evidince for it. You could also say they planted the fuel tanks, it's more likely, but I wouldn't think of you as stupid as you are by saying "its a controlled demolision, how can it not be roll eyes (sarcastic)".

4. Reply to previous post.

History Buff
Don't think it was an "inside job". However, Bush is still a f**k up, who sat on his WASP Ass, after being told America was under attack. Then decided to invade and start a war with a country that was not AT ALL involved in 9-11. The day this simpleton leaves office will be great day for not only AMerica but the world.

Mr Parker
Yeah your right about Bush but it was definetely an inside job.the evidence on that is overwhelming.

Kinneary
But you still refuse to respond to his posts.

Mr Parker
I addressed everything History Buff said.If your referring to XYZ then No I havent,As i have told him countless of times before and THIS time I am proving it that I am serious,I have him on my ignore list and THIS time I never plan to take him off it because he constantly ignores facts all the time that prove him wrong and goes around calling people names when he cant counter their points and never remembers ANYTHING you tell him,the worst memory of ANYBODY I have EVER encountered before on thEse boards,even when its repeated over and over,he never remembers it and will never read books that you refer him to that prove and document what your saying to be true .Thats why people like winter,ashtar and deano have a major problem with him and like me,dont listen to him anymore.Well Deano I think still does,but we dont.Now if YOU want to talk about his insane ramblings he goes on all the time then I WILL discuss them with YOU.NOT him. Plus I dont debate people who have the ignorant bellief that Clinton was a good president and you cant go wrong voting for the democrats. laughing People talk about how Deano is absurd in his lizard people beliefs,well maybe he is,but saying you cant go wrong voting for the democrats is just as ludicrise as that is and plain ignorant. laughing plus he'll take things literally like I know that YOU know what I mean when I say the republicans and democrats sleep in bed together. well for a long time he thought I was serious and meant it literally. laughing laughing

J-Beowulf
lmao Parker you say he's on your ignore list every single time, and yet you keep responding to him...

Blax_Hydralisk
Beowulf would you kindly have my babies?

Mr Parker
You been hanging around xyz wayyyy too long cause your deveolping the same reading comprehension problems he has.I made it perfectly clear in my posts that those posts were ALL directed at Bynarok.for HIS benefit and anybody else who wanted to read them and the last two were for history buff and kinnery.quit telling fibs like XYZ constantly does.I thought I made that perfectly clear by qouting Bynarok in those two posts that those posts were for HIS benefit and anybody other than XYZ that wanted to read them. roll eyes (sarcastic)

SnazzySmurph
Originally posted by Mr Parker
If your referring to XYZ then No I havent,As i have told him countless of times before and THIS time I am proving it that I am serious,I have him on my ignore list and THIS time I never plan to take him off it because he constantly ignores facts all the time that prove him wrong and goes around calling people names when he cant counter their points and never remembers ANYTHING you tell him,the worst memory of ANYBODY I have EVER encountered before on thEse boards,even when its repeated over and over,he never remembers it and will never read books that you refer him to that prove and document what your saying to be true . The truly sad part is that I've only quoted one sentence. no expression

Blax_Hydralisk
lmao. Parker fails again.

chithappens
Originally posted by lord xyz
*sigh*

1. How can they plant bombs in the buildings? It takes weeks to prepare, costs a lot, needs many people in at once etc.

2. How can they be undetected? Bare in mind that a bunch of demolition experts entering a building is VERY suspicious, and is something that would get reported. Not only that, but bombs are not hard to find, neither is a guy placing a bomb in a building.

3. Why demolish Building 7 in the first place? They didn't get any money off it. Rebuilding the building cost the insurance and way more. What a huge, unlikely **** up.

4. It can still be a conspiracy without a controlled demolition. You assholes don't realise that you have to be skeptical of conspiracy theorists and that they don't have to fake everything to be a conspiracy. JFK for example was said to be a conspiracy because of a second rifle-man, not all the lies told.

5. Someone saying "It sounds like this" or it "looks like whatever" DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING! It's important for a "truth seeker" to know that. Screw Loose Change made that point, which proves you didn't watch that video. What are you afraid of?

6. The fact that the only evidence is people saying they sound like bombs is as stupid as saying Flight 77 looked like a missle. And we all know what happened there don't we?

Counter these 6 points respectively before calling me stupid.

1) We are talking about people who own the people being responsible for what happened. WTF would be so hard in that case?

2) See #1

3) I want you to cite a place that states no one got any money from that and that they DO PLAN TO REBUILD THOSE BUILDINGS.

4) What does that add?

5) Look @ 4

6) To reiterate #1 and #2, no building can fall down so gracefully (and that is a very graceful fall for a building of that size) simply from fire. You show me the principle that makes that work and then let's talk.

"You see that thing there. How it's leaning? It's coming down. There's no way to stop it." (this is a paraphrasing and not a direct quote from the video; time 5:40-5:55).

With this is mind, remember the building was hit on one side. The fire would have to be more intense on that side. Anyone who knows basic chemistry knows that without a controlled envoirment, it is impossible to have a fire burn at the same temperature at two given sides for something that big AND WITH A HOLE ON THE SIDE. Now, the only way it could fall without being pretty far off for the structure to have the same weakness THROUGHOUT AT NEARLY THE SAME TIME WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE GIVEN THE SITUATION. The sides would fall VERY unevenly like if the World's Strongest Man pulled your arm as hard as he could while you just stood straight up - it would be similar to that.

Flashes and big bangs are not necessary for demolition, just cheaper and there is no reason to muffle either. Similar to shooting a gun into a pillow, you can create a silencer of sorts. Not difficult just unnecessary.

If you can explain that, feel free...

lord xyz
Originally posted by chithappens
1) We are talking about people who own the people being responsible for what happened. W-We are?
Originally posted by Mr Parker
it ALSO doesnt counter that link that explosives indeed were planted

Originally posted by chithappens
3) I want you to cite a place that states no one got any money from that and that they DO PLAN TO REBUILD THOSE BUILDINGS. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301328.html
http://911myths.com/html/windfall.html

Originally posted by chithappens
4) What does that add? That just because we say it's a not a controlled demolition, doesn't mean you have to call us ignorant sheeple.

Originally posted by chithappens
5) Look @ 4 That he doesn't have any real evidence.

Originally posted by chithappens
6) To reiterate #1 and #2, no building can fall down so gracefully (and that is a very graceful fall for a building of that size) simply from fire. You show me the principle that makes that work and then let's talk. It also had structural damage. Nice of you to miss that out.

Originally posted by chithappens
"You see that thing there. How it's leaning? It's coming down. There's no way to stop it." (this is a paraphrasing and not a direct quote from the video; time 5:40-5:55).

With this is mind, remember the building was hit on one side. The fire would have to be more intense on that side. Anyone who knows basic chemistry knows that without a controlled envoirment, it is impossible to have a fire burn at the same temperature at two given sides for something that big AND WITH A HOLE ON THE SIDE. Now, the only way it could fall without being pretty far off for the structure to have the same weakness THROUGHOUT AT NEARLY THE SAME TIME WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE GIVEN THE SITUATION. The sides would fall VERY unevenly like if the World's Strongest Man pulled your arm as hard as he could while you just stood straight up - it would be similar to that.

Flashes and big bangs are not necessary for demolition, just cheaper and there is no reason to muffle either. Similar to shooting a gun into a pillow, you can create a silencer of sorts. Not difficult just unnecessary.

If you can explain that, feel free... Remember in the video, the penthouse collapsed first, and as it said, that caused damage to the lower floors. Also, as I said, their is structural damage and their was fuel tanks all over the building exploding etc.

Maybe you should look at THE WHOLE story, then we can talk.

Mr Parker
Originally posted by chithappens
1) We are talking about people who own the people being responsible for what happened. WTF would be so hard in that case?

2) See #1

3) I want you to cite a place that states no one got any money from that and that they DO PLAN TO REBUILD THOSE BUILDINGS.

4) What does that add?

5) Look @ 4

6) To reiterate #1 and #2, no building can fall down so gracefully (and that is a very graceful fall for a building of that size) simply from fire. You show me the principle that makes that work and then let's talk.

"You see that thing there. How it's leaning? It's coming down. There's no way to stop it." (this is a paraphrasing and not a direct quote from the video; time 5:40-5:55).

With this is mind, remember the building was hit on one side. The fire would have to be more intense on that side. Anyone who knows basic chemistry knows that without a controlled envoirment, it is impossible to have a fire burn at the same temperature at two given sides for something that big AND WITH A HOLE ON THE SIDE. Now, the only way it could fall without being pretty far off for the structure to have the same weakness THROUGHOUT AT NEARLY THE SAME TIME WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE GIVEN THE SITUATION. The sides would fall VERY unevenly like if the World's Strongest Man pulled your arm as hard as he could while you just stood straight up - it would be similar to that.

Flashes and big bangs are not necessary for demolition, just cheaper and there is no reason to muffle either. Similar to shooting a gun into a pillow, you can create a silencer of sorts. Not difficult just unnecessary.

If you can explain that, feel free...

Dont waste your time with xyz chit.He's not interested in the truth.Your point you made on number 6 is what I been telling him and a few others here for years.As I said,he ignores facts like that so he's not worth the effort.Thats something he cant comprehend that like you said,its not neccessary to have flashes and big bangs for demolitions.He cant comprehend it that a mere jet fire collapse of a building is not going to make a building fall straight down in the exact same freefall manner the exact same way buildings do in demolitions. roll eyes (sarcastic) Not to mention that just like the towers,there was also molten steel under the rubble for weeks.something thats totally inconsistant with just a mere collapse of a building due to jet fuel fire. roll eyes (sarcastic) pLus concrete isnt going to DISINTEGRATE into powder from just a mere fire collapse due to jet fuel.thats totally inconsistant with a jet fuel fire collapse,it IS consistant though with explosives being used,he'll ignore that point though.

There were squibs and bangs that went off as well.Those are clear in the videos.They were just different is all.they dont HAVE to be the exact same way as seen in typical demolitions.Like you said,you dont HAVE to have flashes and bangs neccessary for demolitions.something people around here dont understand.The other thing that shoots down the pathetic argument that bombs werent planted in the buildings is that witnesses reported feeling vibrations on the ground before the plane struck the tower.But the main thing that he ignores constantly as any honest scientist will tell you is that in the videos,you can see the south tower clearly tilts towards the side as it begins to collapse and then all of a sudden gets pulled back into the center of the roof.

That defys the laws of science that all scientists have gone by for thousands of years for the rules of gravity.The laws of science dictate that the antenna on the south tower SHOULD have continued to tilt towards the right side and fallen sideways off the building.that the ONLY way it is possible for it to be pulled back in like that is with demolitions. roll eyes (sarcastic) it just goes through one ear and out the other with these people though.they're not interested in the truth.these are FACTS,not theorys as you know.the other thing that shoots down the pathetic theory that bombs never went off is that the steel girders were found cut into 30 foot lengths with molten metal on them when they would have remained intact.the only way thats possible is with demolitions.

You not only have witnesses testifying that were inside the buildings who were there in 93 when bombs went off as well saying they heard the exact same sound of explosions going off below before the towers hit being interviewed that day saying -oh no its just like 93,bombs are going off again.you have several firefighters saying explosions as well.Plus from that video,you can tell there were only fires on a few floors and they were small and manageble and there are videos out there that show buildings 6 and 8 I believe are the building numbers,were far more severly damaged and THOSE fires were raging yet those two buildings stayed intact and did not fall.

you can point out logic like that to xyz chit,but trust me,in the end,you will find out like me winter and ashtar has that he will just ignore facts and has no interest in learning the truth which is why we dont bother with him anymore.

lord xyz
Wasting his time? I just replied to his post, something you refuse to do with me. What are you afraid of?

Scythe
Explosives located inside the buildings since the beginning? I've never heard of that theory ever.

Mr Parker
Huh? who said they were planted in the beginning? I havent heard of that one either.

Sandai Kitetsu
We covered Building 7 before, Should I just repost everything I posted before?

Sandai Kitetsu
Originally posted by chithappens
1) We are talking about people who own the people being responsible for what happened. WTF would be so hard in that case?

2) See #1

3) I want you to cite a place that states no one got any money from that and that they DO PLAN TO REBUILD THOSE BUILDINGS.


They already rebuilt WTC 7:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301328.html

And, they are working on the the freedom tower to replace WTC 1 & 2

Also, the towers were a liability as well. They costtly and a asbesto's bomb shell. The only reason why they weren't legally demolished, is because it's illegal to do so. Furthermore,the towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements. most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Scythe
Explosives located inside the buildings since the beginning? I've never heard of that theory ever. Originally posted by Mr Parker
Huh? who said they were planted in the beginning? I havent heard of that one either. Beginning as in before 9/11 or since it was built?

Sandai Kitetsu
Also, The CIA, The Department of defense, and the secret service were all tenants of the Solomon building. Furthermore, Mayor Rudolf Giuliani had a command center specially built within WTC 7.

Mr Parker
very true.there was also this one fellow worker of Giuliani's who went to the building shortly before it collapsed and he was in his office there talking to someone on a radio telling him the mayor wasnt there and nobody was in the office and he said that the fellow co worker of Giuliani's then said on the radio-He's not there? get out of there,they are going to pull the building.!!!!! and the man bailed out of a window a few floors up saying he heard explosions going off so he knew he didnt have much time to get out and he just barely avoided having the building topple on him by getting to nearby cover.

but the thing that shoots down the pathetic attempts by people to try and convince them bombs were not planted in the buildings is again,to say the south towers antenna would just magically come back and cave into the roof like it did REVERSING its direction where the videos show it is clearly getting ready to topple sideways and TIP over-which is what the top half of the towers would have done in just a mere collapse,is you got to ignore the laws of science that scientists have gone by for thousands of years and of course,as we know,in just a mere collapse of a building due to fire,its going to gradually come apart and take hours NOT freefall the same way those buildings did DOWNWARDS.not to mention that your not going to have puffs of dust shooting upwards like the towers did and the concrete disintegrates into powder.thats just being a plain moron being that bullcrap.then you have molten metal under bld 7 as well.and as i said before,you have towers 6 and 8 damaged far more severely with RAGING fires where bld 7 had just small manageable fires,yet those buildings did not collapse.probably because they didnt need to be imploded to get rid of all the CIA secrets ect that silverstein had in his building.
To believe THAT,thats the same logic as saying if you jump out of an airplane,you can reverse your direction and get back into the airplane. laughing same thing,no difference,in both cases,your defying the laws of science that scientists have gone by for thousands of years. roll eyes (sarcastic) laughing laughing

Magee
Unless you are an experienced demolition engineer then you don't have the right to say how it should have fallen. Hell no one has a clue what the hell would happen to buildings that big that had just been, you know hit by a 747 passenger jet moving at considerable speed. Watching the video that day I cant understand the whole zomgz it didn't fall right, it simply fell down on its self which makes more sense than it falling over which imo would be the case if it was hit lower down by the aircraft. Mr.Parker you made no point and your post was filled with crap, written by some one who has no idea what he is talking about but likes to think he does because he read a book omg.

Oh and mr.parker your posts are pathetic and filled with non sensical rantings of some one who just does not seem to have the slightest clue yet likes to believe he knows it all. You're English skills are that of a 12 year old and my eyes bleed every time I read one of your posts, I'm adding you to ignore because it just frustrates me every time I read one of you're rants.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
Also, The CIA, The Department of defense, and the secret service were all tenants of the Solomon building. Furthermore, Mayor Rudolf Giuliani had a command center specially built within WTC 7. Link? Reference? Quote? Something I can google? Anything that shows this isn't something you made up?

Sandai Kitetsu
Originally posted by lord xyz
Link? Reference? Quote? Something I can google? Anything that shows this isn't something you made up?
Just google the tenanets of building 7. erm

Or these articles:

NY TIMES 12/20/2001 City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center

lord xyz
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
Just google the tenanets of building 7. erm

Or these articles:

NY TIMES 12/20/2001 City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center Now I'll admit, that does seem suspicious.

Sandai Kitetsu
It's good to be a skeptical conspiracy theorist, since there is alot of crap coming from the movement itself. Especially from people like Professor Steven Jones.

Mr Parker
whats your problem with steven jones ashtar?

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Magee
Unless you are an experienced demolition engineer then you don't have the right to say how it should have fallen. Hell no one has a clue what the hell would happen to buildings that big that had just been, you know hit by a 747 passenger jet moving at considerable speed. Watching the video that day I cant understand the whole zomgz it didn't fall right, it simply fell down on its self which makes more sense than it falling over which imo would be the case if it was hit lower down by the aircraft. Mr.Parker you made no point and your post was filled with crap, written by some one who has no idea what he is talking about but likes to think he does because he read a book omg.

Oh and mr.parker your posts are pathetic and filled with non sensical rantings of some one who just does not seem to have the slightest clue yet likes to believe he knows it all. You're English skills are that of a 12 year old and my eyes bleed every time I read one of your posts, I'm adding you to ignore because it just frustrates me every time I read one of you're rants.

sigh.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
It's good to be a skeptical conspiracy theorist, since there is alot of crap coming from the movement itself. Especially from people like Professor Steven Jones. I'm glad you see the benefits of my side. In a world of lies, you can't trust ANYONE! That includes your greatest source.

Sandai Kitetsu
Originally posted by Mr Parker
whats your problem with steven jones ashtar?

He's forged pictures and made ridiculous arguments. I'll make a thread soon, about the guy.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I'm glad you see the benefits of my side. In a world of lies, you can't trust ANYONE! That includes your greatest source.

Word, I agree with that.

The Grey Fox
Originally posted by lord xyz
*sigh*

1. How can they plant bombs in the buildings? It takes weeks to prepare, costs a lot, needs many people in at once etc.

2. How can they be undetected? Bare in mind that a bunch of demolition experts entering a building is VERY suspicious, and is something that would get reported. Not only that, but bombs are not hard to find, neither is a guy placing a bomb in a building.

3. Why demolish Building 7 in the first place? They didn't get any money off it. Rebuilding the building cost the insurance and way more. What a huge, unlikely **** up.

4. It can still be a conspiracy without a controlled demolition. You assholes don't realise that you have to be skeptical of conspiracy theorists and that they don't have to fake everything to be a conspiracy. JFK for example was said to be a conspiracy because of a second rifle-man, not all the lies told.

5. Someone saying "It sounds like this" or it "looks like whatever" DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING! It's important for a "truth seeker" to know that. Screw Loose Change made that point, which proves you didn't watch that video. What are you afraid of?

6. The fact that the only evidence is people saying they sound like bombs is as stupid as saying Flight 77 looked like a missle. And we all know what happened there don't we?

Counter these 6 points respectively before calling me stupid.

For the purpose of debate, I'll try and counter your arguements...

1. Controlled demolition can take as short as 6 hours to prepare, the fire dept. have to do it every known and again.

2. They're the government... they're here to help us. They can do what they want.

3. To further create a reason to invade two innocent countries and further their oil supply, and create a sense of fear to control the people.

4. K then, this isn't aimed at me and I can't answer it.

5. True, but when there is evidence backing it up then it is viable. Also, what are you afraid of? The truth?

6. Yeah... the plane crashed into the tower. Why did the bottom fall, just like a building under demolition would?

Lord Xyz... your reply?

lord xyz
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
For the purpose of debate, I'll try and counter your arguements...

1. Controlled demolition can take as short as 6 hours to prepare, the fire dept. have to do it every known and again.

2. They're the government... they're here to help us. They can do what they want.

3. To further create a reason to invade two innocent countries and further their oil supply, and create a sense of fear to control the people.

4. K then, this isn't aimed at me and I can't answer it.

5. True, but when there is evidence backing it up then it is viable. Also, what are you afraid of? The truth?

6. Yeah... the plane crashed into the tower. Why did the bottom fall, just like a building under demolition would?

Lord Xyz... your reply? 1. What about the cost? The people required? Not only that, but what's the fire dept. got to do with it? And no, controlled demolitions (especially on buildings as big and complex as that) can't take a mere 6 hours to prepare.

2. So, they can go invisible?

3. But didn't they already do that with WTC 1, the pentagon and WTC2?

4. Well, yeah it is aimed at you, if you claim it's a controlled demolition, and that it's evidence of a conspiracy.

5. What evidence? Please provide it to me.

6. The bottom fell? The bottom collapsed because of the weakened steel, 20 story holes and the penthouse falling damaging the lower floors. Watch the video if you don't believe me.

The Grey Fox
Originally posted by lord xyz
1. What about the cost? The people required? Not only that, but what's the fire dept. got to do with it? And no, controlled demolitions (especially on buildings as big and complex as that) can't take a mere 6 hours to prepare.

2. So, they can go invisible?

3. But didn't they already do that with WTC 1, the pentagon and WTC2?

4. Well, yeah it is aimed at you, if you claim it's a controlled demolition, and that it's evidence of a conspiracy.

5. What evidence? Please provide it to me.

6. The bottom fell? The bottom collapsed because of the weakened steel, 20 story holes and the penthouse falling damaging the lower floors. Watch the video if you don't believe me.

1. They're one of the richest governments in the world. 1% of what they spend on arms a year could feed most of Africa for a year. Naturally, demolishing the building would take longer -- but it would be possible.

2. The FBI can do what they want. Nobody would suspect them.

3. Yes -- it was pointless.

4. I'm not claiming anything. Note I said 'for the purpose of debate'.

5. Didn't say there was. But some say there is.

6. I watched the video, and to be fair I doubt it was a controlled demolition.

Can we agree?

lord xyz
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
1. They're one of the richest governments in the world. 1% of what they spend on arms a year could feed most of Africa for a year. Naturally, demolishing the building would take longer -- but it would be possible.

2. The FBI can do what they want. Nobody would suspect them.

3. Yes -- it was pointless.

4. I'm not claiming anything. Note I said 'for the purpose of debate'.

5. Didn't say there was. But some say there is.

6. I watched the video, and to be fair I doubt it was a controlled demolition.

Can we agree? 1. People required? Time? It's not possible, where are they gonna get the people to do it? It's just too unrealistic.

2. Who said anything about the FBI? And your point is stupid. If someone is planting a bomb in my building, I wouldn't let him because he's someone I wouldn't suspect, he's planting a ****ing bomb in the building!

3. Brilliant conclusion. Makes so much more sense than it collapsing on it's own.

4. K.

5. So you are talking bullshit.

6. You're right, it wasn't.

Well, I don't know what you're trying to prove here, so not yet.

Sandai Kitetsu
Petrol fires cannot weaken a steel building in new york to the point of collapse. As for damage, the Deutsche Bank Building had a 22 ton piece of the outer wall thrown at it. And, did not fall, why did wtc 7 fall? Nevermind, the fact that debris was flying all over the place, something that a gravitational collapse cannot do. Furthermore, there is no clear picture of a 20 story hole on the south face like the NIST claimed. Just one claim from a firemen, a fake video showing a gaping hole, and pictures from an obscure angle.

Captain REX
...who cares?

Korosan
At least grey fox is making a good debate with XYZ instead of making 2 sentences that take up the space of 3 paragraphs of a rant that goes around in circles not really proving anything to anyone ^_^

lord xyz
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

This website is about most of the WTC7 myths. It doesn't mention the petrol fires claim, but the fires there themselves is evidence it wasn't demolished.

However, you could argue the fire shouldn't have been that extreme. That's a different debate, but I always think of that possibilty.

Sandai Kitetsu
Originally posted by lord xyz
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

This website is about most of the WTC7 myths.


Like I've said before, the site mostly debunks theories from scholars from 911 or 911 truth. Mainly theories from Prof. Steven Jones, which I know for a fact are stupid I.E.: Thermite, Magma, etc.



Originally posted by lord xyz

It doesn't mention the petrol fires claim, but the fires there themselves is evidence it wasn't demolished.

However, you could argue the fire shouldn't have been that extreme. That's a different debate, but I always think of that possibilty.

Well, of course it was a petro fire, since the fire was caused by detonation of fuel tanks. Also, the "Paint Deformation test" done by the NIST shows the fires to range around 200-300C,

lord xyz
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
Like I've said before, the site mostly debunks theories from scholars from 911 or 911 truth. Mainly theories from Prof. Steven Jones, which I know for a fact are stupid I.E.: Thermite, Magma, etc.





Well, of course it was a petro fire, since the fire was caused by detonation of fuel tanks. Also, the "Paint Deformation test" done by the NIST shows the fires to range around 200-300C, Uhh, no. That website debunks, well, all the WTC7 myths in this forum! Yeah, that one website.

So, we're in agreement it wasn't a demolition?

The Grey Fox
Originally posted by lord xyz
1. People required? Time? It's not possible, where are they gonna get the people to do it? It's just too unrealistic.

2. Who said anything about the FBI? And your point is stupid. If someone is planting a bomb in my building, I wouldn't let him because he's someone I wouldn't suspect, he's planting a ****ing bomb in the building!

3. Brilliant conclusion. Makes so much more sense than it collapsing on it's own.

4. K.

5. So you are talking bullshit.

6. You're right, it wasn't.

Well, I don't know what you're trying to prove here, so not yet.

1. Well... obviously... it didn't happen. I'm just debating 'cause I'm bored, you know?

2. The people wouldn't know they were planting a bomb if it wasn't on a checked floor.

3. Too right.

4. KK.

5.Yup!

6. I know.

Sandai Kitetsu
Originally posted by lord xyz
Uhh, no. That website debunks, well, all the WTC7 myths in this forum! Yeah, that one website.

No, it doesn't, I've been to that website several times. Read there articles, and brought up counter points. You can't just link a website, and act as if everything is refuted. Debate by bringing up points, like how does a gravitational collapse cause girders to fly hundreds of feet hitting wtc 7 and creates a fire?

Originally posted by lord xyz

So, we're in agreement it wasn't a demolition?

If you can prove yor case, then why not.

Sandai Kitetsu
There are so many things wong with this argument. (Yes, I edited parts about pulls. I don't care about the pull claim)

First of all, how is it possible for debris hundreds of feet away to hit WTC 7 in the first place? Gravational collapses do not send debris flying wayward in every direction. The Height of the tower is irrelevant, because the distance between each tower is the same. Now unless steel girders can glide on the wind, I don't see how this is fire is even possible.






This goes back to my earlier point about debris being sent flying in the first place. The Bankers Trust building was hit by a 22-ton piece of the outer wall and it was farther from the Twin Towers. Even if fire is the culprit behind that colapse, it does not explain all those wayward ejections of debris.


http://www.debunking911.com/Bankers.jpg



I'm curious as to what refrence one would use for a fire based collapsed of a steel high rise. . .oops, none because fire has never brought a building down. So, how can one say a building is in danger of collapse due to fire alone?

Also, regardless of the design, fires have never compromised the buildings structural intergrity.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
There are so many things wong with this argument. (Yes, I edited parts about pulls. I don't care about the pull claim)

First of all, how is it possible for debris hundreds of feet away to hit WTC 7 in the first place? Gravational collapses do not send debris flying wayward in every direction. The Height of the tower is irrelevant, because the distance between each tower is the same. Now unless steel girders can glide on the wind, I don't see how this is fire is even possible. All that shit's got to go somewhere.

Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
This goes back to my earlier point about debris being sent flying in the first place. The Bankers Trust building was hit by a 22-ton piece of the outer wall and it was farther from the Twin Towers. Even if fire is the culprit behind that colapse, it does not explain all those wayward ejections of debris.


http://www.debunking911.com/Bankers.jpg Yeah, it didn't catch fire.

Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
I'm curious as to what refrence one would use for a fire based collapsed of a steel high rise. . .oops, none because fire has never brought a building down. So, how can one say a building is in danger of collapse due to fire alone?

Also, regardless of the design, fires have never compromised the buildings structural intergrity. Fire brought WTC7 down. Did you see how intense and big it was? Enough fire can bring a building down easily. Especially since steel can't fight a fire well.

Sandai Kitetsu
Originally posted by lord xyz
All that shit's got to go somewhere.

Down, it goes down. It can't go up or across city, that defies the laws of physics.


Originally posted by lord xyz

Yeah, it didn't catch fire.

Fire brought WTC7 down. Did you see how intense and big it was? Enough fire can bring a building down easily. Especially since steel can't fight a fire well.

If steel can't fight fire well, why has no steel building fallen pre 911. And, the fire was nothing compared to the meridian plaza building which burnt for 19 hours straight and did not fall.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
Down, it goes down. It can't go up or across city, that defies the laws of physics.




If steel can't fight fire well, why has no steel building fallen pre 911. And, the fire was nothing compared to the meridian plaza building which burnt for 19 hours straight and did not fall. Dude, when you push down on something, it goes out. Can't go down, the ground's in the way.

Different situations altogether.

Sandai Kitetsu
Originally posted by lord xyz
Dude, when you push down on something, it goes out. Can't go down, the ground's in the way.

Different situations altogether.

Xyz, when you let go of an item, it gets pulled down by what is known as gravity. Gravity does not throw things all over the place. Where did the energy that tossed: steel Girders, a 22-ton piece of the outerwall, and 330 ton piece of the outer wall come from?

lord xyz
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
Xyz, when you let go of an item, it gets pulled down by what is known as gravity. Gravity does not throw things all over the place. Where did the energy that tossed: steel Girders, a 22-ton piece of the outerwall, and 330 ton piece of the outer wall come from? Oh god.

Take an orange from your ktichen. Press down on it, you should see it pushed out in all directions.

Korosan
XYZ not wanting to start another thing going on here but there was no giant hand pushing down on WTC, however, on the inside of the towers, the floors fell on top of one another when the tower collapsed, anyone think its possible to compare all that weight to that of the "Giant hand on an orange" ?

Sandai Kitetsu
Originally posted by lord xyz
Oh god.

Take an orange from your ktichen. Press down on it, you should see it pushed out in all directions.

That's because your putting your energy onto the orange. Where's the energy required to do that to the towers coming from, Allah?

Are you comparing the floors of the towers to a gaint hand? erm
Why did the debris flow outward over the top sending pieces of the floors as well and why was the outer wall pulerised?

Magee
Wow, the energy is coming from the collapse of the towers, whats so hard to understand? The pressure would have been constantly building as each floor fell so I imagine there would be lots of pressure as it was reaching the ground, walls and metal are pushed apart and easily sent 100s of metres due to force + height. Its not hard to grasp when you let go of the bias. Of course you are probably trying to argue there wasnt enough force to send these things so far which im sorry but you just don't know that regardless of what you read on the internet.

Korosan
Originally posted by Magee
Wow, the energy is coming from the collapse of the towers, whats so hard to understand? The pressure would have been constantly building as each floor fell so I imagine there would be lots of pressure as it was reaching the ground, walls and metal are pushed apart and easily sent 100s of metres due to force + height. Its not hard to grasp when you let go of the bias. Of course you are probably trying to argue there wasnt enough force to send these things so far which im sorry but you just don't know that regardless of what you read on the internet.

Exactly my point about the towers. Not going to comment about the part about bias and stuffs.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Korosan
XYZ not wanting to start another thing going on here but there was no giant hand pushing down on WTC, however, on the inside of the towers, the floors fell on top of one another when the tower collapsed, anyone think its possible to compare all that weight to that of the "Giant hand on an orange" ?
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
That's because your putting your energy onto the orange. Where's the energy required to do that to the towers coming from, Allah?

Are you comparing the floors of the towers to a gaint hand? erm
Why did the debris flow outward over the top sending pieces of the floors as well and why was the outer wall pulerised? Because it was falling fast, the floors above were very heavy, the pressure inside was very high, and all of that was increasing!

You're arguing that there wasn't enough force for it to happen. You cannot know that. There are things to suggest there was though.

Sandai Kitetsu
Originally posted by Magee
Wow, the energy is coming from the collapse of the towers, whats so hard to understand? The pressure would have been constantly building as each floor fell so I imagine there would be lots of pressure as it was reaching the ground, walls and metal are pushed apart and easily sent 100s of metres due to force + height. Its not hard to grasp when you let go of the bias. Of course you are probably trying to argue there wasnt enough force to send these things so far which im sorry but you just don't know that regardless of what you read on the internet.

Pressure, what pressure from floors can send steel girders flying 600 hundred feet into the air?! Can send a 22 ton piece of the outer wall across town to hit the Bankerstrust building?! The towers were not pressurized in the first place, so, where are you getting this magical pressure from?

And, walls are pushed apart eaasily, right. Because we all know air pressure can send pieces of the outer wall weighing tons across town.

Sandai Kitetsu
Originally posted by lord xyz
Because it was falling fast, the floors above were very heavy, the pressure inside was very high, and all of that was increasing!

You're arguing that there wasn't enough force for it to happen. You cannot know that. There are things to suggest there was though.
What pressure, what are you guys talking about. The towers were not air tight or pressurized. And, if they were, the pressure should have dissipated after having planes slammed into them creating huge craters. So, what are you talking about.

Korosan
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
What pressure, what are you guys talking about. The towers were not air tight or pressurized. And, if they were, the pressure should have dissipated after having planes slammed into them creating huge craters. So, what are you talking about.

The inside of the towers, the pressure from the floors falling on top of one another. Its very complicated for my to explain in on here in just words but if you look at the structure of the WTC 1 and 2 you will understand what I mean when they fell straight down.

Sandai Kitetsu
Pressure from the impact of floors cannot blast steel girders 100 of feet, Send 22 ton piece of the outerwall flying across town, or send 330 ton piece of the wall (heavier than the plane) flying.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
What pressure, what are you guys talking about. The towers were not air tight or pressurized. And, if they were, the pressure should have dissipated after having planes slammed into them creating huge craters. So, what are you talking about. No pressure? You're kidding right? how did the windows blast out? Oh right, you think they're squibs.

Sandai Kitetsu
The entire outer wall was blasted off, your telling me pressure from falling floors could do that? How could that much pressure build up anyway, and if it that why did it remain after there was a gashing hole in both towers?

lord xyz
I'm not an expert, but bombs is just stupid.

Sandai Kitetsu
Originally posted by lord xyz
I'm not an expert, but bombs is just stupid.

Makes more sense than air pressure from floors breaking off pieces of the outer wall that is bigger than the plane. erm

You don't have to be an expert, just use facts and common sense. Just because an expert tells you something, doesn't mean it's true.

Korosan
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
Makes more sense than air pressure from floors breaking off pieces of the outer wall that is bigger than the plane. erm

You don't have to be an expert, just use facts and common sense. Just because an expert tells you something, doesn't mean it's true.

well we don't mean air pressure...I mean more...along the lines of..I guess weight type pressure? lol I Don't think it would make things fly UP and over, but maybe to the side and then downward maybe. Looser debris may go flying like that, but something 22 tons...I don't think that should go that far lol Also...I find it funny the line "Just because an expert tells you something, Doesn't mean its true." when many people on threads like this claim "Experts in demolition claim so and so" and "Experts in blah blah blah say so-and-so" I would quote them but...I don't really feel like it now...

lord xyz
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
Makes more sense than air pressure from floors breaking off pieces of the outer wall that is bigger than the plane. erm

You don't have to be an expert, just use facts and common sense. Just because an expert tells you something, doesn't mean it's true. I'm not the person you should be saying that to. Really.

Originally posted by Korosan
well we don't mean air pressure...I mean more...along the lines of..I guess weight type pressure? lol I Don't think it would make things fly UP and over, but maybe to the side and then downward maybe. Looser debris may go flying like that, but something 22 tons...I don't think that should go that far lol Also...I find it funny the line "Just because an expert tells you something, Doesn't mean its true." when many people on threads like this claim "Experts in demolition claim so and so" and "Experts in blah blah blah say so-and-so" I would quote them but...I don't really feel like it now... Yeah, it is air pressure, but air pressure can do that. Ever heard of hurricanes? And, the towers are heavy, it was falling fast, that is a lot of force, considering the towers are fairly narrow, that is a lot of pressure.

Sandai Kitetsu
Are you seriously comparing the impact from the floors to hurrican force winds?!

lord xyz
Originally posted by Sandai Kitetsu
Are you seriously comparing the impact from the floors to hurrican force winds?! No, what I said. I guess I really should have made them seperate paragraphs and not use and, oh well.

chithappens
Sigh, pressure is different from just gravity.

"Pressure" is generally with an enclosed or closed enviornment. We know pretty much how air pressure works and the such I assume.

Mass that falls on top of one another without a closed enviornment does NOT work under the same principles as pressure in a closed environment.

Totally different ideas you are talking about. I do not want to go into some grand explaination since I am no professor and no one would listen for like of a degree, but whatever. You do not need it to explain this but yea...

lord xyz
Originally posted by chithappens
Sigh, pressure is different from just gravity.

"Pressure" is generally with an enclosed or closed enviornment. We know pretty much how air pressure works and the such I assume.

Mass that falls on top of one another without a closed enviornment does NOT work under the same principles as pressure in a closed environment.

Totally different ideas you are talking about. I do not want to go into some grand explaination since I am no professor and no one would listen for like of a degree, but whatever. You do not need it to explain this but yea... Yeah, it was closed.

Mr Parker
oh god THIS is still going on? for the last freaking time,your not going to have blds collapse DOWNWARDS in the same freefall manner those buildings did the same way blds do when explosions are used to bring down blds just to a mere fire collapse due to jet fuel fire and a jet in the building.for the last freaking time,the top half of the south tower clearly is seen TIPPING sideways before it comes spiraling downwards.the antenna on the south tower is seen clearly TILTING sideways before it reverses its direction and comes back and caves in on the top.for the last freaking time,to believe that it fell just due to a fire is being plain ignorant because AGAIN,you are ignoring the LAWS OF SCIENCE THAT SCIENTISTS HAVE GONE BY FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS that the antenna SHOULD have CONTINUED to topple sideways like it was instead of reversing its direction coming back and caving in. roll eyes (sarcastic) thats totally inconsistant with the rules of gravity.the ONLY way your going to have it reverse its direction like it did and come backwards and cave in like that is if you use explosives to bring it backwards like that.AGAIN the reason there is a controversy over it is because demolition experts around the country knew that bombs were planted because thats the way towers fall in demolitons.they DONT in a mere fire collapse.

and AGAIN,your also ignoring the people that have gone on to these 9-11events around the country that have been saying they have had death threats given to their familys if they talk about bombs being set off in the buildings. roll eyes (sarcastic) god you guys who say that bombs didnt go off are as bad as the people who say oswald was the lone assassin who ignore the points that witnesses saw gunmen shooting behind the picket fence.jesus.

Mr Parker
Originally posted by Fire Ninja
No, it doesn't, I've been to that website several times. Read there articles, and brought up counter points. You can't just link a website, and act as if everything is refuted. Debate by bringing up points, like how does a gravitational collapse cause girders to fly hundreds of feet hitting wtc 7 and creates a fire?

it sure as hell doesnt debunk that bombs went off.I been to that site as well and its a joke and easy to debunk their claims like many people like you have.yeah thats what they cant explain,the pressurized theory of girders is pathetic and holds no water about the girders flying. and like you said,causing it to hit wt7 and cause a fire.plus again the thing that shoots down this theory that bombs were not planted is the guy that worked for Guiana going in there saying to one of guina's co workers-okay I am here in Ralphs office but he's not here.Nobody is here and then the guy on the cell phone says-He's not there,nobody is there? get out now.fast,they are about to pull that building.who is going to pull the building down? the fire? yeah right. laughing this guy has told many investigaters his story.yet you wont hear it reported on the nightly news. if it doesnt go along with their made up version,they dont want to hear it.thats the way of the media.

Mr Parker
Originally posted by Korosan
well we don't mean air pressure...I mean more...along the lines of..I guess weight type pressure? lol I Don't think it would make things fly UP and over, but maybe to the side and then downward maybe. Looser debris may go flying like that, but something 22 tons...I don't think that should go that far lol Also...I find it funny the line "Just because an expert tells you something, Doesn't mean its true." when many people on threads like this claim "Experts in demolition claim so and so" and "Experts in blah blah blah say so-and-so" I would quote them but...I don't really feel like it now...

I think what he means by that is the so called EXPERTS who toot the governments horn on how the buildings collapsed are people who's companys they work for,have government contracts so all the people in high power within the government got to do is offer their government employees a better higher paying position and pay them off. I find it just a little too coincidental that there are a lot of people around the country getting fired from their jobs when they say our government was behind the dissaster and yet people who toot the horn of the offical version of the government are getting hefty pay raises over it.just another one of those coincidental things thats just a little bit too coincidental. wink

lord xyz
Originally posted by Mr Parker
oh god THIS is still going on? for the last freaking time,your not going to have blds collapse DOWNWARDS in the same freefall manner those buildings did the same way blds do when explosions are used to bring down blds just to a mere fire collapse due to jet fuel fire and a jet in the building.for the last freaking time,the top half of the south tower clearly is seen TIPPING sideways before it comes spiraling downwards.the antenna on the south tower is seen clearly TILTING sideways before it reverses its direction and comes back and caves in on the top.for the last freaking time,to believe that it fell just due to a fire is being plain ignorant because AGAIN,you are ignoring the LAWS OF SCIENCE THAT SCIENTISTS HAVE GONE BY FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS that the antenna SHOULD have CONTINUED to topple sideways like it was instead of reversing its direction coming back and caving in. roll eyes (sarcastic) thats totally inconsistant with the rules of gravity.the ONLY way your going to have it reverse its direction like it did and come backwards and cave in like that is if you use explosives to bring it backwards like that.AGAIN the reason there is a controversy over it is because demolition experts around the country knew that bombs were planted because thats the way towers fall in demolitons.they DONT in a mere fire collapse.

and AGAIN,your also ignoring the people that have gone on to these 9-11events around the country that have been saying they have had death threats given to their familys if they talk about bombs being set off in the buildings. roll eyes (sarcastic) god you guys who say that bombs didnt go off are as bad as the people who say oswald was the lone assassin who ignore the points that witnesses saw gunmen shooting behind the picket fence.jesus. You trying to imitate Ushgarak is cute, but more pathetic.

1. The buildings DIDN'T fall in free fall manner. But hey, Alex Jones said so, it must be true.

2. I can't be bothered to read the rest of your post, just some immature ramplings I bet.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Originally posted by Fire Ninja
No, it doesn't, I've been to that website several times. Read there articles, and brought up counter points. You can't just link a website, and act as if everything is refuted. Debate by bringing up points, like how does a gravitational collapse cause girders to fly hundreds of feet hitting wtc 7 and creates a fire?

it sure as hell doesnt debunk that bombs went off.I been to that site as well and its a joke and easy to debunk their claims like many people like you have.yeah thats what they cant explain,the pressurized theory of girders is pathetic and holds no water about the girders flying. and like you said,causing it to hit wt7 and cause a fire.plus again the thing that shoots down this theory that bombs were not planted is the guy that worked for Guiana going in there saying to one of guina's co workers-okay I am here in Ralphs office but he's not here.Nobody is here and then the guy on the cell phone says-He's not there,nobody is there? get out now.fast,they are about to pull that building.who is going to pull the building down? the fire? yeah right. laughing this guy has told many investigaters his story.yet you wont hear it reported on the nightly news. if it doesnt go along with their made up version,they dont want to hear it.thats the way of the media. Why don't you quote my post instead? OR are you too afraid to be called an idiot, you'd rather congradulate him. I'd say you're bias, but that doesn't count your mental illness or your stupidity. You don't look at the post replying to it, or the post it's replying to. Any intelligent person would do that. I don't even know how you can't see how stupid you're being. Really. I can't.

Fire Ninja
Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah, it was closed.

Despite having window, doors, shafts, and A GIANT HOLE FROM THE IMPACT OF THE PLANE?

Fire Ninja
YPhAiEkO7NE

The Grey Fox
Come on guys, Life is too short to be annoyed at xyz.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Fire Ninja
Despite having window, doors, shafts, and A GIANT HOLE FROM THE IMPACT OF THE PLANE? The plane only hit one part of the tower. no expression

Fire Ninja
Originally posted by lord xyz
The plane only hit one part of the tower. no expression

And?

The entire opening of the tower was still exposed.

Mr Parker
Ashtar why are you still feeding him? You told me yourself to ignore him which i finally decided to take your advise of,why dont you take your own advise? we Both know that he's not interested in the truth,that it scares him.The more and more you keep feeding him by responding to him like you are, your just playing his game he wants you to play and your falling right into his trap.you've proven him wrong as we both know countless numbers of times.doesnt it ever get boring doing that all the time and having to repeat the same thing again and again to him because he ignores your facts?

Fire Ninja
To be honest, I just find it funny. Though, I understand where XYZ is coming from, but I disagree with his approach. Your right though, I really have no reason to post anymore. Thanks parker, I'm gonna take leave.

lord xyz
I wanna say something smart, but the shock of the retarded posts is just too much for me. I have no idea how to address them.

The Grey Fox
You're too smart, Xyz. People like you CAN'T respond to biased rivel like that.

Mr Parker
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
You're too smart, Xyz. People like you CAN'T respond to biased rivel like that.
laughing laughing

lord xyz
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
You're too smart, Xyz. People like you CAN'T respond to biased rivel like that. Pathetic.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
laughing laughing Even more pathetic.

chithappens
I just do not understand the closed enviornment. It does not make sense

The Grey Fox
Originally posted by lord xyz
Pathetic.

Uh, I wasn't being sarcastic...

Or was I?

To be honest I don't know laughing

Either way, no offense to either of you, I think I was really tired when I said it.

Alright? no expression

lord xyz
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Uh, I wasn't being sarcastic...

Or was I?

To be honest I don't know laughing

Either way, no offense to either of you, I think I was really tired when I said it.

Alright? no expression yes, I know you were being sarcastic. You saying it is pathetic as it implies I'm biased, (which I am), and stupid (which I am not). You thinking that and saying it in a stupid way, is pathetic.

Korosan
Originally posted by lord xyz
yes, I know you were being sarcastic. You saying it is pathetic as it implies I'm biased, (which I am), and stupid (which I am not). You thinking that and saying it in a stupid way, is pathetic.

D'wah?

The Grey Fox
Originally posted by lord xyz
yes, I know you were being sarcastic. You saying it is pathetic as it implies I'm biased, (which I am), and stupid (which I am not). You thinking that and saying it in a stupid way, is pathetic.

Actually, I wasn't being sarcastic. I was saying that you're trying to argue with a brick wall, and that what they were saying was unintelligible...

OK?

Remember, I have not even decided about the truth of this thread. wink

lord xyz
Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Actually, I wasn't being sarcastic. I was saying that you're trying to argue with a brick wall, and that what they were saying was unintelligible...

OK?

Remember, I have not even decided about the truth of this thread. wink Whatever. I fnd difficulty in interpreting online text.

Bicnarok

Bicnarok

Fire Ninja
http://www.youtube.com/user/bsregistration

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=genghis6199

And, many other accounts are part of the most contraversial 911 subject that even 911 conspiracy theorist will not accept. . .The no plane thoeries. Youtube has taken so many of their vids down and even edit there videos I.E. when you search for this topic, you find different videos.)

lord xyz
Originally posted by Fire Ninja
http://www.youtube.com/user/bsregistration

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=genghis6199

And, many other accounts are part of the most contraversial 911 subject that even 911 conspiracy theorist will not accept. . .The no plane thoeries. Youtube has taken so many of their vids down and even edit there videos I.E. when you search for this topic, you find different videos.) Yeah. Despite them being seen and recorded, and them not using planes is more ridiculous than Kennedy living.

Fire Ninja
EwF_nSiz_4M

Fire Ninja
Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah. Despite them being seen and recorded, and them not using planes is more ridiculous than Kennedy living.

Research the subject, the comeback.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Fire Ninja
Research the subject, the comeback. Don't need to. Obviously stupid.

Fire Ninja
Originally posted by lord xyz
Don't need to. Obviously stupid.

How can you call yourself a researcher if your throwing away a subject? Besides, it's as stupid as hurricane force winds being generated by the impact of collapsing floors or molten steel being excavated from 911 ruins.

Edit: look at the video I posted, it shows the plane being absorbd into the towers for god sakes.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Fire Ninja
How can you call yourself a researcher if your throwing away a subject? Besides, it's as stupid as hurricane force winds being generated by the impact of collapsing floors or molten steel being excavated from 911 ruins.

Edit: look at the video I posted, it shows the plane being absorbd into the towers for god sakes. Okay.

Originally posted by Fire Ninja
EwF_nSiz_4M I must admit, this had me fooled. But then I remembered this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhXqzpoWpU8

Fire Ninja
Originally posted by lord xyz
Okay.

I must admit, this had me fooled. But then I remembered this: RhXqzpoWpU8

Fire Ninja
That wasn't the point, of course there are better edits out there. The first batch of vids they released were fake. erm

lord xyz
Originally posted by Fire Ninja
That wasn't the point, of course there are better edits out there. The first batch of vids they released were fake. erm How do you know that is an official video released on the day?

Fire Ninja
Originally posted by lord xyz
How do you know that is an official video released on the day?

Who else was releassing videos that day? rolling on floor laughing

lord xyz
Originally posted by Fire Ninja
Who else was releassing videos that day? rolling on floor laughing First prove that video was shown on the day.

Fire Ninja
Originally posted by lord xyz
First prove that video was shown on the day.

When else could it have been taken, it's the same video as yours ffs!

Fire Ninja
O7dcnv_N-70 Where's the plane?

Fire Ninja
nXRqRq04fUE Where's the plane?


n44lnriv3eg

lord xyz
Originally posted by Fire Ninja
When else could it have been taken, it's the same video as yours ffs! It could be a fake. Some guy creating false evidence that the government lied. And it's not the same video, obviously.

Fire Ninja
So, the video I posted is fake, but yours is real? Can you prove this, and like I said it's the same video edited. All the 911 videos are edited.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Fire Ninja
O7dcnv_N-70 Where's the plane? Too far away to see, and too late to see.

Originally posted by Fire Ninja
nXRqRq04fUE Where's the plane?


n44lnriv3eg Too far away.

Too high up.

A-are you saying there weren't any planes now?

Bicnarok

lord xyz

Bicnarok
yes it probably is especially in such a situation, but the voice was the same as the other vid, maybe they were near each other.

Do New york cops or firemen wear those flat hats like the French Gendarmes (police) do?

Fire Ninja
Originally posted by lord xyz
Too far away to see, and too late to see.

Too far away.

Too high up.

A-are you saying there weren't any planes now?
Too far away, there was nothing there man. Pause the video and examine it yourself, it's not hard to miss a boeing flying that low. I'm saying the videos are fake as hell, and whatever hit the towers was not a oeing.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Fire Ninja
Too far away, there was nothing there man. Pause the video and examine it yourself, it's not hard to miss a boeing flying that low. I'm saying the videos are fake as hell, and whatever hit the towers was not a oeing. L-low?

You are so stupid. The wreckage shows a Boeing Aeroplane. It does not matter how poor the video quality is, especially since your claim is themost unlikely and illogical. Stop looking at the attack and start looking at more important stuff. Like Dick Cheney telling them to stand down.

Take me for example, I believe it's possible JFK got shot in the back, but that doesn't my belief that Bush killed him.

Fire Ninja
An irrational person is one who lets personal bias get in the way of objective reasoning. You have no knowledge of the subject, you simply dismissed it calling it stupid and insulted me as well. Yet, you have the audacity to call me illogical, lease go look up logic before you post.

There is no plane in any of the live shots, except a 2-d cut out. As for plane wrecakge, they also found the terrorist passport the next day. . .magically. So, it's obvious they are planting evidence.

If you want to skip the plane attacks, go ahead. But, don't call yourself a researcher if your goal is to find evidence to fit your bias views on 9-11. I thought, this research was stupid too, until I looked it up. . .Objectively.

lord xyz
Ha! A good researcher is one who has researched enough information to know as much of the story to see that a claim as out of place as this is absolutely ridiculous.

It's high unlikliness is also good enough to disregard it, without mention it's stupidity. It's good to be open-minded, but don't be crazy. You can't treat every claim equally. The most likely ones should be treated better than the least likely ones. That's logic.

Fire Ninja
But, you haven't even researched the subject?! How can what you said even apply to you, you just dismissed it because "It's obviously stupid". Furthermore, "High unlikelyness" what makes it highly unlikely, get me a statistic or some math and then we can go into that tangent. Also, an objective person regards every claim with out personal bias, which you are not even doing. What logic supports your bias, when you haven't even looked into the subject.

Mr Parker
guys,dont feed the troll.The more and more you keep feeding the troll the more and more he is laughing at you for taking his bait.He knows perfectly well bombs went off.You know as well as i do he is scared of the truth about that.He is just trolling here trying to get reactions out of you all and you all keep taking the bait.Thats so obvious the way he blatently ignores facts that prove him wrong constanly.

Mr Parker
Originally posted by Fire Ninja
An irrational person is one who lets personal bias get in the way of objective reasoning. You have no knowledge of the subject, you simply dismissed it calling it stupid and insulted me as well. Yet, you have the audacity to call me illogical, lease go look up logic before you post.

There is no plane in any of the live shots, except a 2-d cut out. As for plane wrecakge, they also found the terrorist passport the next day. . .magically. So, it's obvious they are planting evidence.

If you want to skip the plane attacks, go ahead. But, don't call yourself a researcher if your goal is to find evidence to fit your bias views on 9-11. I thought, this research was stupid too, until I looked it up. . .Objectively.

That pretty much says it all right there.very well said.the part where you said research the subject is what he NEVER does.anytime ANYBODY offers evidence that shoots down his desperate and pathetic theorys bombs were not set off, he dismisses it and ignores it, never bothering to acknowledge he has lost his arguments.the overwhelming proof that he is here to just troll and has no interest in the truth is all you got to do is just challenge him to read a book that documents and proves it all that bombs were set off and he will never come back and say something like-"okay I'll go to the library and check it out and read it and get back to you." because he knows he cant counter the truth in these books. roll eyes (sarcastic) I mean anytime someone challenges ME to read a book like someone did on the clinton thread recently,I'll tell them I'll read that book like i am with a guy who told me to read his clinton book he suggested, which is easy to point out the lies of by the way. wink

Korosan
Originally posted by Mr Parker
That pretty much says it all right there.very well said.the part where you said research the subject is what he NEVER does.anytime ANYBODY offers evidence that shoots down his desperate and pathetic theorys bombs were not set off, he dismisses it and ignores it, never bothering to acknowledge he has lost his arguments.the overwhelming proof that he is here to just troll and has no interest in the truth is all you got to do is just challenge him to read a book that documents and proves it all that bombs were set off and he will never come back and say something like-"okay I'll go to the library and check it out and read it and get back to you." because he knows he cant counter the truth in these books. roll eyes (sarcastic) I mean anytime someone challenges ME to read a book like someone did on the clinton thread recently,I'll tell them I'll read that book like i am with a guy who told me to read his clinton book he suggested, which is easy to point out the lies of by the way. wink

Someone please proof read this guy's stuff so I can laugh more. Seriously you could get a show on comedy central looking at this guy's....well you couldn't call them paragraphs, but his words. Its so funny. I saw 0 correct capitalizations though I might have missed one. "clinton" is a name and should start with a capital, I saw no capitals at the beginning of sentences, and "very well said." is not a complete sentence! LOL

Fire Ninja
Originally posted by Korosan
Someone please proof read this guy's stuff so I can laugh more. Seriously you could get a show on comedy central looking at this guy's

That's funny considering you've made the same errors in sentence structure. That you're critiquing parker about in the very same reply.



Originally posted by Korosan
....well you couldn't call them paragraphs, but his words.its so funny.


"It's so funny" is not a complete sentence. erm




Originally posted by Korosan
I saw 0 correct capitalizations though I might have missed one. "clinton" is a name and should start with a capital,

Which is why you did not capitalize "Clinton", right?

Originally posted by Korosan
I saw no capitals at the beginning of sentences, and "very well said." is not a complete sentence! LOL

Just like "It's so funny." is not a sentence either. erm

lord xyz
Originally posted by Fire Ninja
But, you haven't even researched the subject?! How can what you said even apply to you, you just dismissed it because "It's obviously stupid". Furthermore, "High unlikelyness" what makes it highly unlikely, get me a statistic or some math and then we can go into that tangent. Also, an objective person regards every claim with out personal bias, which you are not even doing. What logic supports your bias, when you haven't even looked into the subject. I have already stated all of what you are asking.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Mr Parker
That pretty much says it all right there.very well said.the part where you said research the subject is what he NEVER does.anytime ANYBODY offers evidence that shoots down his desperate and pathetic theorys bombs were not set off, he dismisses it and ignores it, never bothering to acknowledge he has lost his arguments. You mean, debunking them. Where have I ever ran away from a debate?

Originally posted by Mr Parker
the overwhelming proof that he is here to just troll and has no interest in the truth is all you got to do is just challenge him to read a book that documents and proves it all that bombs were set off and he will never come back and say something like-"okay I'll go to the library and check it out and read it and get back to you." because he knows he cant counter the truth in these books. roll eyes (sarcastic) Ha. Everything you've reffered me to, I found doesn't exist. I google them, can't find them. You're a liar, you're a troll you're pathetic.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
I mean anytime someone challenges ME to read a book like someone did on the clinton thread recently,I'll tell them I'll read that book like i am with a guy who told me to read his clinton book he suggested, which is easy to point out the lies of by the way. wink I looked in that thred. You'tr claim is false. You haven't done that. I do see that the last post is mine, and you haven't yet addressed it after a week. Why not?

Korosan
Originally posted by Fire Ninja
That's funny considering you've made the same errors in sentence structure. That you're critiquing parker about in the very same reply.





"It's so funny" is not a complete sentence. erm






Which is why you did not capitalize "Clinton", right?



Just like "It's so funny." is not a sentence either. erm

GJ I should proofread more as well lol Just a small note about the Clinton thing, I was quoting him, so it was intentionally not capitalized. New Idea, lets get a show on Comedy Central proof reading my own and Parker's..."sentences" lol I would watch it.

lord xyz
Everything on this forum should be made into comdey central.

chithappens
If I had a chance to really write a longer thread I would but please check out this video at minute 47 on to whenever it stops talking about the towers. This is hard to refute:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331

The rest of the video is very interesting but this actually picks up on a lot of stuff

lord xyz
Originally posted by chithappens
If I had a chance to really write a longer thread I would but please check out this video at minute 47 on to whenever it stops talking about the towers. This is hard to refute:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331

The rest of the video is very interesting but this actually picks up on a lot of stuff Seen it. Most of it is kinda inaccurate. However, I was amazed at the MI5 agent. That opened my eyes, then I remembered that 7/7 happened just two months after the election, why do all these bad conspiracy type things happen just after an election?

Mr Parker
Originally posted by Korosan
GJ I should proofread more as well lol Just a small note about the Clinton thing, I was quoting him, so it was intentionally not capitalized. New Idea, lets get a show on Comedy Central proof reading my own and Parker's..."sentences" lol I would watch it.

pretty pathetic that thats ALL you have to do is act childish when I make points that prove I am right.I prove that XYZ is just trolling because he will NEVER take you up on a challenge that proves him wrong and read a book you refer him to that proves he is wrong because it documents it all with facts -something he constantly ignores, because he knows its the truth and is too pigheaded to admit it when he is wrong and THIS is your defense for him? how pathetic you are. stick out tongue

Korosan
Originally posted by Mr Parker
pretty pathetic that thats ALL you have to do is act childish when I make points that prove I am right.I prove that XYZ is just trolling because he will NEVER take you up on a challenge that proves him wrong and read a book you refer him to that proves he is wrong because it documents it all with facts -something he constantly ignores, because he knows its the truth and is too pigheaded to admit it when he is wrong and THIS is your defense for him? how pathetic you are. stick out tongue

I dont know jack about XYZ lol Im not going to try to defend him. Just notice you seem to say stuff like that about XYZ all the time. I'm not saying its wrong though cause I really don't care. I make fun of things, its what I do lol

lord xyz
Originally posted by Korosan
I dont know jack about XYZ lol Im not going to try to defend him. Just notice you seem to say stuff like that about XYZ all the time. I'm not saying its wrong though cause I really don't care. I make fun of things, its what I do lol He says more shit about me then he does about anyone else. It's actually quite scary.

Bicnarok
Dunno if this has been discussed before but what is this big object, and if its a bit of plane where did it impact and was it found?

and its trajectory is rather wrong.

http://www.geocities.com/streakingobject/JapaneseGifObject.gif

http://www.geocities.com/streakingobject/wtUFO5Bredline.jpg

Bicnarok
and what is this DOT?

http://www.geocities.com/streakingobject/2ndjetcomingwithdotNarrow.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/streakingobject/03YAHOOdiffviewsamedotdiffplacecircled.jpg

Mr Parker
Originally posted by Bicnarok
and what is this DOT?

http://www.geocities.com/streakingobject/2ndjetcomingwithdotNarrow.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/streakingobject/03YAHOOdiffviewsamedotdiffplacecircled.jpg

its the small laser hole that came from the death star. stick out tongue

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.