Screw Loose Change!

fools. the buildings did have squibs. watch the videos yourself. i cant believe you are defending building 7 when it was hit by minimal damage. ive already explained why silverstein wouldnt care if the buildings were bought down.

building 7 must of been made of wood, thats all i can say 😆

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm
watch the building collapse here. you can see them.

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm

so DONT post bullshit on here and think its fact when you have no idea. just because you have your little baby friends come and back you up doesnt change the fact that the 9/11 story is a fraud and more and more people are waking up to this.

cant believe you called lord xyz's post intelligent hahahah. idiots. nice try children. you lost

but why am i bothering arguing with people who think the two osama photos above are the same people. PATHETIC

another interesting video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1471985581749234824&q=building+7+bbc

Originally posted by Deano
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm
watch the building collapse here. you can see them.

You're telling me that the people who did this were somehow smart enough to smuggle plastique or dynamite all the way into the top of the building, yet were stupid enough not to know how structural integrity works. That doesn't make sense.

The collapse itself was from local failure in a critical column, caused by damage from either fire or falling debris from the collapses of the two towers. The so-called explosives targeted nowhere near the critical column of WTC-7,a s shown from your "squib" video. And besides, you used a highly biased source.

Originally posted by Deano
so DONT post bullshit on here and think its fact when you have no idea. just because you have your little baby friends come and back you up doesnt change the fact that the 9/11 story is a fraud and more and more people are waking up to this.

Second, it's extremely unwise to assume that "people" are simply "waking" up to something. It reeks of bias. It's an idea, not a truth. That's all. Stop pretending like it's truth.

Originally posted by Deano
cant believe you called lord xyz's post intelligent hahahah. idiots. nice try children. you lost

Originally posted by Deano
but why am i bothering arguing with people who think the two osama photos above are the same people. PATHETIC

Originally posted by Deano
another interesting video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1471985581749234824&q=building+7+bbc

Originally posted by Deano
larry silverstein had massive insurance policy put out on the buildings only a few months earlier!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! thats why he woudnt care if his buildings were destroyed. duh

i seriously pissed myself laughing at that comment. are you being serious? oh my good lord. i hope my nose doesnt get that big when i smile 😆

Did you take up my challenge?

Why even post this? This rebuttal is far too intelligent and logical to warrant a reply by Deano; he will simply ignore it, claim it is "bullshit," and call you ignorant.

Originally posted by DarkC
First of all, if they were in fact the result of packages of C-4 planted in the upper girders of building 7 and were intended to bring the building down, why did they go off after the building started to collapse? And why did it target the top, rather than the foundations that held building seven up? What was the point of placing explosives where they wouldn't affect structural integrity as much?

You're telling me that the people who did this were somehow smart enough to smuggle plastique or dynamite all the way into the top of the building, yet were stupid enough not to know how structural integrity works. That doesn't make sense. [/quote]

Because you don't just need explosives just at the bottom, you need them planted throughout the building to make sure they collapse approprietly

The collapse itself was from local failure in a critical column, caused by damage from either fire or falling debris from the collapses of the two towers. The so-called explosives targeted nowhere near the critical column of WTC-7,a s shown from your "squib" video. And besides, you used a highly biased source.

It is not biased. You are now trying to tell me that small fires made the buildng collapse. I wont buy into it. Sorry.

First of all, we're not his stupid little "baby" friends. Don't force me to drive that through your dangerously swollen head. We're on the opposite side of the hill, not his tagalogs. Get it straight. And I thought you were intelligent.

You all come in here and post rubbish. You all post rubbish together and you feel all high and mighty because you can back each other up.

You thought i was intelligent? Well thanks but i never said that i was and i dont care if you think i am or not.

Second, it's extremely unwise to assume that "people" are simply "waking" up to something. It reeks of bias. It's an idea, not a truth. That's all. Stop pretending like it's truth.

Yes people are waking up. That is why there is a 9/11 truth movement now.

Oh, the irony. It's sad that the only person who acts like an illiterate snob kid is you.

Illiterate? HAHAHAHA. I'm now going to post 'properly' to show what an idiotic statement that is. But then again, why should i keep explaining that i post quickly and therefore there will be mistakes. I don't have to make the effort to correct minor little errors. So wise up and stop making irrelevant comments. Thank you.

Because you either can't think of a decent argument or are too lazy to? Oh dear! And you call us pathetic. Ridiculous.

I can think of an argument but i ask myself '' Jeez, why would i argue with people who can't tell the difference between two photographs. The Bin Laden photograph proves that people are really blind to whats going on. I'm sorry but i am not the lazy one.

Make sure your videos actually work from now on if you want to use them as a point.

The video DID work. Someone has taken it down. I'll post it again if i can find it.

here is what the video was implying...

'The fiasco of a BBC journalist reporting in advance that Building 7 had collapsed as it loomed large behind her strikes at the very root of how the media were complicit in acting as facilitators for the official myth that was manufactured on 9/11. After this debacle, how can we trust anything we were told about September 11?'

http://www.prisonplanet.com/article...ustanything.htm

Originally posted by Deano
here is what the video was implying...

'The fiasco of a BBC journalist reporting in advance that Building 7 had collapsed as it loomed large behind her strikes at the very root of how the media were complicit in acting as facilitators for the official myth that was manufactured on 9/11. After this debacle, how can we trust anything we were told about September 11?'

http://www.prisonplanet.com/article...ustanything.htm

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

seems like somebody wants to get rid of that video 😄

i know my paranoia is setting in. but twice in one night? surely a conspiracy

Originally posted by Deano
Because you don't just need explosives just at the bottom, you need them planted throughout the building to make sure they collapse approprietly

And if they were planted uniformly throughout the building, were there any other "squibs" seen in the building or just that one?

You're also missing one other thing. A set of demolition explosives is linked up in a network as to go off at the same time to cause structural failure and activated from a remote device. There's a big ambiguity here:

See, if a set of explosives indeed were wired to demolish WTC-7 it would be a single network. However, this set goes off after the building started collapsing, a noticable time lapse included. This is not electronic delay. If they did go off after, then they would have been linked up to a separate remote detonator. Why detonate them if the building was already collapsing?

Originally posted by Deano
It is not biased. You are now trying to tell me that small fires made the buildng collapse. I wont buy into it. Sorry.

"Small" fires didn't make the building collapse. Ground tremors, oil fires and falling debris from the main towers did, according to the NBC report. Underground oil fires are extremely tough to put out even with the best of the NYC Fire Department's efforts. And they can reach high temperatures along the lines of 2000 Celsius. This is enough to melt iron and weaken stainless steel; ground tremors probably did the rest.

Originally posted by Deano
You all come in here and post rubbish. You all post rubbish together and you feel all high and mighty because you can back each other up.

Not once have you provided an argument that wasn't negated.

A lot of people are on the same side of the hill, as I said. What the hell do you expect them to do, ignore each other's statements when they agree with each other and can augment each other's arguments?

Originally posted by Deano
You thought i was intelligent? Well thanks but i never said that i was and i dont care if you think i am or not.

Originally posted by Deano
Yes people are waking up. That is why there is a 9/11 truth movement now.

Originally posted by Deano
Illiterate? HAHAHAHA. I'm now going to post 'properly' to show what an idiotic statement that is. But then again, why should i keep explaining that i post quickly and therefore there will be mistakes. I don't have to make the effort to correct minor little errors. So wise up and stop making irrelevant comments. Thank you.

Irrelevant comments? Once again you're putting your foot into your mouth. You're posting "Bullshit", calling people names, and you're accusing me of being irrelevant.

I'm sorry, but you're a hypocrite.

Originally posted by Deano
I can think of an argument but i ask myself '' Jeez, why would i argue with people who can't tell the difference between two photographs. The Bin Laden photograph proves that people are really blind to whats going on. I'm sorry but i am not the lazy one.

That's no excuse. You're avoiding points left and right like a veteran capoeirista as though they were never posted. If you have such a great argument, why haven't you stomped us down with it, hmm?

Oh, I forgot. You're too damn lazy to do it. Beats the hell out of me why you're beating a dead horse with me at the moment rather than owning us all with said argument.

Originally posted by DarkC
Wrong. Your "bogeys" showed their faces near the very top of the building almost near an out of the way corner, and WTC-7 didn't even collapse in favour of the positioning; notice how the building tilts to the opposite side. If the explosives were planted to make that section of the building then the roof would buckle and tilt to its side. It didn't exactly have a great effect.

And if they were planted uniformly throughout the building, were there any other "squibs" seen in the building or just that one?

You're also missing one other thing. A set of demolition explosives is linked up in a network as to go off at the same time to cause structural failure and activated from a remote device. There's a big ambiguity here:

See, if a set of explosives indeed were wired to demolish WTC-7 it would be a single network. However, this set goes off after the building started collapsing, a noticable time lapse included. This is not electronic delay. If they did go off after, then they would have been linked up to a separate remote detonator. Why detonate them if the building was already collapsing?

No just stop it now. Stop posting lines of crap. Small fires can't bring down modern buildings. Not even large fires can, not in an hour anyway. Neither did Ground tremors, oil fires and falling debris. BULLSHIT. Save yourself the energy and quit while your ahead.

Yes, in fact it is biased. The site you posted with the video was PrisonPlanet and from what I understand, they're rather suspicious of the government and favour left-hand politics. Credibility of their so called "evidence"? Low. Find things that are from an unbiased source, I'm talking about a news website like BBC.

Thats not the only site i can make reference to is it? Most people are bias in there opinions. Liek you for example. Not many people gives fair reference to either side of the story. Its either one way or the other. Dont act like conspiracy sites are the only culprits.

"Small" fires didn't make the building collapse. Ground tremors, oil fires and falling debris from the main towers did, according to the NBC report. Underground oil fires are extremely tough to put out even with the best of the NYC Fire Department's efforts. And they can reach high temperatures along the lines of 2000 Celsius. This is enough to melt iron and weaken stainless steel; ground tremors probably did the rest.

Accordin to NBC report? And you say prisonplanet is bias? Laughable. Mainstream news is a tool for the government. Nothing more.

Your're answers defy or logic.

[b]The official explanations of WTC 7's collapse are problematic for several reasons:

* Fire has never caused any steel-framed high-rise building to collapse in any manner, let alone with the vertical precision of Building 7's destruction. 1 Other steel-framed skyscrapers have experienced far more serious fires than Building 7.
* WTC 7 fell straight down, which necessitated that all of the load-bearing columns be broken at the same moment. Inflicting such damage with the precision required to prevent a building from toppling and damaging adjacent buildings is what the science of controlled demolition is all about. No random events, such as the debris damage and fires envisioned by the official reports, or explosions from fuel tanks proposed by some, could be expected to result in such a tidy and complete collapse.
* WTC 7 fell precipitously, at a rate closely approaching the speed of gravitational free-fall. That necessitated the sudden removal of structure near ground level that would have impeded its descent.
* The collapse of WTC 7 exhibited all of the features of a standard controlled demolition. To suppose that a cause other than controlled demolition could produce an event with all of the features uniquely characteristic of controlled demolition defies logic.

the buildng tidily collapsed down. strange behavior for a steel framed skyscraper building designed to survive fires, hurricanes, and god knows what else.

You're posting videos that don't even work and articles written by biased sources. I'd say it was you who was posting more rubbish, Deano. Begging the question, really.

No, listen to me carefully as im only going to say it once more. when i posted the video last night, it was working perfectly fine. And again, please dont mention bias, and then mention the mainstream news in the same sentence. Its nor funny.

Not once have you provided an argument that wasn't negated.

A lot of people are on the same side of the hill, as I said. What the hell do you expect them to do, ignore each other's statements when they agree with each other and can augment each other's arguments?

Bullcrap again. you are in denial. simple as. im comfortable with what i believe. you are clutching at thin straws.

This "truth" movement that you speak of is nothing but a cacaphony of bogus logic, suspicion and self-contradiction. It gives a chance for every single left-wing supporter and every single Bush-hater to find an excuse to bash him whatsoever. They find any shred of supporting detail, they capitalize on it. It is an idea. Nothing more. It's extremely condescending and arrogant to assume that the people who do think it's a conspiracy are "awake" and the people who aren't are still "asleep".

no its because people can see through the tyranny now. and so what you are saying is that we shoudl all keep our head down and never question events. evern if they offical version they give us is completly bullshit and makes no sense whatsoever? i pity you sorcerer.

you support bush? your're an idiot then. sorry but i have to say it. i cant believe what im hearing from you. i dont hate bush, i dont hate anyone. he is just a puppet for the new world order. you really think he is power dont you? 😆 seriosuly if you post any more stupidity, i wont reply to you at all. i feel disgusted,honestly. PATHETIC, BLIND, IGNORANT.COWARDICE.

You have done absolutely nothing except to show that you can type properly. What have you done exactly to prove that I am an idiot? Nothing. Oh, I'm really quaking in my boots here.

what have i dont to prove you are an idiot? see above.

Irrelevant comments? Once again you're putting your foot into your mouth. You're posting "Bullshit", calling people names, and you're accusing me of being irrelevant.

I'm sorry, but you're a hypocrite.

irrelevent yes you are sir. point proven

That's no excuse. You're avoiding points left and right like a veteran capoeirista as though they were never posted. If you have such a great argument, why haven't you stomped us down with it, hmm?

no im not. you are not using logic and common sense. you have already proved that in this thread. And id advise you to not continue.

[quote]Oh, I forgot. You're too damn lazy to do it. Beats the hell out of me why you're beating a dead horse with me at the moment rather than owning us all with said argument./QUOTE]

keep babbling on. you can support bush if you want, you can continue to believe the lies. your choice. but that choice will cost dearly my friend.

check your cv below dark c

1.Comfort.

Comfortable people do not dissent. They rarely question authority, unless overwhelmed by fleeting pangs of conscience or momentary madness. Why would any self-satisfied comfortable person want to discomfort themselves? The whole purpose of a comfortable person is to acquire more comfort or to ensure a perpetual state of comfort. Why would comfortable people, contented with their place in the world--a comfortable home, a well-paid job, respect within their community--want to upset that equilibrium? Why would any comfortable person question his government about circumstances he cannot control? Why risk discomfort, disapproval, suspension from work and community scorn simply to question something like 911 that cannot be changed? To a comfortable person, that makes no sense at all.

2. Complacency.

Complacent people rarely make waves, create dissension, cause an uproar. They prefer not to talk about politics and religion, nor to do any independent thinking. Because a complacent mind is a safe mind. Complacent people prefer "to get along to go along," to swim with the tide, to run with the herd, to blow with the wind. They like to mind their own business which, on the face of it, seems like common sense and the safe thing to do. Because to get passionately involved in any cause or belief (aside from sports) would require a lapse of complacency. Complacency, unlike comfort, requires a more practiced inertia. To accept the state or the status quo, with mild complaint--but only the mildest, acceptable complaint--and plod along like herd animals. To dare question the state, or debate popular consensus, is not only foolish and insane but borderline treasonable to the complacent citizen.

3. Cowardice

Cowardice is the most understandable of denials of 911. It is convenient to deny 911 out of fear, because to do otherwise, to look at the evidence presented by the most powerful empire in the world, requires a heretical leap of independent thought. A mental insurrection worthy of revolutionaries, pioneers, patriots and outraged citizens. But cowards cannot sift the evidence and arrive at an independent conclusion. They have been beaten and cowed and, at most, can only cringe and howl in derision from the rear. At every original thought or contrary opinion (contrary to the state and the corporate media that is), they howl and scurry away, anonymously. At best, their children may lead them, by example, into a braver realm of thought.

Originally posted by Deano
No just stop it now. Stop posting lines of crap. Small fires can't bring down modern buildings. Not even large fires can, not in an hour anyway. Neither did Ground tremors, oil fires and falling debris. BULLSHIT. Save yourself the energy and quit while your ahead.

Your defense: "BULLSHIT, save yourself the energy and quit while your ahead".

And you have absolutely no authority over what I write, so stop trying to order me around like a common lackey. Not even large fires, what the hell? I told you that oil fires can reach two grand celsius, and that is more than enough to melt iron and weaken internal superstructure. The critical column supports the most weight, and if it goes down, then the whole damn building goes down.

Originally posted by Deano
Thats not the only site i can make reference to is it? Most people are bias in there opinions. Liek you for example. Not many people gives fair reference to either side of the story. Its either one way or the other. Dont act like conspiracy sites are the only culprits.

Obviously you can reference other sites, but none of them so far I've seen as reasonably credible and has a non-biased writer/source. I'm talking non-US-government related, non-US conspiracy related.

Yes, they are culprits, they're taking evidence, twisting it on their behalf and presenting their view of events, not just facts. Notice how a lot of articles on their have adjectives suggesting their thoughts on it? None of it is truly expository.

Originally posted by Deano
Accordin to NBC report? And you say prisonplanet is bias? Laughable. Mainstream news is a tool for the government. Nothing more.

If indeed that they're corrupt as well, think of all the news stations that would have to be silenced as well. Look at the numbers here, Bush is in the trillions of dollars of debt. Would he have had the money to pay all of them off when he's spent every single penny of it on the war?

Originally posted by Deano
Your're answers defy or logic.

I thought so.

Originally posted by Deano
the buildng tidily collapsed down. strange behavior for a steel framed skyscraper building designed to survive fires, hurricanes, and god knows what else.

It says that WTC-7 fell straight down. Well thanks, Mr. Obvious. If a critical column was taking down then there's nothing left to support the weight of the superstructure now, is there?

It says that WTC-7 fell at a rate approaching gravitational acceleration.
How the bloody hell would they have measured that? From a distance like such in the video, there is no accurate representation and from an eyewitness's point of view it would have been too shocking for them to realise how fast it fell.

It says that WTC-7 showed all the properties of a classic demolition. Interestingly enough, there are those experts who say that and there are those demolition companies who disagree? Who's telling the truth here?

I've already said that this building was taken down by a Class B fire caused by tremors. Were they expecting an uncontrolled underground oil fire to gnaw away at their load bearing column? Were they expecting the WTC's to get attacked, collapse entirely, and rain chunks of debris down and shaking downtown New York like a plastic spoon being flicked? No, they weren't. This was no small fire either, wood nor metal nor paper makes that kind of smoke.

Originally posted by Deano
No, listen to me carefully as im only going to say it once more. when i posted the video last night, it was working perfectly fine. And again, please dont mention bias, and then mention the mainstream news in the same sentence. Its nor funny.

Originally posted by Deano
Bullcrap again. you are in denial. simple as. im comfortable with what i believe. you are clutching at thin straws.

And now you accuse me of clutching at thin straws(I do believe the correct phrase is "clutching at straws" or "clutching at thin air" anyways). This is simply nonsense.

Originally posted by Deano
no its because people can see through the tyranny now. and so what you are saying is that we shoudl all keep our head down and never question events. evern if they offical version they give us is completly bullshit and makes no sense whatsoever? i pity you sorcerer.

Because we simply find that it's too ridiculous for George W. Bush to commit betrayal to his own country means we're blind? Oh, whoops. He's stupid, yes, but he wouldn't do such a thing like take down his own WTC towers where there about a billion risks involved when he has almost no allies.

Oh, and I am not Shang Tsung. Thank you.

Originally posted by Deano
you support bush? your're an idiot then. sorry but i have to say it. i cant believe what im hearing from you. i dont hate bush, i dont hate anyone. he is just a puppet for the new world order. you really think he is power dont you? 😆 seriosuly if you post any more stupidity, i wont reply to you at all. i feel disgusted,honestly. PATHETIC, BLIND, IGNORANT.COWARDICE.

You are pulling completely nonsensical and irrelevant topics out of your ass here and resulting to calling me pathetic, blind, ignorany, and a coward. More name calling. Let's face it, you couldn't debate to save your life. Honestly.

I have never called you a Bush hater, so why the hell are you labelling me a supporter? I believe I said earlier that the conspiracy sites were created by a bunch of left-handers and Bushwhackers, it doesn't imply you're a Bushwhacker. I personally defy you here for you to go find in any of my statements where I directly said you hated him.

"Coward" for believing what appears to me the truth? Wow, that's moronic on several levels.

Cry more n00b.

Originally posted by Deano
what have i dont to prove you are an idiot? see above.

Originally posted by Deano
irrelevent yes you are sir. point proven

Originally posted by Deano
no im not. you are not using logic and common sense. you have already proved that in this thread. And id advise you to not continue.

I'm apparently not using logic and common sense, yet I'm not the one simply calling people "ignorant", their points "bullshit", and accusing them of "cowardice" because I don't believe in a "New World Order".

Digging your own grave, really.

Originally posted by Deano
keep babbling on. you can support bush if you want, you can continue to believe the lies. your choice. but that choice will cost dearly my friend.

I am providing arguments and statements at my own leisure, not at anyone elses. And I do not support Bush. I said he was too much of an idiot to pull this all off. Labells me as a 'supporter' for some reason. Another one of your idiosyncrasies, Deano?

Originally posted by Deano
check your cv below dark c

Originally posted by DarkC
You're doing it again. What, may I ask? You're not getting the point, straddling fences like a common household cat. Don't avoid my arguments. I take it from a physics point of view.

yes and many physic proffessorshave came out and said that the towers shouldnt of collapsed like they did e.g steven jones. research it.

our defense: "BULLSHIT, save yourself the energy and quit while your ahead".

yeh because what you preach is bullshit. sorry

And you have absolutely no authority over what I write, so stop trying to order me around like a common lackey. Not even large fires, what the hell? I told you that oil fires can reach two grand celsius, and that is more than enough to melt iron and weaken internal superstructure. The critical column supports the most weight, and if it goes down, then the whole damn building goes down.

i never said i did have authority. but you are wasting your time and i advise you to stop. and yes the buldings may go down, but not perfectly like they did. its nonsense. no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire. however, you are asking me to believe that on september 11, three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed mainly, or totally, due to fire, within a couple of hours. yes sir, that is bullshit.

quote....Apparently, only the southern side of WTC 7 was a blazing inferno. Yes, they really expect you to believe that only one half of the building burnt, and that this half burnt so furiously, that the whole building collapsed. How is it that there are no videos of the collapse from the southern side? How is it that there are no videos or photographs of the raging fires (that curiously only burnt on the southern side) of the building? Of course, the simplest answer is that there was no raging fire and that you are being lied to. ...quote]

No, it's rather silly how you go to biased government-hounding sites, take their written articles and theories and think that on your behalf, it is "irrefutable and undeniable evidence" which you believe stomps out everything else we say and establishes it all as bullshit? You're an all-original Webster's dictionary example of the word "arrogant".

oh yeh whenever someone questions the official version of events,they are government hating bias hounds. sure. You're an all-original Webster's dictionary example of the word "ingorant"

Obviously you can reference other sites, but none of them so far I've seen as reasonably credible and has a non-biased writer/source. I'm talking non-US-government related, non-US conspiracy related.

of course non of them are credible to you. you choose to live withing the comfort zone. therefore it is pointless arguing with each other

Yes, they are culprits, they're taking evidence, twisting it on their behalf and presenting their view of events, not just facts. Notice how a lot of articles on their have adjectives suggesting their thoughts on it? None of it is truly expository.

some people do twist evidence, but most of it is hard evidence that you cannot turn a blind eye to. you are acting as if the government are not capable of destroying two buildings to advance there agenda. when all the evidence points that way.

Wrong. In both Canada and the United States we have what we call "independent media". Ask any journalist here what their first priority as a newscaster is and nine out of ten times they'll automatically say "To keep the government in place". Don't be premature. It wasn't just NBC either who was spouting this so called "bullshit" out. Every single station loves to get the dirt on government, and it's not just the US either. As Canadians, we're rather proud of putting our closest neighbours to shame.

yes but they are still controlled. mainly the editors. they will put out SOME info, but not the hardcore information that is needed. they feed you some truths but then spin it to lead you astray. they do this unknowingly

quote]If indeed that they're corrupt as well, think of all the news stations that would have to be silenced as well. Look at the numbers here, Bush is in the trillions of dollars of debt. Would he have had the money to pay all of them off when he's spent every single penny of it on the war? [/quote]

its the editors that are controlled although some real news does leak out occasionly. they put out what they want you to hear. simple as. jounalists talk to politicans and accept there answers as self evident and then tell the world which it then gets accepted as fact.

Oh, I'm sorry. Will saying that your points are bullshit and that you're ignorant count as logic then?

I thought so.

logic is good.

Yes, it did. There's no visible evidence for your "demolition" charges other than the mystery squibs that were out of place and out of sequence, and didn't make sense whatsoever.

fire can't bring it down

It says that WTC-7 fell straight down. Well thanks, Mr. Obvious. If a critical column was taking down then there's nothing left to support the weight of the superstructure now, is there?

you are hanging onto fema's report like some kind of security blanket.

It says that WTC-7 fell at a rate approaching gravitational acceleration.
How the bloody hell would they have measured that? From a distance like such in the video, there is no accurate representation and from an eyewitness's point of view it would have been too shocking for them to realise how fast it fell.

im pretty sure it can be measured pretty good. it was just too perfect of a fall to be anything other than controlled.

It says that WTC-7 showed all the properties of a classic demolition. Interestingly enough, there are those experts who say that and there are those demolition companies who disagree? Who's telling the truth here?

well im sorry i dont belive fires bought down the towers. i guess ive always prefered logic. some buildings have burnt for says and havent collapsed. and yet wtc 7 collapes within a couple of hours. LUDICROUS. and dont mention oil, its rubbish. if it did manage to buckle the lower collumns, then the building wouldnt of collapsed the way it did.

Iquote]'ve already said that this building was taken down by a Class B fire caused by tremors. Were they expecting an uncontrolled underground oil fire to gnaw away at their load bearing column? Were they expecting the WTC's to get attacked, collapse entirely, and rain chunks of debris down and shaking downtown New York like a plastic spoon being flicked? No, they weren't. This was no small fire either, wood nor metal nor paper makes that kind of smoke.

It does not change the fact that you're posting "evidence" from highly biased sources. Don't try to point the finger at me.[/quote]

buillding 7 wasnt attacked thought and didnt sustain enough damage to collapse

“Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”

[b]CBS News anchor Dan Rather commenting on the collapse of Building 7 - September 11, 2001 at approx 5:30pm EST.

maybe you can still explain the squibs?

You have an argument that was constantly ruled out and has gaping holes in it. I have provided my statements, you have utterly regarded them as complete waffle and didn't make an effort to prove me otherwise.

no the official version of 9/11 has gaping holes in it. how can i prove something to someone who wouldnt hear it even if it was blindingly obvoius(it is btw)

And now you accuse me of clutching at thin straws(I do believe the correct phrase is "clutching at straws" or "clutching at thin air" anyways). This is simply nonsense.

thanks for that

Wrong. What tyranny? What hard evidence is there of actual tyranny committed by Bush? None, nada. There's no such thing as an "official" version until it is proven or disproven, stop referring to things as such.

your right,because he is just a puppet. and there is an offical version of what happened, provided by the governement who told the media who then told the people therefore the official story of 9/11 got accepted as factual.

Because we simply find that it's too ridiculous for George W. Bush to commit betrayal to his own country means we're blind? Oh, whoops. He's stupid, yes, but he wouldn't do such a thing like take down his own WTC towers where there about a billion risks involved when he has almost no allies.

Oh, and I am not Shang Tsung. Thank you.

his own country? what makes you think he gives a damn about america? what makes you think he is american? he has british blood my friend. and answers to the british royal family.

and you are still not listening are you. bush is stupid yes, too stupid to run a country. he is a puppet, nothing more. the real power doesnt put itself on public display,why would it? the forces controlling the united states are arrogant who dont care if you are british, american, canadian, black, white, indian etc. all they care is that you continue to fall fro divide and rule, and that you accept the coming new world order . and if they have to blow up two fuking towers to achieve there goals and then blame it on enemies that they created all those years ago, then they will do so!

You are pulling completely nonsensical and irrelevant topics out of your ass here and resulting to calling me pathetic, blind, ignorany, and a coward. More name calling. Let's face it, you couldn't debate to save your life. Honestly.

if i cant debate then why keep coming here spouting nonsense?

I have never called you a Bush hater, so why the hell are you labelling me a supporter? I believe I said earlier that the conspiracy sites were created by a bunch of left-handers and Bushwhackers, it doesn't imply you're a Bushwhacker. I personally defy you here for you to go find in any of my statements where I directly said you hated him.

you are supporting him whether you think so or not. most people know bush is a puppet like any other president. the reason they create websites is to find the truth. but not to have a pop at george bush, for gods sake. yes there are a lot of dis info sites out there and we must be careful not to fall for every conspiracy. but the fact is that 9/11 doesnt add up.

"Coward" for believing what appears to me the truth? Wow, that's moronic on several levels.

it is cowardice to ignore the obvious because you will know what it will mean. your belief system would be in tatters.

Sorry mate, all I see is you looking extremely desperate.

believe me im not

No, you're diverting this argument left and right to completely unexpected areas. Look at your nonsense "NWO" thing and calling me pathetic and a coward. Is it fact or argument? No, it's some petty namecalling by our infamous Deano because he feels like an elitist.

You're running in circles here.

nwo is not nonsense is it!? ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

FFS. its an agenda. an agenda. an agenda. do you want statements from top poltiicans mentioning the nwo? do you want the video of george bush stating that there is a real possibilty for a nwo? do you want the video of officials after 9/11 sitting behind a desk stating that there could be a nwo and that it would be good for the world? choose.

I'm apparently not using logic and common sense, yet I'm not the one simply calling people "ignorant", their points "bullshit", and accusing them of "cowardice" because I don't believe in a "New World Order"

Digging your own grave, really. .

you dont believe in something that exists? when there is proof that there is such an agenda on the cards? this is why i despair when talking with you. you are very blind and ignorant and that is not an insult. its truth based on your last statements

[qute]Babbling on?

I am providing arguments and statements at my own leisure, not at anyone elses. And I do not support Bush. I said he was too much of an idiot to pull this all off. Labells me as a 'supporter' for some reason. Another one of your idiosyncrasies, Deano?[/quote]

you are providing nothing but lies. yes bush is an idiot. but then why is he in power? simple. because he was chosen. not by the people, but by bloodline.

“We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth… Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not..?

For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know.. it — now.”

- Patrick Henry, 1775.
Cowardice - What the hell am I afraid of again?
Comfort - Why? It doesn't affect me as a Canadian if the "truth" does come out or it doesn't.
Complacency - What, creating an uproar against the US government is considered the right thing to do? Ridiculous. [/B][/QUOTE]

Point one: "Squibs" happen before the collapse
Point two: No loud bangs, flashing lights or anything else that normal demolitions had
Point three: No explosives found in debris
Point four: No eye witnesses say they heard explosions or anything that people here from a demolition.
Point five: Who the **** would demolish Building 7 in the first place?

Originally posted by Deano
yes and many physic proffessorshave came out and said that the towers shouldnt of collapsed like they did e.g steven jones. research it.

Originally posted by Deano
yeh because what you preach is bullshit. sorry

Originally posted by Deano
i never said i did have authority. but you are wasting your time and i advise you to stop. and yes the buldings may go down, but not perfectly like they did. its nonsense. no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire. however, you are asking me to believe that on september 11, three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed mainly, or totally, due to fire, within a couple of hours. yes sir, that is bullshit.

No steel frame skyscraper could have collapsed due to fire alone, I know that. Once again, thanks, Mr. Obvious. However, an oil fire and a simple fire is different, they're unchecked and reach higher temperatures, easily being able to soften steel. And it was also other influences causing the actual collapse. Stop twisting what I say for your own benefit.

Have you ever tried sticking a few steel bars into a particularly mean blast furnace? It isn't bullshit, you're claiming that it was demolished only from a few words from several biased references and the only thing that you've used so far is "fire cant destroy a steel frame" (Which was just negated, again) and the squibs (Which had an assload of uncertainties regarding it.). Get some real evidence next time.

Originally posted by Deano
quote....Apparently, only the southern side of WTC 7 was a blazing inferno. Yes, they really expect you to believe that only one half of the building burnt, and that this half burnt so furiously, that the whole building collapsed.

Originally posted by Deano
How is it that there are no videos or photographs of the raging fires (that curiously only burnt on the southern side) of the building? Of course, the simplest answer is that there was no raging fire and that you are being lied to. ..

Originally posted by Deano
oh yeh whenever someone questions the official version of events,they are government hating bias hounds. sure. You're an all-original Webster's dictionary example of the word "ingorant"

I'm "ignorant" because I choose not to believe in a "truth" movement that has no concrete evidence, no credibility, and no real common sense. Extremely stupid accusation there, Deano.

Originally posted by Deano
of course non of them are credible to you. you choose to live withing the comfort zone. therefore it is pointless arguing with each other

Originally posted by Deano
some people do twist evidence, but most of it is hard evidence that you cannot turn a blind eye to. you are acting as if the government are not capable of destroying two buildings to advance there agenda. when all the evidence points that way.

Absolutely wrong. What hard evidence do you, or any other Conspiracy bandwagon jumpers, have against him? There's no evidecne, there's only speculations. If there were he would be in jail or in court by now.

Originally posted by Deano
yes but they are still controlled. mainly the editors. they will put out SOME info, but not the hardcore information that is needed. they feed you some truths but then spin it to lead you astray. they do this unknowingly

Originally posted by Deano
its the editors that are controlled although some real news does leak out occasionly. they put out what they want you to hear. simple as. jounalists talk to politicans and accept there answers as self evident and then tell the world which it then gets accepted as fact.

Originally posted by Deano
logic is good.

Originally posted by Deano
fire cant bring it down

Originally posted by Deano
you are hanging onto fema's report like some kind of security blanket.

Originally posted by Deano
im pretty sure it can be measured pretty good. it was just too perfect of a fall to be anything other than controlled.

Originally posted by Deano
your right,because he is just a puppet. and there is an offical version of what happened, provided by the governement who told the media who then told the people therefore the official story of 9/11 got accepted as factual.

Originally posted by Deano
his own country? what makes you think he gives a damn about america? what makes you think he is american? he has british blood my friend. and answers to the british royal family.

America ran away from Britain, they're a republic and take no orders or cues whatsoever from the Queen. Canada's a constitutional monarchy, but the Queen's just a figurehead. Point? They're both independent of the UK.

Originally posted by Deano
and you are still not listening are you. bush is stupid yes, too stupid to run a country. he is a puppet, nothing more. the real power doesnt put itself on public display,why would it? the forces controlling the united states are arrogant who dont care if you are british, american, canadian, black, white, indian etc.

Originally posted by Deano
all they care is that you continue to fall fro divide and rule, and that you accept the coming new world order . and if they have to blow up two fuking towers to achieve there goals and then blame it on enemies that they created all those years ago, then they will do so!

Originally posted by Deano
if i cant debate then why keep coming here spouting nonsense?

Originally posted by Deano
you are supporting him whether you think so or not. most people know bush is a puppet like any other president. the reason they create websites is to find the truth. but not to have a pop at george bush, for gods sake. yes there are a lot of dis info sites out there and we must be careful not to fall for every conspiracy. but the fact is that 9/11 doesnt add up.

It doesn't add up, yeah; how the hell could something like trashing the WTC towers add up? Simply put, it doesn't. Even considering it is folly. Obviously it's going to look suspicious. I'm the moderate here, you're the reactionist, and you're telling me to be careful of conspiracy.

What a load of baloney.

Originally posted by Deano
it is cowardice to ignore the obvious because you will know what it will mean. your belief system would be in tatters.

Originally posted by Deano
nwo is not nonsense is it!? ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Originally posted by Deano
FFS. its an agenda. an agenda. an agenda. do you want statements from top poltiicans mentioning the nwo? do you want the video of george bush stating that there is a real possibilty for a nwo? do you want the video of officials after 9/11 sitting behind a desk stating that there could be a nwo and that it would be good for the world? choose.

Originally posted by Deano
you dont believe in something that exists? when there is proof that there is such an agenda on the cards? this is why i despair when talking with you. you are very blind and ignorant and that is not an insult. its truth based on your last statements

Bloodline, my ass. That's nothing but socialogist speculation. That other nut job of a president was far worse, that is why Bush won as the better choice of two poor ones.. Who would you have voted for, having put into a US citizen's position?

I thought so.

Originally posted by Deano
seems like somebody wants to get rid of that video 😄

i know my paranoia is setting in. but twice in one night? surely a conspiracy

SQUIBS -
Squibs in demolition occur on every floor, and precede the collapse of the building (obviously, since the explosives that cause the squibs are what brings the building down to begin with). Now, if the WTC was brought down by these explosives, why do we see no squibs before the fall of the tower? The explosions we see while the tower is collapsing cannot possibly have been squibs, since, if you watch the video, the explosions follow the falling of the building. That is, the explosions aren't limited to one floor, they fall as the building falls. That's because those explosions outward are compressed air being forced out of the building as it falls in on itself.

WTC 7 -
The southern side was on fire, and there was a chunk of the southern foundation missing. That part of the building also fell first, which brought the rest of the building down with it, as it couldn't stand without it.

WTCs -
No, fire alone could not have brought down the WTC. What brought it down was the destruction of several support towers when the plane impacted. That alone, also, could not have brought the building down. The fires also raged at temperatures high enough to weaken steel, not melt it. The temp of the fire alone, also, could not have brought down the building. But when we combine the fact that that each building was missing several secondary support struts, along with the fact that the planes impacted and subsequently weakened the primary support struts in the center, along with the fact that the fires burned hot enough to weaken the steel primary supports, we see why it collapsed.

You are absolutely right, Deano. Individually, none of these things could have caused the collapse of the WTC. But combined, they can.

Originally posted by Kinneary
[b]SQUIBS -
Squibs in demolition occur on every floor, and precede the collapse of the building (obviously, since the explosives that cause the squibs are what brings the building down to begin with). Now, if the WTC was brought down by these explosives, why do we see no squibs before the fall of the tower? The explosions we see while the tower is collapsing cannot possibly have been squibs, since, if you watch the video, the explosions follow the falling of the building. That is, the explosions aren't limited to one floor, they fall as the building falls. That's because those explosions outward are compressed air being forced out of the building as it falls in on itself.

WTC 7 -
The southern side was on fire, and there was a chunk of the southern foundation missing. That part of the building also fell first, which brought the rest of the building down with it, as it couldn't stand without it.

WTCs -
No, fire alone could not have brought down the WTC. What brought it down was the destruction of several support towers when the plane impacted. That alone, also, could not have brought the building down. The fires also raged at temperatures high enough to weaken steel, not melt it. The temp of the fire alone, also, could not have brought down the building. But when we combine the fact that that each building was missing several secondary support struts, along with the fact that the planes impacted and subsequently weakened the primary support struts in the center, along with the fact that the fires burned hot enough to weaken the steel primary supports, we see why it collapsed.

You are absolutely right, Deano. Individually, none of these things could have caused the collapse of the WTC. But combined, they can. [/B]

The september 11 thread answered most of these questions, I wonder why they are being brought up again?

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
The september 11 thread answered most of these questions, I wonder why they are being brought up again?