Conquer Club

Guiscard wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

cena-rules wrote:ah you find it funny

I know people that died in 9/11

Which is all the more reason you should want to know the truth of that happened that day. Instead of eating up the governments story. (however nonsensical it is)

Not for one second could we be convinced by SEEING A PLANE FLY INTO THE FUCKING BUILDING!

Wow. I agree with Guiscard. Wait...maybe he's not being sarcastic...

In all seriousness, I have yet to see a single convincing piece of evidence about 9/11 being an inside job. Although this probably invites xtra and jay to bombard me with ridiculously long articles and videos on youtube, I suppose they're intelligent enough from their other posts to be worth listening to.

Backglass wrote:Your topic title is wrong. These people are NOT experts by any stretch.

So by your standards, anyone who worked for our government, the government you don't trust, is an expert in building demolition? I don't care if someone worked for the CIA for 10, 25, 100 years. That does NOT make them an expert in structural engineering.

It should read "Bitter ex-government employees say Gov. is lying about 911".

Just like the pentagon thread, you couldnt show pictures of the 757 that this government says hit the pentagon so you use redherrings, just like your doing now.


who gives a shit if their bitter or not, the questions they raise are vaild, just like mine were when I asked to see the 757 that hit the pentagon.

There is even a million dollar reward and you or nobody else could prove it.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

cena-rules wrote:ah you find it funny

I know people that died in 9/11

Which is all the more reason you should want to know the truth of that happened that day. Instead of eating up the governments story. (however nonsensical it is)

Not for one second could we be convinced by SEEING A PLANE FLY INTO THE FUCKING BUILDING!

Wow. I agree with Guiscard. Wait...maybe he's not being sarcastic...

In all seriousness, I have yet to see a single convincing piece of evidence about 9/11 being an inside job.

cool, then show us the 757 that this government says hit the pentagon and vaporized.

Well, it sorta hit a building at a rather significant velocity. There are plenty of images of the débris of the aircraft however.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

cena-rules wrote:ah you find it funny

I know people that died in 9/11

Which is all the more reason you should want to know the truth of that happened that day. Instead of eating up the governments story. (however nonsensical it is)

Not for one second could we be convinced by SEEING A PLANE FLY INTO THE FUCKING BUILDING!

Wow. I agree with Guiscard. Wait...maybe he's not being sarcastic...

In all seriousness, I have yet to see a single convincing piece of evidence about 9/11 being an inside job.

You're kidding right?


Jet fuel nor office furniture burn hot enough to melt steel

The towers fell at almost free fall speed, encountering NO resistance from undamaged floors below as it fell.

Building 7 was "pulled" the same day (on 911) (now that's a pretty quick demolition job!)

puffs of white smoke came from base of building and all over higher floors as it fell.

The twin towers, built to stand after several plane collisions, collapsed by fire.... the ONLY TIME IN HISTORY a steel building has collapsed due to fire before and after 911.

(What do we need a written confession by the CIA and FBI?)

The above part has been explained so many times, it's not even funny. Oh wait, it was never funny.

muy_thaiguy wrote:The above part has been explained so many times, it's not even funny. Oh wait, it was never funny.

Oddly enough...there is no post "above" this one. It's a conspiracy I tell you!!!!!

Jet fuel nor office furniture burn hot enough to melt steel

No steel was melted, the trusses were deformed (this occurs at about 500C) and sagged, which drew in perimeter columns.

The towers fell at almost free fall speed,

They did not fall at FF speed. They took 14-16 seconds, which if you do the calculations, is above FF.





This picture (below) clearly shows débris and perimeter columns travelling faster than the collapsing building.

encountering NO resistance from undamaged floors below as it fell.

transfer of kinetic energy (which increased as potential E was lost) as the floors fell

Building 7 was "pulled" the same day (on 911) (now that's a pretty quick demolition job!)

If you read the exact Silverstein quote, he meant evacuate.

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
Silverstein (La citation en complet)

L'officer du NYFD ni Silverstein ne sont démolitionneurs, il veulent dire évacuer, pas démolir.

puffs of white smoke came from base of building and all over higher floors as it fell.

Due to compressed air smashing through windows ejecting dust

The twin towers, built to stand after several plane collisions, collapsed by fire.... the ONLY TIME IN HISTORY a steel building has collapsed due to fire before and after 911.

The ONLY TIME IN HISTORY a plane hit buildings like these towers.

There certainly are strange phenomena, but as I say, this is a first time for an event of such magnitude. Im not calling you conspracist nutjobs, just saying you have understandable doubts.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Jet fuel nor office furniture burn hot enough to melt steel

No steel was melted, the trusses were deformed (this occurs at about 500C) and sagged, which drew in perimeter columns.

The towers fell at almost free fall speed,

They did not fall at FF speed. They took 14-16 seconds, which if you do the calculations, is above FF.





This picture (below) clearly shows débris and perimeter columns travelling faster than the collapsing building.

encountering NO resistance from undamaged floors below as it fell.

transfer of kinetic energy (which increased as potential E was lost) as the floors fell

Building 7 was "pulled" the same day (on 911) (now that's a pretty quick demolition job!)

If you read the exact Silverstein quote, he meant evacuate.

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
Silverstein (La citation en complet)

L'officer du NYFD ni Silverstein ne sont démolitionneurs, il veulent dire évacuer, pas démolir.

puffs of white smoke came from base of building and all over higher floors as it fell.

Due to compressed air smashing through windows ejecting dust

The twin towers, built to stand after several plane collisions, collapsed by fire.... the ONLY TIME IN HISTORY a steel building has collapsed due to fire before and after 911.

The ONLY TIME IN HISTORY a plane hit buildings like these towers.

Im affraid this video debunks everything you just posted.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1483512003

its called 911 mysteries and goes over the pan cake theory.

Why don't you just post it, nobody gives a shit about videos.

Yay! We all believe that youtube is a reliable source of information! Yay!

Jokes!
Its 1 1/2hrs...friend its midnight here

WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY would Bush want to kill a load of his countrymen.
I'm a liberal, and thus think he's a bit of an arse, but he's clearly a patriot.
There just isnt a rational explanation of MOTIVE.
and please dont say it was to do with oil, or so they could invade afghanistan, or sell more weopons.
I doubt if even Hitler could have stomached such a price.
SlighlyLessTobasco, this is garbage mate.
And a deflection from a serious critique of the disastrous Bush administration.
Wise up old bean.

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
Silverstein (La citation en complet)



Whether they said, "pull building 7" or "evacuate building 7" is totally irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that IT TAKES TIME TO RIG A BUILDING with explosives in order to bring it down. How it could have been brought down on the very same day as the attack is a complete mystery not to mention impossibility...unless....the explosive were ALREADY in place.

muy_thaiguy wrote:Yay! We all believe that youtube is a reliable source of information! Yay!

its a documentry

just google 911 mysteries it plays on more than youtube


I cant post it because theres to much there to post.

why dont you give it 25 minutes of your time instead of just trowing out random replies.

suggs wrote:WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY would Bush want to kill a load of his countrymen.
I'm a liberal, and thus think he's a bit of an arse, but he's clearly a patriot.
There just isnt a rational explanation of MOTIVE.
and please dont say it was to do with oil, or so they could invade afghanistan, or sell more weopons.
I doubt if even Hitler could have stomached such a price.
SlighlyLessTobasco, this is garbage mate.
And a deflection from a serious critique of the disastrous Bush administration.
Wise up old bean.

simple


Its called PNAC Documents

Right. That explains everyting?
And they are?
Secret envolopes that only Bush, Bush senior and Caretaker Willie know about, revealing how the FBI and the CIA, in CAHOOTS with the Mafia...sorry, its all gone a bit Ginsburg.

Put me out of my suspense., Tadmoretomato.

suggs wrote:WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY would Bush want to kill a load of his countrymen.
I'm a liberal, and thus think he's a bit of an arse, but he's clearly a patriot.
There just isnt a rational explanation of MOTIVE.
and please dont say it was to do with oil, or so they could invade afghanistan, or sell more weopons.
I doubt if even Hitler could have stomached such a price.
SlighlyLessTobasco, this is garbage mate.
And a deflection from a serious critique of the disastrous Bush administration.
Wise up old bean.

Don't know how old you are...but you sound a bit naive. People can "stomach" a lot of stuff when their goal is a world government and really don't give two chits about people.

BTW... they needed a reason to go to war. No one was going to attack us, so they made it happen.

jay_a2j wrote:

suggs wrote:WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY would Bush want to kill a load of his countrymen.
I'm a liberal, and thus think he's a bit of an arse, but he's clearly a patriot.
There just isnt a rational explanation of MOTIVE.
and please dont say it was to do with oil, or so they could invade afghanistan, or sell more weopons.
I doubt if even Hitler could have stomached such a price.
SlighlyLessTobasco, this is garbage mate.
And a deflection from a serious critique of the disastrous Bush administration.
Wise up old bean.

Don't know how old you are...but you sound a bit naive. People can "stomach" a lot of stuff when their goal is a world government and really don't give two chits about people.

BTW... they needed a reason to go to war. No one was going to attack us, so they made it happen.

So... they can rig an internationalist terrorist plot, kill hundreds of people, destroy huge skyscrapers...

...but you still believe Ron Paul can be voted into power.

Or does this conspiracy of world domination not extend to elections...

xtratabasco wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Yay! We all believe that youtube is a reliable source of information! Yay!

its a documentry

just google 911 mysteries it plays on more than youtube


I cant post it because theres to much there to post.

why dont you give it 25 minutes of your time instead of just trowing out random replies.

Then I'll get more bull crap sites with bogus movies on them. Frankly, all these conspiracy threads are becoming a niusance. So please stop with all these threads and limit then one.

Utter garbage. The US has been under attck since at least the 1990s. I grant you much hysteria has since been raised since 9/11, most of it unfounded. BUt there are enough nutters who hate the Yanks enough to bomb them.
YOu're living in fantasy world if you think the US needs to create an attack-about half the world would bomb america i they thought they could get away with it.
I cant belivesome conspirscy theorist nut job is calling me naive.
I've to go off and laugh my guts off.
And, going to war-well, getting rid of mass murderers seemed a good enough justification to me.
Shame BUsh and Blair bottled it with that WMD nonsense.

Guiscard wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

suggs wrote:WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY would Bush want to kill a load of his countrymen.
I'm a liberal, and thus think he's a bit of an arse, but he's clearly a patriot.
There just isnt a rational explanation of MOTIVE.
and please dont say it was to do with oil, or so they could invade afghanistan, or sell more weopons.
I doubt if even Hitler could have stomached such a price.
SlighlyLessTobasco, this is garbage mate.
And a deflection from a serious critique of the disastrous Bush administration.
Wise up old bean.

Don't know how old you are...but you sound a bit naive. People can "stomach" a lot of stuff when their goal is a world government and really don't give two chits about people.

BTW... they needed a reason to go to war. No one was going to attack us, so they made it happen.

So... they can rig an internationalist terrorist plot, kill hundreds of people, destroy huge skyscrapers...

...but you still believe Ron Paul can be voted into power.

Or does this conspiracy of world domination not extend to elections...

Actually, I don't think anybody has a prayer of being elected by the people. Hillary will be the next president....they have chosen her.

jay_a2j wrote:I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
Silverstein (La citation en complet)



Whether they said, "pull building 7" or "evacuate building 7" is totally irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that IT TAKES TIME TO RIG A BUILDING with explosives in order to bring it down. How it could have been brought down on the very same day as the attack is a complete mystery not to mention impossibility...unless....the explosive were ALREADY in place.

or unless a whopping great chunk of steel falling from the sky cut a ten story gash (see image) through it...but thats impossible!

muy_thaiguy wrote:

xtratabasco wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Yay! We all believe that youtube is a reliable source of information! Yay!

its a documentry

just google 911 mysteries it plays on more than youtube


I cant post it because theres to much there to post.

why dont you give it 25 minutes of your time instead of just trowing out random replies.

Then I'll get more bull crap sites with bogus movies on them. Frankly, all these conspiracy threads are becoming a niusance. So please stop with all these threads and limit then one.

no, just avoid them if you cant discuss or go over a topic.

the video explains how the pancake theory is impossible, if you dont care to watch it so be it.

But I will continue to post or share information I want to.