Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Again, for the 5th time in this thread, the internal supporting structure of the building likely failed before the outer superstructure, the "explosions" were the floors collapsing.

There were over 100 floors though, wouldn't we hear more than a couple explosions if they were really floors collapsing on themselves? Not to mention we would see the floors collapsing at an angle depending on the side where the plane crashed into each building.

basic physics, no you wouldnt.

You think the towers fell silently? lmao

the 3 distinct "explosions" would be the chain reaction beginning. One floor falls onto the next and stops, then another fails, and another... quickly though momentum and weight is built up to the point where the floors offer nearly no support at all to stop the inertia of the failing floors.

interesting...so according to you, "structural failure" caused those explosion sounds...yet they're never mentioned by the Commission. oops!

other explosions were powerful enough to cause earthquake type rumbles and "turn" cars... according to you, it was all due to structural failure. LOL.

Evidence of explosions that turned cars? or are we making stuff up again?

 

[marvdmartian]

Actor Charlie Sheen has joined a growing army of other highly credible public figures

Imagine.......Charlie Sheen mentioned in a sentence with the term "credible public figures", and not having the word NEVER used in between?? Funniest thing I've heard all year!! :roll:

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Again, for the 5th time in this thread, the internal supporting structure of the building likely failed before the outer superstructure, the "explosions" were the floors collapsing.

There were over 100 floors though, wouldn't we hear more than a couple explosions if they were really floors collapsing on themselves? Not to mention we would see the floors collapsing at an angle depending on the side where the plane crashed into each building.

basic physics, no you wouldnt.

You think the towers fell silently? lmao

the 3 distinct "explosions" would be the chain reaction beginning. One floor falls onto the next and stops, then another fails, and another... quickly though momentum and weight is built up to the point where the floors offer nearly no support at all to stop the inertia of the failing floors.

interesting...so according to you, "structural failure" caused those explosion sounds...yet they're never mentioned by the Commission. oops!

other explosions were powerful enough to cause earthquake type rumbles and "turn" cars... according to you, it was all due to structural failure. LOL.

Evidence of explosions that turned cars? or are we making stuff up again?

http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.ann.thompson.cars.wmv

You're running out of excuses. I can predict your response: "This reporter, along with the hundreds of other witnesses, are all lying!!"

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Again, for the 5th time in this thread, the internal supporting structure of the building likely failed before the outer superstructure, the "explosions" were the floors collapsing.

There were over 100 floors though, wouldn't we hear more than a couple explosions if they were really floors collapsing on themselves? Not to mention we would see the floors collapsing at an angle depending on the side where the plane crashed into each building.

basic physics, no you wouldnt.

You think the towers fell silently? lmao

the 3 distinct "explosions" would be the chain reaction beginning. One floor falls onto the next and stops, then another fails, and another... quickly though momentum and weight is built up to the point where the floors offer nearly no support at all to stop the inertia of the failing floors.

interesting...so according to you, "structural failure" caused those explosion sounds...yet they're never mentioned by the Commission. oops!

other explosions were powerful enough to cause earthquake type rumbles and "turn" cars... according to you, it was all due to structural failure. LOL.

Evidence of explosions that turned cars? or are we making stuff up again?

http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.ann.thompson.cars.wmv

You're running out of excuses. I can predict your response: "This reporter, along with the hundreds of other witnesses, are all lying!!"

They are talking about after the building collapse?

Yeah its pretty easy to turn a car when a 100 story skyscraper or two falls over.

Oh wait i forgot, 9 seconds of out of context media footage is corroborating evidence.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Again, for the 5th time in this thread, the internal supporting structure of the building likely failed before the outer superstructure, the "explosions" were the floors collapsing.

There were over 100 floors though, wouldn't we hear more than a couple explosions if they were really floors collapsing on themselves? Not to mention we would see the floors collapsing at an angle depending on the side where the plane crashed into each building.

basic physics, no you wouldnt.

You think the towers fell silently? lmao

the 3 distinct "explosions" would be the chain reaction beginning. One floor falls onto the next and stops, then another fails, and another... quickly though momentum and weight is built up to the point where the floors offer nearly no support at all to stop the inertia of the failing floors.

interesting...so according to you, "structural failure" caused those explosion sounds...yet they're never mentioned by the Commission. oops!

other explosions were powerful enough to cause earthquake type rumbles and "turn" cars... according to you, it was all due to structural failure. LOL.

Evidence of explosions that turned cars? or are we making stuff up again?

http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.ann.thompson.cars.wmv

You're running out of excuses. I can predict your response: "This reporter, along with the hundreds of other witnesses, are all lying!!"

They are talking about after the building collapse?

Yeah its pretty easy to turn a car when a 100 story skyscraper or two falls over.

Oh wait i forgot, 9 seconds of out of context media footage is corroborating evidence.

"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as soon as I got outside I heard a second explosion and another rumble and more smoke and more dust. I ran inside the building and the chandelier shook and again black smoke filled the air. Within another five minutes we were covered again with more soot and more dust. And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last."

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/9...n.thompson.intermediate.explosions.wmv

Structural failure, huh

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: K1052

1. Plane hits building
2. Fuel from plane ignites office contents
3. Resulting fire further weakens already compromised structure to the point of failure
4. Building (fire and all) falls down
5. Contents from the rest of the building burn and are insulated by the other rubble
6. Temperatures eventually reach high enough to melt some of the steel

Exactly

Both of you have solved the molten steel mystery that the government hasn't addressed. You need to forward your findings to NIST, FEMA, and the 9/11 Commission.

It had been explained by other engineers in the past. I'm too lazy right now to dig it up since you will claim it is just a lie anyway because it doesn't support your belief of what happened.

BTW: Thermite burns, it doesn't explode. There wouldn't be much more noise than a loud hissing sound. So thermite could not have been used (rigging it for that application would have been rather hard anyway) and the customary shaped charges would have left their unique signature on a bunch of the steel that survived.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: K1052

1. Plane hits building
2. Fuel from plane ignites office contents
3. Resulting fire further weakens already compromised structure to the point of failure
4. Building (fire and all) falls down
5. Contents from the rest of the building burn and are insulated by the other rubble
6. Temperatures eventually reach high enough to melt some of the steel

Exactly

Both of you have solved the molten steel mystery that the government hasn't addressed. You need to forward your findings to NIST, FEMA, and the 9/11 Commission.

It had been explained by other engineers in the past. I'm too lazy right now to dig it up since you will claim it is just a lie anyway because it doesn't support your belief of what happened.

BTW: Thermite burns, it doesn't explode. There wouldn't be much more noise than a loud hissing sound. So thermite could not have been used (rigging it for that application would have been rather hard anyway) and the customary shaped charges would have left their unique signature on a bunch of the steel that survived.

Actually, do dig it up.

It's certainly possible thermite + other explosives were used.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: K1052

1. Plane hits building
2. Fuel from plane ignites office contents
3. Resulting fire further weakens already compromised structure to the point of failure
4. Building (fire and all) falls down
5. Contents from the rest of the building burn and are insulated by the other rubble
6. Temperatures eventually reach high enough to melt some of the steel

Exactly

Both of you have solved the molten steel mystery that the government hasn't addressed. You need to forward your findings to NIST, FEMA, and the 9/11 Commission.

It had been explained by other engineers in the past. I'm too lazy right now to dig it up since you will claim it is just a lie anyway because it doesn't support your belief of what happened.

BTW: Thermite burns, it doesn't explode. There wouldn't be much more noise than a loud hissing sound. So thermite could not have been used (rigging it for that application would have been rather hard anyway) and the customary shaped charges would have left their unique signature on a bunch of the steel that survived.

Electricity can melt steel. I'm not an engineer or civic planner by any stretch of the imagination, but I would imagine there were some heavy duty electric lines coming into the WTC bldgs. I've spent time in a steel mill that used EAC furnaces and the sound of electricity arcing (at those levels) does sound like explosions.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Again, for the 5th time in this thread, the internal supporting structure of the building likely failed before the outer superstructure, the "explosions" were the floors collapsing.

There were over 100 floors though, wouldn't we hear more than a couple explosions if they were really floors collapsing on themselves? Not to mention we would see the floors collapsing at an angle depending on the side where the plane crashed into each building.

basic physics, no you wouldnt.

You think the towers fell silently? lmao

the 3 distinct "explosions" would be the chain reaction beginning. One floor falls onto the next and stops, then another fails, and another... quickly though momentum and weight is built up to the point where the floors offer nearly no support at all to stop the inertia of the failing floors.

interesting...so according to you, "structural failure" caused those explosion sounds...yet they're never mentioned by the Commission. oops!

other explosions were powerful enough to cause earthquake type rumbles and "turn" cars... according to you, it was all due to structural failure. LOL.

Evidence of explosions that turned cars? or are we making stuff up again?

http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.ann.thompson.cars.wmv

You're running out of excuses. I can predict your response: "This reporter, along with the hundreds of other witnesses, are all lying!!"

They are talking about after the building collapse?

Yeah its pretty easy to turn a car when a 100 story skyscraper or two falls over.

Oh wait i forgot, 9 seconds of out of context media footage is corroborating evidence.

"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as soon as I got outside I heard a second explosion and another rumble and more smoke and more dust. I ran inside the building and the chandelier shook and again black smoke filled the air. Within another five minutes we were covered again with more soot and more dust. And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last."

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/9...n.thompson.intermediate.explosions.wmv

Structural failure, huh

Ahh so you dont even try to back your retarded video link and jump straight to something else.

Alright ill bite, since there were EXPLOSIONS, they didnt use THERMITE did they? becuase THERMITE doesnt EXPLODE.

 

[Genx87]

The one thing conspriacy nuts all share is a demand to know the truth, provided the truth adheres to their conspiracy theory.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Again, for the 5th time in this thread, the internal supporting structure of the building likely failed before the outer superstructure, the "explosions" were the floors collapsing.

There were over 100 floors though, wouldn't we hear more than a couple explosions if they were really floors collapsing on themselves? Not to mention we would see the floors collapsing at an angle depending on the side where the plane crashed into each building.

basic physics, no you wouldnt.

You think the towers fell silently? lmao

the 3 distinct "explosions" would be the chain reaction beginning. One floor falls onto the next and stops, then another fails, and another... quickly though momentum and weight is built up to the point where the floors offer nearly no support at all to stop the inertia of the failing floors.

interesting...so according to you, "structural failure" caused those explosion sounds...yet they're never mentioned by the Commission. oops!

other explosions were powerful enough to cause earthquake type rumbles and "turn" cars... according to you, it was all due to structural failure. LOL.

Evidence of explosions that turned cars? or are we making stuff up again?

http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.ann.thompson.cars.wmv

You're running out of excuses. I can predict your response: "This reporter, along with the hundreds of other witnesses, are all lying!!"

They are talking about after the building collapse?

Yeah its pretty easy to turn a car when a 100 story skyscraper or two falls over.

Oh wait i forgot, 9 seconds of out of context media footage is corroborating evidence.

"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as soon as I got outside I heard a second explosion and another rumble and more smoke and more dust. I ran inside the building and the chandelier shook and again black smoke filled the air. Within another five minutes we were covered again with more soot and more dust. And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last."

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/9...n.thompson.intermediate.explosions.wmv

Structural failure, huh

Ahh so you dont even try to back your retarded video link and jump straight to something else.

Alright ill bite, since there were EXPLOSIONS, they didnt use THERMITE did they? becuase THERMITE doesnt EXPLODE.

Perhaps. Jumping to something else? Half of this thread is devoted to explosions you can't refute... actually, nice effort on your part trying to spin the facts...but there are just too many corroborating accounts of pre collapse explosions.

Who says only thermite was used? It's possible many types of explosives were used (something had to melt the steel, and it sure wasn't fires), so it's time to reopen the investigation

 

[spikespiegal]

You obviously haven't watched the videos in this thread of numerous explosions at the lower levels + smoke rising from the ground 12 seconds before WTC1 collapsed

I noticed you had a smiley face behind that replay, indicating you took great joy in watching several thousand innocent people get buried alive. I mean, talk about a fruedian slip. You have problems dude - hiding behind an internet sig being the main one. Charlie Sheen is a few washers short of a box of wingnuts, but I'd guess you are more sexually attracted to him than his ex wife.

I'm guessing Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa were flying the planes which they destroyed to hide JFK's body buried in the sub-basement in suspended animation that's been micro coded with the evidence proving the moon landing was faked.

I've seen, like, half a dozen independant forensic investigations of the WTC wreckage by engineers, all confirming the collapse sequence and what exactly happened. If the buildings were detonated with explosives, this would be evident in the wreckage.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Genx87
The one thing conspriacy nuts all share is a demand to know the truth, provided the truth adheres to their conspiracy theory.

Actually, it's a conspiracy fact that controlled demolition brought down the towers. The most obvious one is WTC7:

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/video%20archive/wtc-7_collapse.mpa

That's the reason why it hasn't been investigated by the 9/11 Commission...and all major media networks refuse to show it. It's been almost 5 years, and FEMA + NIST still haven't come up with a plausible reason for ts collapse.

 

[Genx87]

Why go through orchestrating the crashes of the planes into the buildings if all you are going to do is implode them with explosives?

The sounds are clearly the sounds of the floors failing.

These conspiracy crackpots will only accept the truth on their terms, not any terms that are within the realms of reality.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal
I noticed you had a smiley face behind that replay, indicating you took great joy in watching several thousand innocent people get buried alive.

You are incorrect. I do however, smile while pointing out the ignorance of others
If anything, I'm honoring their deaths by pursuing a real investigation which the 9/11 Commission has intentionally stonewalled (ie, intentionally omitting all records of pre collapse explosions given by fire fighters, news reporters, janitors, etc).

I've seen, like, half a dozen independant forensic investigations of the WTC wreckage by engineers, all confirming the collapse sequence and what exactly happened.

And yet many other engineers have publicly rejected the official report given by NIST.
NIST has also outright refused to acknowledge any precollapse explosions.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Genx87
The one thing conspriacy nuts all share is a demand to know the truth, provided the truth adheres to their conspiracy theory.

Actually, it's a conspiracy fact that controlled demolition brought down the towers. The most obvious one is WTC7:

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/video%20archive/wtc-7_collapse.mpa

That's the reason why it hasn't been investigated by the 9/11 Commission...and all major media networks refuse to show it. It's been almost 5 years, and FEMA + NIST still haven't come up with a plausible reason for ts collapse.

Gee I cant imagine, maybe collateral damage from the fire and debris falling from the twin towers and diaster site?

But lets pin our conspiracy theory on one building imploding.

btw I am searching but I am almost positive I have articles of FEMA and NYC officials saying they intentionally imploded it later in the day due to structural damage.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Why go through orchestrating the crashes of the planes into the buildings if all you are going to do is implode them with explosives?

The sounds are clearly the sounds of the floors failing.

These conspiracy crackpots will only accept the truth on their terms, not any terms that are within the realms of reality.

Haha, so the floors were falling minutes before collapse? So much for the official story.

As another poster stated: The planes were the "shock". Bringing down those towers (along with adding thousands of deaths) were the "awe".

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Genx87
The one thing conspriacy nuts all share is a demand to know the truth, provided the truth adheres to their conspiracy theory.

Actually, it's a conspiracy fact that controlled demolition brought down the towers. The most obvious one is WTC7:

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/video%20archive/wtc-7_collapse.mpa

That's the reason why it hasn't been investigated by the 9/11 Commission...and all major media networks refuse to show it. It's been almost 5 years, and FEMA + NIST still haven't come up with a plausible reason for ts collapse.

Gee I cant imagine, maybe collateral damage from the fire and debris falling from the twin towers and diaster site?

But lets pin our conspiracy theory on one building imploding.

btw I am searching but I am almost positive I have articles of FEMA and NYC officials saying they intentionally imploded it later in the day due to structural damage.

Interesting, so you even ADMIT the building was imploded...so how exactly does NYC set explosives in just a few hours? setting charges for a symmetrical fall like WTC7 takes days / weeks in advance.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Again, for the 5th time in this thread, the internal supporting structure of the building likely failed before the outer superstructure, the "explosions" were the floors collapsing.

There were over 100 floors though, wouldn't we hear more than a couple explosions if they were really floors collapsing on themselves? Not to mention we would see the floors collapsing at an angle depending on the side where the plane crashed into each building.

basic physics, no you wouldnt.

You think the towers fell silently? lmao

the 3 distinct "explosions" would be the chain reaction beginning. One floor falls onto the next and stops, then another fails, and another... quickly though momentum and weight is built up to the point where the floors offer nearly no support at all to stop the inertia of the failing floors.

interesting...so according to you, "structural failure" caused those explosion sounds...yet they're never mentioned by the Commission. oops!

other explosions were powerful enough to cause earthquake type rumbles and "turn" cars... according to you, it was all due to structural failure. LOL.

Evidence of explosions that turned cars? or are we making stuff up again?

http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.ann.thompson.cars.wmv

You're running out of excuses. I can predict your response: "This reporter, along with the hundreds of other witnesses, are all lying!!"

They are talking about after the building collapse?

Yeah its pretty easy to turn a car when a 100 story skyscraper or two falls over.

Oh wait i forgot, 9 seconds of out of context media footage is corroborating evidence.

"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as soon as I got outside I heard a second explosion and another rumble and more smoke and more dust. I ran inside the building and the chandelier shook and again black smoke filled the air. Within another five minutes we were covered again with more soot and more dust. And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last."

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/9...n.thompson.intermediate.explosions.wmv

Structural failure, huh

Ahh so you dont even try to back your retarded video link and jump straight to something else.

Alright ill bite, since there were EXPLOSIONS, they didnt use THERMITE did they? becuase THERMITE doesnt EXPLODE.

Perhaps. Jumping to something else? Half of this thread is devoted to explosions you can't refute... actually, nice effort on your part trying to spin the facts...but there are just too many corroborating accounts of pre collapse explosions.

Who says only thermite was used? It's possible many types of explosives were used (something had to melt the steel, and it sure wasn't fires), so it's time to reopen the investigation

No one, at any point, claimed to see melted steel while the towers were standing. Enormous fires burning for weeks can melt steel. This is a non-issue and you keep bringing it up over and over and over.

Clearly you arent here to debate a damn thing. Youre either too stupid or too deluded to care.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Genx87
The one thing conspriacy nuts all share is a demand to know the truth, provided the truth adheres to their conspiracy theory.

Actually, it's a conspiracy fact that controlled demolition brought down the towers. The most obvious one is WTC7:

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/video%20archive/wtc-7_collapse.mpa

That's the reason why it hasn't been investigated by the 9/11 Commission...and all major media networks refuse to show it. It's been almost 5 years, and FEMA + NIST still haven't come up with a plausible reason for ts collapse.

Gee I cant imagine, maybe collateral damage from the fire and debris falling from the twin towers and diaster site?

But lets pin our conspiracy theory on one building imploding.

btw I am searching but I am almost positive I have articles of FEMA and NYC officials saying they intentionally imploded it later in the day due to structural damage.

Interesting, so you even ADMIT the building was imploded...so how exactly does NYC set explosives in just a few hours? setting charges for a symmetrical fall like WTC7 takes days / weeks in advance.

I dont admit anything, only recollect one of these nutjob threads that come up every so often had a link with somebody articulating that.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

No one, at any point, claimed to see melted steel while the towers were standing. Enormous fires burning for weeks can melt steel. This is a non-issue and you keep bringing it up over and over and over.

Clearly you arent here to debate a damn thing. Youre either too stupid or too deluded to care.

Let's get one thing straight.... molten steel was found months after 9/11...including inside the basement levels. You're saying an oxygen starved environment below ground, buried beneath all of that debris, kept regular jetfuel flames alive... for months?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

No one, at any point, claimed to see melted steel while the towers were standing. Enormous fires burning for weeks can melt steel. This is a non-issue and you keep bringing it up over and over and over.

Clearly you arent here to debate a damn thing. Youre either too stupid or too deluded to care.

Let's get one thing straight.... molten steel was found months after 9/11...including inside the basement levels. You're saying an oxygen starved environment below ground, buried beneath all of that debris, kept regular jetfuel flames alive... for months?

The truth is out there!

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Genx87
The one thing conspriacy nuts all share is a demand to know the truth, provided the truth adheres to their conspiracy theory.

Actually, it's a conspiracy fact that controlled demolition brought down the towers. The most obvious one is WTC7:

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/video%20archive/wtc-7_collapse.mpa

That's the reason why it hasn't been investigated by the 9/11 Commission...and all major media networks refuse to show it. It's been almost 5 years, and FEMA + NIST still haven't come up with a plausible reason for ts collapse.

Gee I cant imagine, maybe collateral damage from the fire and debris falling from the twin towers and diaster site?

But lets pin our conspiracy theory on one building imploding.

btw I am searching but I am almost positive I have articles of FEMA and NYC officials saying they intentionally imploded it later in the day due to structural damage.

Interesting, so you even ADMIT the building was imploded...so how exactly does NYC set explosives in just a few hours? setting charges for a symmetrical fall like WTC7 takes days / weeks in advance.

I dont admit anything, only recollect one of these nutjob threads that come up every so often had a link with somebody articulating that.

Uh huh. I'll save you the trouble. The official story about WTC7 is they decided to "pull it" (however you want to interpret the words "pull it") ... The official story is that a few fires inside WTC7 caused the collapse (yet no planes struck WTC7)... although FEMA admits the "fires" explanation had a "low probability" of occurring, and called for further investigation into WTC7.

Edit: It should also be noted NIST was not even able to examine one piece of steel from WTC7, as the evidence was quickly shipped overseas and destroyed.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Genx87
The one thing conspriacy nuts all share is a demand to know the truth, provided the truth adheres to their conspiracy theory.

Actually, it's a conspiracy fact that controlled demolition brought down the towers. The most obvious one is WTC7:

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/video%20archive/wtc-7_collapse.mpa

That's the reason why it hasn't been investigated by the 9/11 Commission...and all major media networks refuse to show it. It's been almost 5 years, and FEMA + NIST still haven't come up with a plausible reason for ts collapse.

Gee I cant imagine, maybe collateral damage from the fire and debris falling from the twin towers and diaster site?

But lets pin our conspiracy theory on one building imploding.

btw I am searching but I am almost positive I have articles of FEMA and NYC officials saying they intentionally imploded it later in the day due to structural damage.

Interesting, so you even ADMIT the building was imploded...so how exactly does NYC set explosives in just a few hours? setting charges for a symmetrical fall like WTC7 takes days / weeks in advance.

I dont admit anything, only recollect one of these nutjob threads that come up every so often had a link with somebody articulating that.

Uh huh. I'll save you the trouble. The official story about WTC7 is they decided to "pull it" (however you want to interpret the words "pull it") ... The official story is that a few fires inside WTC7 caused the collapse (yet no planes struck WTC7)... although FEMA admits the "fires" explanation had a "low probability" of occurring, and called for further investigation into WTC7.

So when the report comes out this Spring like it is planned and makes your conspiracy's pillar crumble(pun intended) what will you latch onto next?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

No one, at any point, claimed to see melted steel while the towers were standing. Enormous fires burning for weeks can melt steel. This is a non-issue and you keep bringing it up over and over and over.

Clearly you arent here to debate a damn thing. Youre either too stupid or too deluded to care.

Let's get one thing straight.... molten steel was found months after 9/11...including inside the basement levels. You're saying an oxygen starved environment below ground, buried beneath all of that debris, kept regular jetfuel flames alive... for months?

regular jetfuel flames? you dont know how fire works either?

All of the rubble burned, liquid FLOWS DOWNWARD WITH THE FORCE OF GRAVITY.

Do you know how dumb all this sounds? Really?