Conspiracy!

[Fiesta 0]

I want MOAR! kthxbye!

 

Sarcasm or not, you're getting it.

 

I'm not bashing anyone, just stating a fact, whether you actually telling the truth or not, it is still Patriotism.

 

Sounds a lot like bashing to me, since you single out those that debunk theories as "patriots".

 

uh, i watched building 7 it took ≈10 seconds, it has been seen over and over by many...

And look it's turning into a youtube battle!

Anti-conspiracy theorists are the same as the theorists... Except on opposite ends...

 

First off, NO, you didn't watch the frigging collapses in those videos so you have ZERO clue what you're talking about, else you wouldn't still be arguing about it. Second, the difference between my videos and yours is that mine rely on common sense and unbiased analysis instead of ignorantly parroting blatantly stupid irrational lies over and over. Nothing wrong with that.

 

And there are HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF TONS to slow the fall, you really don't understand physics...

 

*sigh* I'll try ONE more time then give up because you seriously fail harder than Bill Clinton's administration when it comes to understanding the pancake theory.

 

Picture it this way... you have a stack of plastic containers, each one vertically separated by about 6 inches, and each one equally supported and connected to each other on the outside by sheets of paper. What happens when you remove the support for, say, the 6th container down from the top when you have 20 or so in the whole stack, and the only way down is through the rest of the stack where no 2 plastic containers can support one another since the sheets of paper provide support, preventing intact containers from touching and supporting? Yeah. Even with mediocre analogy like that, it seriously can't be this hard to understand.

 

Just grrrrr...

THOSE WERE EXACT REMIXES OF THE REAL FOOTAGE, LOOK UP THE TRUE FOOTAGE ANYWHERE, YOU WILL SEE THAT THEY ARE DIFFERENT VIEWS OF THE EXACT SAME THING!

 

YOU look them up and show me instead of asking me to provide everything. I've been holding your hand this whole time and you slap my hand away each time I pull you in toward common sense. Now hold my hand and try the same thing, let's see how much less slapping goes on (or more, depending on if you're still too arrogant to provide valid, unbiased sources of your fantasies).

 

So again, again, i am retiring from this topic, i might bring up another very likely and plausible conspiracy...

 

Another one, huh? I don't think I want to ask what you could possibly present... but let's hope for your sake that you really give up this time because I'm not about to walk out on this until you're done.

 

Moon landings? Did the USA land on the moon?

 

Of course we did. Didn't you watch the Mythbusters episode on that?

Edited November 25, 2008 by Fiesta

[BlyTwo 0]

First off, NO, you didn't watch the frigging collapses in those videos so you have ZERO clue what you're talking about, else you wouldn't still be arguing about it. Second, the difference between my videos and yours is that mine rely on common sense and unbiased analysis instead of ignorantly parroting blatantly stupid irrational lies over and over. Nothing wrong with that.

But Building 7 was undeniably a demolition, the way it fell, the dynamite is placed in the basement supports , and are set off simultaneously, so that the structure would fall perfectly straight down. Every characteristic matches exactly to a controlled demolition, so if you are all trying to tell me that is wasn't, then maybe I'm not at a place where everyone knows something... Maybe I was wrong about here.

 

YOU look them up and show me instead of asking me to provide everything. I've been holding your hand this whole time and you slap my hand away each time I pull you in toward common sense. Now hold my hand and try the same thing, let's see how much less slapping goes on (or more, depending on if you're still too arrogant to provide valid, unbiased sources of your fantasies).

Every single view is exactly the same, doesn't matter if it is from youtube or not it is all the same footage just looked that was looked at from different angle, do you have any idea how people even make videos for youtube? Windows Movie Maker, not capable of any video editing, simply taking movies and making a presentation. They take recordings from other locations and slap them all together.

Almost everyone was questioning what really happened right after it crashed down.

 

Another one, huh? I don't think I want to ask what you could possibly present... but let's hope for your sake that you really give up this time because I'm not about to walk out on this until you're done.

People used to fall for the damn Weather Balloon, and Swamp Gas bull****

 

Of course we did. Didn't you watch the Mythbusters episode on that?

The "did they actually land a man on the moon?" is one of my more hated retardedly pathetic theories, a hoax like that would be a waste of time and money...

 

 

Maybe I should get all the 'greys' to shoot you with their ray-guns...

Because everyone seems to think I am stupid and know nothing about anything...

 

Oh, and note my signature quote vvv

And if you want to know the truth hack into all the CIA files or the FBI files, because the only way to know is to break into their 'top secret' stash...

Because it will say there, either the terrorists did it, or it was a conspiracy, or possible #3 is: there is something about the universe you are all missing, and this is connected to any and every abnormal situation ever witnessed, like the recent 'ball of fire' though to be a meteor the completely lit up the night sky over the Canadian provinces: Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba

 

No one here is rght untill they look there and tell exactly what they saw/read

Edited November 25, 2008 by BlyTwo

[Fiesta 0]

But Building 7 was undeniably a demolition, the way it fell, the dynamite is placed in the basement supports , and are set off simultaneously, so that the structure would fall perfectly straight down. Every characteristic matches exactly to a controlled demolition, so if you are all trying to tell me that is wasn't, then maybe I'm not at a place where everyone knows something... Maybe I was wrong about here.

 

Ignorance at its finest.

 

1. There was no rapid succession of flashes and "POP!"s associated with explosives that are always clearly seen and heard for miles around, and no blasting caps, det cord, copper backing, shock tubes, etc., materials ALWAYS found in large amounts after REAL controlled demolitions, were found by ANYONE.

 

Every single view is exactly the same, doesn't matter if it is from youtube or not it is all the same footage just looked that was looked at from different angle, do you have any idea how people even make videos for youtube? Windows Movie Maker, not capable of any video editing, simply taking movies and making a presentation. They take recordings from other locations and slap them all together.

Almost everyone was questioning what really happened right after it crashed down.

 

You're still incapable of providing your own source. Thus I'm incapable of taking this seriously. Of COURSE people would question what really happened because a terrorist attack on our soil of this magnitude has NEVER happened before, nor have any attacks with similar circumstances. The problem is, those that lose trust in the government easily are those that spread even more lies than the government themselves. Conspiracies like these are exact proof of that.

 

The "did they actually land a man on the moon?" is one of my more hated retardedly pathetic theories, a hoax like that would be a waste of time and money...

 

Woooooooooow. I wasn't talking to you first of all. Second, hoax? I won't touch that until you're done with this. Third, how would you be wasting money? Do you pay your ISP for each sent kilobyte or something?

 

Maybe I should get all the 'greys' to shoot you with their ray-guns...

Because everyone seems to think I am stupid and know nothing about anything...

 

You obviously know SOMETHING in this thread, but you've been completely unable to prove it so far.

 

And if you want to know the truth hack into all the CIA files or the FBI files, because the only way to know is to break into their 'top secret' stash...

Because it will say there, either the terrorists did it, or it was a conspiracy, or possible #3 is: there is something about the universe you are all missing, and this is connected to any and every abnormal situation ever witnessed

 

Holy hell. I nearly gave myself a concussion from laughing so hard.

 

1. You expect me to have the balls to hack into the CIA's or FBI's databases? Fat chance.

2. I don't need to hack ANYTHING to know what happened. FEMA, the NIST, and the 9/11 Commission have publicly disclosed ALL relevant information. If you don't want to believe that just because "OMG GUVMENT IS EVUL11!1!!", that's your own fault.

3. I love making lists.

4. How is an islamic terrorist attack abnormal? For that matter, how would an inside job, if one took place, be abnormal? It's like asking if your ignorance is abormal.

Edited November 25, 2008 by Fiesta

[BlyTwo 0]

Ignorance at its finest.

 

 

You're still incapable of providing your own source. Thus I'm incapable of taking this seriously. Of COURSE people would question what really happened because a terrorist attack on our soil of this magnitude has NEVER happened before, nor have any attacks with similar circumstances. The problem is, those that lose trust in the government easily are those that spread even more lies than the government themselves. Conspiracies like these are exact proof of that.

YOU are also incapable of providing undeniable proof, the TV news casts and so called, 'official reports' are NOT undeniable proof, they could have made up the pancake effect to explain what happened for all we know...

 

Woooooooooow. I wasn't talking to you first of all. Second, hoax? I won't touch that until you're done with this. Third, how would you be wasting money? Do you pay your ISP for each sent kilobyte or something?

What I meant was IF it WAS a hoax it would be a waste of money and effort to produce the live casts from the event, and have all the resources to cover it up, including the crew.

 

You obviously know SOMETHING in this thread, but you've been completely unable to prove it so far.

Fair enough.

 

Holy hell. I nearly gave myself a concussion from laughing so hard.

 

1. You expect me to have the balls to hack into the CIA's or FBI's databases? Fat chance.

2. I don't need to hack ANYTHING to know what happened. FEMA, the NIST, and the 9/11 Commission have publicly disclosed ALL relevant information. If you don't want to believe that just because "OMG GUVMENT IS EVUL11!1!!", that's your own fault.

3. I love making lists.

4. How is an islamic terrorist attack abnormal? For that matter, how would an inside job, if one took place, be abnormal? It's like asking if your ignorance is abnormal.

1. Not you necessarily, but someone, and YOU DO need to hack there, or else you are only following the news casts, and even half of those were about, and siding the conspiracy theories, We are both on even ground.

2. Both sides need UNDENIABLE PROOF in order for any one to be right.

So this is conversation is continuously going in circles, until someone get undeniable proof...

3.

4. Not the way they keep continuously blab about it, it seem to be the only thing they seem to show they 'care' about...

 

99. Final time i say, i am done with this conspiracy discussion now, unless we can go somewhere else, another conspiracy?

Edited November 25, 2008 by BlyTwo

[Fiesta 0]

 

Thanks for that brilliant piece of insight. Let's see what else you have.

 

YOU are also incapable of providing undeniable proof, the TV news casts and so called, 'official reports' are NOT undeniable proof, they could have made up the pancake effect to explain what happened for all we know...

 

Nor is Loose Change or anything similar undeniable proof. I've continued to request unbiased hard evidence, yet you continue to talk around it and claim I don't have any of my own, when common sense and non-classified reports that I've linked to are more than enough. Yet you continue to run this around in circles.

 

 

What I meant was IF it WAS a hoax it would be a waste of money and effort to produce the live casts from the event, and have all the resources to cover it up, including the crew.

 

Glad we finally agree on something. Moving on.

 

1. Not you necessarily, but someone, and YOU DO need to hack there, or else you are only following the news casts, and even half of those were about, and siding the conspiracy theories, We are both on even ground.

2. Both sides need UNDENIABLE PROOF in order for any one to be right.

So this is conversation is continuously going in circles, until someone get undeniable proof...

3.

4. Not the way they keep continuously blab about it, it seem to be the only thing they seem to show they 'care' about...

 

99. Final time i say, i am done with this conspiracy discussion now, unless we can go somewhere else, another conspiracy?

 

1. Public unclassified reports that have NOTHING to do with news networks. Last time I'll say that.

2. I've given mine, where's yours?

3.

4. Because it was an unprecedented breach of national security that resulted in the massacre of nearly 3 thousand people. Pearl Harbor didn't even break 2,500, not that that's anything to be proud of.

 

99. If you're done, stop posting. Otherwise, this seems to be the only appropriate thread for conspiracy discussion.

[BlyTwo 0]

Nor is Loose Change or anything similar undeniable proof. I've continued to request unbiased hard evidence, yet you continue to talk around it and claim I don't have any of my own, when common sense and non-classified reports that I've linked to are more than enough. Yet you continue to run this around in circles.

You don't have any, other than the word of the ones that could possibly be behind the whole thing

 

1. Public unclassified reports that have NOTHING to do with news networks. Last time I'll say that.

2. I've given mine, where's yours?

3.

4. Because it was an unprecedented breach of national security that resulted in the massacre of nearly 3 thousand people. Pearl Harbor didn't even break 2,500, not that that's anything to be proud of.

 

99. If you're done, stop posting. Otherwise, this seems to be the only appropriate thread for conspiracy discussion.

1. Okay...

2. No you haven't. No one has.

3. ...

4. And also no multi-storey sky-scraper has ever collapsed by fire, on 9/11 there were 3, that is fact, evidence, no one can deny that, because it is undeniable, maybe not for 9/11, but is still undeniable, the building was a controlled demolition, I am not saying who specifically did it, just suggestion, they could be trying to cover up the fact that terrorists may have found a way to set it all up, and the US is shamed that they let it all slide under their feet and wants to cover that up...

 

99. I wanna finish, but you keep leaving cliffhangers, and I can't stand cliffhangers!

Edited November 25, 2008 by BlyTwo

[Nmenth 291]

the building was a controlled demolition, I am not saying who specifically did it, just suggestion

You keep bringing up this controlled demolition theory, it sounds feasible if the evidence is examined, unfortunately you are examining it post 9/11. As I said before, but seemed to have been ignored, the WTC was constructed to collapse that way.

You want to know who was behind it? The architect.

Those buildings are in the middle of other highly expensive buildings, none of which will last forever. They were constructed with the understanding that they would need to be torn down at some point in the future. Their supports were fashioned so that the towers would only fall straight down.

Now, I'm not taking sides here, I know better than that, but I merely want to point out an easily missed truth.

Were the buildings bombed intentionally? I don't know anymore than any other one of us. Nevertheless, either way, the buildings would collapse straight down because that is how they were designed.

[Fiesta 0]

You don't have any, other than the word of the ones that could possibly be behind the whole thing

 

As soon as you provide proof that my sources were behind the attacks, I'll stop referencing them. Until then, deal with it because you can't prove what didn't happen.

 

 

1. Okay...

2. No you haven't. No one has.

3. ...

4. And also no multi-storey sky-scraper has ever collapsed by fire, on 9/11 there were 3, that is fact, evidence, no one can deny that, because it is undeniable, maybe not for 9/11, but is still undeniable, the building was a controlled demolition, I am not saying who specifically did it, just suggestion, they could be trying to cover up the fact that terrorists may have found a way to set it all up, and the US is shamed that they let it all slide under their feet and wants to cover that up...

 

99. I wanna finish, but you keep leaving cliffhangers, and I can't stand cliffhangers!

 

1. ...

2. Just when I thought you couldn't get any worse...

3. ...

4. Time for a separate quote:

 

There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.

 

I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.

 

Where that quote came from. Ooooh! Another source that I've given! I might start counting now.

 

As for you constantly believing in controlled demolition itself, show me in ONE video ANYWHERE on the Internet where you could see and CLEARLY HEAR demolition charges going off at ANY point during the attacks.

 

99. Cliffhangers? What? All I'm doing is proving you wrong bit by bit. You keep saying "I've retired from this thread" but you still don't stop posting. Since you ignore the point of what you said, doesn't that make the potential for a cliffhanger moot?

Edited November 25, 2008 by Fiesta

[BlyTwo 0]

You keep bringing up this controlled demolition theory, it sounds feasible if the evidence is examined, unfortunately you are examining it post 9/11.

But you cannot say that for Building 7 it is identical to a demolition = it was a demolition NOT A THEORY!

You cannot give any other description for it, because it was rarely even mentioned, because it was a demolition!

Case Closed on my end.

My last thought:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. (Great men are almost always bad men.)"

- John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton

Edited November 25, 2008 by BlyTwo

[Doctor Destiny 41]

The academic community frowns upon your conclusion since we have given indisputable evidence that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were decidedly not demolitions. WTC7 was designed in the same manner the North and South Towers so it would collapse straight down. Besides, its proximity to the first two towers made it susceptible to falling debris and fires. A kink formed in a mechanical penthouse and it failed, causing the building to collapse in on itself. There were absolutely no flashes or loud pops associated with a demolition. Even a half-assed demolition is louder than that.

 

In short, you're wrong. I need your proof that you keep touting. Where's those sekret dokuments that you have? Scan them, post them on Rapid**** or Megafail for all I care. PROVE YOUR THEORY.

[Fiesta 0]

But you cannot say that for Building 7 it is identical to a demolition = it was a demolition NOT A THEORY!

You cannot give any other description for it, because it was rarely even mentioned, because it was a demolition!

Case Closed on my end.

My last thought:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. (Great men are almost always bad men.)"

- John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton

 

If you're so far beyond blind that you try to feed THIS crap to us and expect it to be convincing, then I'm afraid thinking of if you were dumber would be a division of the universe by zero. I will ask one more time; at what point did the demolition charges go off? Did anybody hear a rapid succession of "POP!"s that practically defines a controlled demolition? Have you ever done real research? When was your last pros....... well, actually I don't want the answer to that one.

[BlyTwo 0]

WHY WON'T ANYONE UNDERSTAND THAT LARGE BUILDINGS WON'T COME DOWN BY FIRE!

THEY WERE BUILD TO WITHSTAND EVERY SINGLE THING THAT HAPPENED TO THEM!

AND NOTHING EVEN HIT BUILDING 7 IT JUST FELL, AND NO WORD ON IT!

FOR THE FINAL TIME I AM DONE HERE.

NO MORE QUESTIONS DIRECTED AT ME...

Edited November 25, 2008 by BlyTwo

[Fiesta 0]

Why won't YOU understand that without fireproofing, the floor trusses in the main towers sagged and pulled in perimeter columns, causing the collapse, while in Building 7, an entire SECTION of falling perimeter column cores from the North Tower struck the southern face of the building, almost splitting the structure in 2 at the face and severing a critical support column, while starting uncontrollable fires on multiple floors, which slowly weakened the structure until a second critical support column failed and allowed collapse to occur? Did you even TRY reading that the main towers were meant to withstand a 707 at CRUISE SPEED and not a HUGE 757/767 going 4 TIMES FASTER? Why can't you understand CRUISE CONTROL does not help get your point across? Where is your damned psychiatrist? Where is your damned MOTHER for that matter? BLAGH!

Edited November 25, 2008 by Fiesta

[Doctor Destiny 41]

WHY WON'T ANYONE UNDERSTAND THAT LARGE BUILDINGS WON'T COME DOWN BY FIRE!

The fire alone did not cause the collapse. The towers suffered damage to their supports from a plane slamming headfirst into them at over 500 miles an hour. The fire contributed to it but was not the only cause. Also, if you reference any old structure fires, each them were on lower floors with fire crews able to contain them. The WTC fire were extremely high up and the sprinkler systems were damaged so the fires rampaged unchecked.

 

THEY WERE BUILD TO WITHSTAND EVERY SINGLE THING THAT HAPPENED TO THEM!

They were built to withstand a 707 at cruising speed, not a jumbo airliner at over 500MPH.

 

AND NOTHING EVEN HIT BUILDING 7 IT JUST FELL, AND NO WORD ON IT!

Large chunks of concrete and other debris slammed into the building and it weakened. Fires also rampaged uncontained within the walls of the building. I'll spare the rest since I explained it already.

 

FOR THE FINAL TIME I AM DONE HERE.

NO MORE QUESTIONS DIRECTED AT ME...

Fine, wuss out. It's not like you proven anything anyway. You've parroted lies and misinterpreted facts the whole way.

 

CRUISE CONTROL

You still gotta steer and I think he forgot how. He went right into a brick wall.

[BlyTwo 0]

The fire alone did not cause the collapse. The towers suffered damage to their supports from a plane slamming headfirst into them at over 500 miles an hour. The fire contributed to it but was not the only cause. Also, if you reference any old structure fires, each them were on lower floors with fire crews able to contain them. The WTC fire were extremely high up and the sprinkler systems were damaged so the fires rampaged unchecked.

Sprinklers or not, the frame was made fire proof, and jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough.

 

 

They were built to withstand a 707 at cruising speed

Supposedly, so has been said.

 

Large chunks of concrete and other debris slammed into the building and it weakened. Fires also rampaged uncontained within the walls of the building. I'll spare the rest since I explained it already.

And the chunks just happened to hit Building 7 and NO OTHER building...

 

Fine, wuss out. It's not like you proven anything anyway. You've parroted lies and misinterpreted facts the whole way.

It's not a wuss out... I just get sick of stubbornness, from one who got every last scrap of information from the ones that ere behind the WTC's control.

No one even sees the ****ing possibility that it was a set up, MAYBE NOT EVEN THE GOVERNMENT, it could be just genious terrorists, like i said:

...was a controlled demolition, I am not saying who specifically did it, just suggestion, they could be trying to cover up the fact that terrorists may have found a way to set it all up, and the US is shamed that they let it all slide under their feet and wants to cover that up...

That is a possability, i can see reason in some areas, none of you can, in any area.

 

I am done with the Twin Towers Theory

 

 

I would now like to move on to another new creatable conspiracy idea the no one knows anything about;

...or possible #3 is: there is something about the universe you are all missing, and this is connected to any and every abnormal situation ever witnessed, like the recent 'ball of fire' though to be a meteor the completely lit up the night sky over the Canadian provinces: Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba...

 

Topix.net (more info)

Was it actually a meteor?

Edited November 26, 2008 by BlyTwo

[Fiesta 0]

Sprinklers or not, the frame was made fire proof, and jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough.

 

Fireproofing was BLOWN OFF by the impacts. Thanks for ignoring the facts again.

 

Supposedly, so has been said.

 

The people that BUILT THE TOWERS said that! Are you saying THEY'RE lying?

 

And the chunks just happened to hit Building 7 and NO OTHER building...

 

Stupid!

 

 

SOURCE!

 

It's not a wuss out... I just get sick of stubbornness, from one who got every last scrap of information from the ones that ere behind the WTC's control.

No one even sees the ****ing possibility that it was a set up, MAYBE NOT EVEN THE GOVERNMENT, it could be just genious terrorists, like i said:

 

That is a possability, i can see reason in some areas, none of you can, in any area.

 

The impacts from the planes into the main towers and the debris from the North Tower, as well as the ensuing fires, caused the 3 collapses, END OF DISCUSSION.

 

I am done with the Twin Towers Theory

 

 

I would now like to move on to another new creatable conspiracy idea the no one knows anything about;

 

Was it actually a meteor?

 

Really? Interesting. NOT.

Edited November 26, 2008 by Fiesta

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Sprinklers or not, the frame was made fire proof, and jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough.

I want your proof that the frame was made to withstand that much heat. Even if it were, it would still lose strength when under enough heat from the fire, which was a combination of the jet fuel, other fuel lines and office equipment, supplies and carpeting.

 

Supposedly, so has been said.

Prove otherwise.

 

And the chunks just happened to hit Building 7 and NO OTHER building...

Other structures were damaged but not by large chunks of the North and South Tower's support beams when it came crumbling down, nor did any North and South Tower chunks sever any critical points on any other structures.

 

It's not a wuss out... I just get sick of stubbornness, from one who got every last scrap of information from the ones that ere behind the WTC's control.

I have sourced numerous, non-government sites that refute everything you've said. What do I have to do? Get on the horn and ask real experts for myself? How independent does my research have to be before it's credible? Actually, at least I've done research when it's obvious that you have not. Ever. At any point.

 

No one even sees the ****ing possibility that it was a set up, MAYBE NOT EVEN THE GOVERNMENT, it could be just genious terrorists, like i said:

You are not arguing set up. You are arguing for a demolition, which this was most definitely not.

 

That is a possability, i can see reason in some areas, none of you can, in any area.

I don't think you've seen reason yet. How can you even consider I'm being unreasonable?

 

I am done with the Twin Towers Theory

Don't cop out, you bitch.

[EDIT] There's no theory here. Only pristine facts that disagree with everything you've said.

 

I would now like to move on to another new creatable conspiracy idea the no one knows anything about;

 

Was it actually a meteor?

Retard.

[BlyTwo 0]

Other structures were damaged but not by large chunks of the North and South Tower's support beams when it came crumbling down, nor did any North and South Tower chunks sever any critical points on any other structures.

But they happened to take down only the ONE building, that happened to be yet another WTC building, and also why were they so quiet about it? It was mentioned once, by observers, but never said again.

 

I have sourced numerous, non-government sites that refute everything you've said.

Not really, and there are just as many, if not more that prove against you, I am just damn lazy!

 

Get on the horn and ask real experts for myself?

And who would the experts be? More people that could be influenced by the government? You also need to find someone that won't take ANY sides, but give an absolutely perfect to the last microscopic detail conclusion, and every last microscopic detail that led them there.

 

How independent does my research have to be before it's credible?

Depends, maybe absolutely.

 

Actually, at least I've done research when it's obvious that you have not. Ever. At any point.

I have. Just did it quite a while ago (a couple years ago, but i am still sticking with my conclusion.

 

You are not arguing set up. You are arguing for a demolition, which this was most definitely not.

Proof.

 

I don't think you've seen reason yet. How can you even consider I'm being unreasonable?

"I'm right, you're wrong, end of story"

 

...Don't cop out, you bitch...

...Retard.

****ing ****head asshole (i donno if that makes it even or not...)

 

I simply want to change the ****ing subject I am getting ****ing sick of this ****ing argument, in which there is no winning, and no ****ing end.

I am ****ing done with this ****ing conversation!

OMG! ****ing, ****, ****

Edited November 26, 2008 by BlyTwo

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Not really, and there are just as many, if not more that prove against you, I am just damn lazy!

Lazy? Understatement right there.

 

And who would the experts be? More people that could be influenced by the government? You also need to find someone that won't take ANY sides, but give an absolutely perfect to the last microscopic detail conclusion, and every last microscopic detail that led them there.

Then no piece of evidence I would post would ever measure up. Then again, at least I, and Fiesta, have sourced much of our documentation when you have sourced none.

 

Depends, maybe absolutely.

Two way street, sweetheart. Your sources have to be as unbiased and independent as mine, and also need to be credible and not unrelated or superfluous.

 

I have. Just did it quite a while ago (a couple years ago, but i am still sticking with my conclusion.

I re-did my research again when this thread cropped up. Everything you've said is extremely dated and very unfounded at its very core. Not to mention, everything can be explained against you and you have been entirely unable to prove your side. Especially all of the missing parts that would be leftover after a demolition.

 

Proof.

Is in the pudding, and it's so sweet for me and so sour for you.

 

"I'm right, you're wrong, end of story"

Exactly. Except, Fiesta and I are right and you are wrong.

 

****ing ******** ******* (i donno if that makes it even or not...)

Didn't but even still, the fact you've resorted to swearing only deepens the proof that you are wrong.

 

I simply want to change the ****ing subject I am getting ****ing sick of this ****ing argument, in which there is no winning, and no ****ing end.

I am ****ing done with this ****ing conversation!

OMG! ****ing, ****, ****

No. Not until you admit that you've been swindled by liars who pushed an anti-American agenda.

[BioBen 3]

Bly you should realise that you can just leave the thread now, knowing that your right (I have no opinion on the matter) and let DD argue on. It would, arguably, be the mature thing to do.

[BlyTwo 0]

SOURCE!

Debunk site, that was a drawing, bias.

 

Then no piece of evidence I would post would ever measure up. Then again, at least I, and Fiesta, have sourced much of our documentation when you have sourced none.

I need something undeniable, i haven't gotten that yet...

 

I re-did my research again when this thread cropped up.

Not recently, and again, again, again, again, again, and again, this explaining and arguing crap is my weak point

 

Exactly. Except, Fiesta and I are right and you are wrong.

ass

 

the fact you've resorted to swearing only deepens the proof that you are wrong.

I swore at you for swearing at me... Nothing more, nothing less.

 

No. Not until you admit that you've been swindled by liars who pushed an anti-American agenda.

The USA is gay and wants to get everything they can, ex. they fight and cause more war, only to get money from oil, and/or take control of the country.

 

Bly you should realise that you can just leave the thread now, knowing that your right (I have no opinion on the matter) and let DD argue on. It would, arguably, be the mature thing to do.

And it will be made so.

(Finally!)

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Bly you should realise that you can just leave the thread now, knowing that your right (I have no opinion on the matter) and let DD argue on. It would, arguably, be the mature thing to do.

You're as thick as BlyFool. Fiesta, Alphabear, Duke and myself have handed him his ass on a silver platter with all the trimmings on more than one occasion with logical evidence and cold hard facts. Not once has he been able to refute our facts at all. So excuse me to pieces for arguing my point of view with an iron fist, and at least having the guts to defend it against unabated stupidity.

 

I need something undeniable, i haven't gotten that yet...

We've given you nothing but facts that you continue to brush aside as false. Where are your facts that are not from Google Video or YouTube?

 

Not recently, and again, again, again, again, again, and again, this explaining and arguing crap is my weak point

Then don't enter a fight when you're unprepared. It's obvious you lack any researching skills anyway since all you've done is parrot Loose Change.

 

The USA is gay and wants to get everything they can, ex. they fight and cause more war, only to get money from oil, and/or take control of the country.

Idiot. I knew you were just another blind, America hating fool. I should have known better than to think you were anything more.

 

And it will be made so.

(Finally!)

Only because you have no answers to facts, and continue speculating things that never happened.

[Saracen 16]

oh, you've overstepped the line with such swearing Blytwo. Consider yourself banned from posting for a week... cos I can! Goodbye for now.

 

If I've killed the debate, sue me... but I'll leave this open. Just don't give the "Retards" the fuel to flame in future DD

[Fiesta 0]

Debunk site, that was a drawing, bias.

 

When you're unbanned and you see this, know that debunking sites ARE NOT BIASED. Stupid tool.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

If I've killed the debate, sue me... but I'll leave this open. Just don't give the "Retards" the fuel to flame in future DD

All I did was make him look like a fool with facts.