so 9/11 was an inside job ?

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 1:49 pm

http://www.neatorama.com/2015/12/17/Bla ... d-For-All/

I realize it will not change any minds, but it is pretty clear.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 2:08 pm

Wolfman vs LTS TARD steel cage match.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 3:30 pm

You do realize that story was referenced from an infamous liberal agitprop site, don't you?

The Seer · Post by **The Seer** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 3:31 pm

Goober McTuber wrote: steel

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 3:47 pm

There is nothing new here. Most of us understand that far below the melting point the steel would lose its structural integrity. Nick will go on and on about melting points and ignore reality.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 4:28 pm

It's been eons since we reached Nick's melting point.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 4:39 pm

Left Seater wrote:Nick will go on and on about melting points and ignore reality.

To be fair, he melts so often he ought to be authority on the matter.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 4:40 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:It's been eons since we reached Nick's melting point.

If by eons you mean since last time he posted, I'd agree.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 11:17 pm

No one's melting about this shameless tripe that somehow got posted in the Huffington site. Of course it's utter bullshit and any reasonable person can see why.

First, the burning temperature of the jet fuel was only 1500 F, and as noted by the black smoke from the WTC towers prior to collapse, that fire was oxygen deprived and was burning at an even lower temp. Plus, most of the fuel burned in the huge fireball and the rest within ten minutes. Further, unlike the half-inch piece of steel this hillbilly is heating, the structure of the WTC towers (all three) was a massive design of tempered steel that was designed to withstand both impact and fire. A million gallons of that jet fuel could have burned for a year and nothing would have collapsed.

If you read the accompanying comments in the Huff Post article, you'll see this sham appropriately eviscerated. Carry on.

WW

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 12:44 am

Just for ha-has, I went and looked at videos of both collapses. It is quite clear that each collapse occurs right at the point of the crashes. Now, I'm no controlled demo expert, but, I believe it is a fairly complex operation. Lotsa wires and fuses and controllers and such. And I would think that driving a fukking plane right through this section of the building and turning it into a fireball, then smoldering mess just might fukk up all that wiring just a little.

Don't you, guitar hero?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Dec 19, 2015 12:55 am

Of course it was a controlled demolition, perpetrated by the Zionist state-within-a-state...

Sand mvscals are too stupid to pull off a massive scheme like this. No way could a bunch of dune coons get over on the great U S of A.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Dec 19, 2015 1:02 am

It wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon...

...it was an enormous granite wang.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Dec 19, 2015 1:04 am

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:

I suppose Nick has one of these denting his small intestine this very evening...

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 2:27 am

smackaholic wrote:Just for ha-has, I went and looked at videos of both collapses. It is quite clear that each collapse occurs right at the point of the crashes. Now, I'm no controlled demo expert, but, I believe it is a fairly complex operation. Lotsa wires and fuses and controllers and such. And I would think that driving a fukking plane right through this section of the building and turning it into a fireball, then smoldering mess just might fukk up all that wiring just a little.

Don't you, guitar hero?

No, the collapse in fact begins just below the impact--one can see several explosions (which were also reported by police and firefighters). Similarly, molten steel is clearly seen pouring out just before the collapse, which renders the '"weakened" steel theory as ludicrous. Moreover, if the steel was somehow weakened by the brief, low-temperature fire, it would have collapsed in a jagged, listing huge chunk, not the entire building.

As for b-juice's nonsense about discounting the ability of Arabs to "pull off" the entire operation, well it doesn't matter who was accused of doing it--no one could have dropped those buildings because of a fire. Notice how b-juice won't go anywhere near the absurdly obvious controlled dropping of WTC7.

Notice how none of you really even attempt to support any of the many glaring holes in the official story.

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 5:10 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:
smackaholic wrote: Notice how none of you really even attempt to support any of the many glaring holes in the official story.

You say that as if your bumbling account of the truth is as airtight as my ex wife in a room full of trainers.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 7:55 am

I know nothing, nor care, about your whored ex-wife.

But as for my plain assertion that you can't defend ANY part of the official 9/11 version...well, let's see it.

What has "R-Jack" got?

Here's the basic plain stated questions..

THE TOP TEN UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT 9-11

1. NONEXISTENT AIR DEFENSE.

Why weren't Air Force planes sent up to intercept the hijacked planes? In the year before 9-11, jet fighters were sent up routinely (at least 67 times) whenever, according to the FAA's own standard operating procedure manuals, an airliner went off course by two miles or by 15 degrees. The mainstream media has never highlighted this. Routine FAA and military procedures should've intercepted the first plane before it struck the World Trade Center. Remember, this is interception, not shooting down. Interception happens all the time, like a cop pulling over a speeding motorist on the highway. On 9-11, the FAA was notified by a frantic stewardess that the plane was hijacked fully 25 minutes before it crashed. Usually it only takes 10-12 minutes for jet fighters to go from stationary to 29,000 feet and 1850 mph. Jets should have intercepted that first plane. But for the second plane, which crashed 15 minutes later and which was known to be hijacked 20 minutes before it crashed, the failure to intercept strains credulity. Fighter jets should already have been in the air above Manhattan. And then the plane that supposedly struck the Pentagon was known to be hijacked a full 45 minutes before it crashed – after two other planes had already been hijacked – yet it flew unchallenged over the most protected airspace in the world. That this last plane was not intercepted is simply incredible. The Pentagon has the most advanced radar and air defense in the world, and Andrews Air Force base, which is charged with defending the Pentagon and always has fighter jets on ready alert, lies a mere 11 miles away (1 minute flying time).

More at: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline

2. BUSH'S REACTIONS ON 9-11.

Why did George Bush go into a meaningless photo op in an elementary school after hearing that an airliner had crashed into the World Trade Center? He was briefed by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice before entering the classroom. She must've told him that the plane had been hijacked, since the FAA and NORAD had known it had been hijacked for 45 minutes by this point. She also must've told him that another plane was hijacked, since it had been known of for 20 minutes by this point. Finally, while listening to 2nd graders read, why does Bush merely nod calmly when told about the second plane smashing into the WTC? He gazes off into space for whole minutes while the towers burn, looking conflicted and worried.

More at: http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/time ... ngday.html

3. THE COLLAPSE OF ANY RATIONAL THOUGHT IN LTS TARD MIND.

Why did the towers collapse? No steel skyscraper had ever collapsed because of fire. Repeat: In the 100-year history of steel skyscrapers, none had ever collapsed because of fire. The steel used in skyscrapers doesn't melt at temperatures that fire can attain when burning in open air. Jet fuel is essentially refined kerosene, which burns at around 700 C in optimal, perfectly-aerated conditions. Even if the fires did get this hot, it's not nearly hot enough to melt (or even significantly weaken) structural steel, which melts around 1,535 C. Also, given the shocking speed and neatness with which both towers fell, and the seismic evidence of small earthquakes moments before they fell, and the fact the buildings were pulverized instead of falling in chunks, it appears that the towers actually fell due to a controlled demolition rather than fire. It's imperative that an investigation into what happened on 9-11 examine the readily available evidence and this unsettling possibility.

More at: 911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/introduction.html

4. THE COLLAPSE OF WTC BUILDING 7.

Don't forget lts tard is just that. Yet another steel skyscraper collapsed from fire that day. None ever, and then three, in one day. WTC 7 was another building in the World Trade Center complex, but it was the furthest of the buildings from the Twin Towers. It was located on the next block. Little debris struck it, and there were no large fires burning inside of it. Yet, as that horrendous day was ending, at 5:20 pm, WTC 7 collapsed in a remarkable 7 seconds. Nearly the speed of freefall. It fell in what appeared to be a perfect implosion-style demolition. Yet the official story is that it collapsed because a diesel generator located in its basement exploded, causing the whole building to 'pancake' neatly, floor by floor, to the ground. This seems impossible both because an explosion in the basement wouldn't cause a neat implosion – but rather a toppling – and because the 57 floors of the building couldn't have 'pancaked' individually and still reached the ground at freefall speed.

More at: http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

5. ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON.

Why won't the Pentagon release their video footage of this event? The event was perhaps the most bizarre of all. Consider the fact LTS is a first class tard again. The plane that supposedly struck the Pentagon was known to have been hijacked for 45 minutes – after two other planes had already been hijacked and flown into the World Trade Center. Yet this plane supposedly flew unchallenged over the most protected airspace in the world, and then crashed into the headquarters of our trillion-dollar military. While footage of both WTC crashes has surfaced and been shown ad infinitum on television, no footage of the Pentagon explosion has ever been released. The Pentagon oddly chose only to release five still-frames from their security cameras' footage. One of these five frames shows something that might be a plane or a missile or a gray smear. The other four show an exploding fireball on the side of the Pentagon. There was barely any debris from whatever caused the explosion, and yet supposedly the remains of the passengers were all physically identified by the FBI. So the explosion completely vaporized tons of steel, yet didn't destroy human remains? Also, the hole in the side of the Pentagon was too small for a 757 to fit into. Why won't the Pentagon release the rest of the footage?

More at: 911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/video.html

6. CRASH IN LTS LOWER INTESTINE.

Why was the new dildo hitting his big intestine so hard so long? The official story is that the plane crashed after the passengers stormed the cockpit. But normally when planes crash into the ground the debris ends up in a relatively small area. Often the fuselage and wings remain near each other. The debris scattering over eight miles is very odd. Is the official story believable? Numerous eyewitness accounts suggest the plane was shot down by another, unmarked plane.

More at: http://www.rense.com/general54/ccover.htm; and http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/attack/flight93.html

7. THE CLEANUP LOOKED LIKE A JIZZ MOPER COVERUP.

Why was the debris from the Pentagon and the World Trade Center destroyed immediately after 9-11? Normally forensic teams examine all evidence from a crime scene. Yet the steel from the collapsed WTC was immediately shipped to Korea and China, where it was melted down within days. That steel would've indicated whether the buildings collapsed due to fire, something that has never happened and that would mandate drastic redesign of tall buildings. That steel also would've told the tale if the buildings had collapsed, instead, due to another cause – like an explosive demolition. It was the same at the Pentagon: the surprisingly small amount of debris was swiftly whisked away to an undisclosed location.

More at: http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg; and 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

8. INSIDER TRADING.

Who were the big investors who knew 9-11 was about to happen? Although the stock trading on American and United Airlines was up by 1200% the day before 9-11, no public investigations into who profited were undertaken. Hundreds of Arab-looking Americans were rounded up and interrogated for little apparent reason, but neither the SEC nor the FBI arrested any of those who made millions from uncanny 9-11 stock trading. The FBI's reason? They say they know who made those trades, and the traders "had no conceivable connection to Al Qaeda."

More at: http://www.hereinreality.com/insidertrading.html; and http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j121901.html

9. THE FEDERAL COMMISSION.

Why did Bush block the formation of the 9-11 Commission? Why did it take 411 days to finally form the commission, when other commissions have been formed in less than a week? It took six days to form the Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination of John F. Kennedy. If it hadn't been for the insistent demands of the widows of 9-11 (and just four of them led the way), there never would have been any 9-11 Commission at all. When the 9-11 Commission was finally formed, why did Bush withhold funding from it? The commission to investigate the crash of the Space Shuttle Columbia, which killed seven people, received $50 million. Bush only allocated $3 million to the 9-11 Commission. He later, after much prodding, acceded to $11 million. Opposing and resisting an investigation of 9-11 looks ridiculously bad from a political standpoint, so why has Bush done it? As with all of this, the corporate media apparently has no desire to investigate. Perhaps most damning of all is that the 9-11 Commission's chairman and director were both selected by the Bush Administration. Six of the commission's other nine members also had deep, longstanding ties to the administration and to the intelligence, petroleum, and military industrial complexes they were charged with investigating. Normally, a suspect does not get to select his judge or jury, even if he's innocent. While we consider independence to be a hallmark of the American judicial system, unfortunately nothing about the 9-11 Commission was independent.

More at: http://www.joycelynn.com

10. SMALLER AND LESS LTS BRAIN CELLS.

The people running our country right now – Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, Abrams – are all connected to a group called the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). In fact, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Jeb Bush are a few of PNAC's original founders. The manifesto of PNAC, written in the late 1990's, calls for the establishment of an American empire to ensure, in their words, "political and economic freedom abroad...and an international order friendly to American security, prosperity, and principles." The document boldly called for: a 40% increase in the military budget, the formation of a Space Force (in addition to the Air Force) to patrol and control outer space, a "Star Wars" missile-to-missile defense system, a fiercer and more potent global CIA "attack matrix," and an aggressive policy of "pre-emptive war" to defeat enemies before they become strong. In essence, PNAC advocates ruling the world. PNAC's documents sadly acknowledge that the majority of Americans do not want an American empire and would not support the formation of one, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." Nine months after these people came to power, strangely enough, they got their "new Pearl Harbor." And since 9-11, they've got their 40% increase in the military budget (exactly 40%, in fact). They've got the beginnings of a Space Force, "Star Wars" is fully funded, as is the CIA's "Total Attack Matrix." And they clearly got their first pre-emptive war. These coincidences at least merit some investigation of LTS's sanity.

More at: http://www.newamericancentury.org/defen ... ty2000.htm

These questions are wide-ranging. They even seem overwhelming. What's more, I don't know the answers to them. In fact, I honestly don't know anyone who can definitively say exactly what conspiracy happened on 9-11. It may have partially involved Arabs and Osama bin Laden. It may not have. I just know the official story can't be right. We absolutely need a full and open inquiry that will ask all of the questions. Then, and only then, will this nation of ours be safe, secure, and at peace.

Tony Brasunas is publisher of Garlic & Grass.

comment on this article >
hide comments
back to top ^

4 Comments on this Article

Jeff Strahl of Denver, CO writes: As the person who, with Jim Hoffman's help, constructed the presentation at 911research.wtc7.net's Pentagon site, I have to add a few comments. That Pentagon video, from which 5 frames were released, is highly suspect, as our more recent version shows. Still, the Pentagon evidence is extremely important -- the hole's size, given the plane's dimension and angle of approach; the lack of any significant debris, especially wings and tail; the lack of damage to the cable spools, fence and lawn outside the damage area; the lack of evidence of jet fuel fire in exposed sections of the building. Thanks for including it as one of the 'Top Ten' [in The Top Ten Unanswered Questions about 9-11].
RespondPosted Sep 13, 2004
Joe writes: You ask why it looks like Flight 93 was shot down. Well, it most likely was. Now, if Americans were involved in a conspiracy to carry out the 9/11 attacks, then why would they let Flight 93 get shot down?
RespondPosted Mar 8, 2006
Sabina Clarke of Philadelphia, PA writes: This is all very interesting. It seems everyone has a story either directly or indirectly regarding a massive cover-up. An FBI agent told someone I know to "stay out of New York city" for awhile--this was prior to 9/11.
RespondPosted Sep 8, 2006
James writes: Rather than 9/11 Truth having to prove all the accusations, it would be far better for the US Government explain away all the issues. Clearly they can't. For instance, why did the collapse of all three buildings happen at near gravity fall speed? WTC7 came down in 6.5 seconds. Why was the steel removed for immediate shipping to China without proper forensics being done? One could go on and on.
RespondPosted Dec 16, 2007

So...try to address any one of these and we'll believe you're an actual human..

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 12:55 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:
smackaholic wrote:Just for ha-has, I went and looked at videos of both collapses. It is quite clear that each collapse occurs right at the point of the crashes. Now, I'm no controlled demo expert, but, I believe it is a fairly complex operation. Lotsa wires and fuses and controllers and such. And I would think that driving a fukking plane right through this section of the building and turning it into a fireball, then smoldering mess just might fukk up all that wiring just a little.

Don't you, guitar hero?
No, the collapse in fact begins just below the impact--one can see several explosions (which were also reported by police and firefighters). Similarly, molten steel is clearly seen pouring out just before the collapse, which renders the '"weakened" steel theory as ludicrous. Moreover, if the steel was somehow weakened by the brief, low-temperature fire, it would have collapsed in a jagged, listing huge chunk, not the entire building.

As for b-juice's nonsense about discounting the ability of Arabs to "pull off" the entire operation, well it doesn't matter who was accused of doing it--no one could have dropped those buildings because of a fire. Notice how b-juice won't go anywhere near the absurdly obvious controlled dropping of WTC7.

Notice how none of you really even attempt to support any of the many glaring holes in the official story.

Pull your head out of your ass and go to 2:10 You will see that the line of the collapse starting from the left actually follows the diagonal opening where the plane punched through. I know those crafty zionazis are good, but I doubt they're that good. Are you saying they routed the plane to hit at that precise spot, banked over because that is where the collapse would occur?

You are more delirious than poptart and 10 times more dangerous, as poptart's form of insanity is relatively harmless.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sat Dec 19, 2015 5:36 pm

NEVER FORGET

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 6:30 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

NEVER FORGET

smackaholic wrote:Just for ha-has, I went and looked at videos of cahk collapses. It is quite clear that each wilting occurs right at the point of the crashes. Now, I'm no phallic demo expert, but, I believe it is a fairly complex operation. Lotsa whiskey and thinking about baseball and such. And I would think that driving a fukking plane right through this section of the shaft and turning it into a firerod, then smoldering mess just might fukk up all those veins just a little.

Don't you, guitar hero?

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 10:03 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote: the structure of the WTC towers (all three) was a massive design of tempered steel that was designed to withstand both impact and fire.

They were not designed to withstand any impact other than wind, certainly not that of a 767.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 10:19 pm

Dead wrong, wags..

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sat Dec 19, 2015 11:08 pm

For every article you can find backing your stance, I can find another debunking it.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... de-center/

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sun Dec 20, 2015 12:03 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Dead wrong, wags..

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

Why do you keep linking this website? It's no different than referencing http://www.venganza.org/ to support the existence of the spaghetti monster.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sun Dec 20, 2015 12:28 am

War Wagon wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote: the structure of the WTC towers (all three) was a massive design of tempered steel that was designed to withstand both impact and fire.
They were not designed to withstand any impact other than wind, certainly not that of a 767.

They were designed to take a hit from a jetliner flying slowly as might be the case for one lost in the fog. Also such a plane would not likely have a full load of gas.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:36 pm

Well the 10,000 fpm is a quote from the controller. He appears to just be giving his guess. He further stated that the plane was at 23,000 over NJ. They plane might have reached something near 10,000 fpm for just a few seconds but clearly didn't stay there for long.

As for the speed at impact that is a guess. The problem with guessing is that it is just a guess. Could the plane have reached 513 kts sure, but any change in attitude, heading, configuration would slow it drastically.

Bottom line any rational person without an agenda knows it was a plane that struck both towers. My thinking is that jet was moving at around 415 kts but that is also just a guess.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sun Dec 20, 2015 4:45 pm

R-Jack wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:
smackaholic wrote: Notice how none of you really even attempt to support any of the many glaring holes in the official story.
You say that as if your bumbling account of the truth is as airtight as my ex wife in a room full of trainers.

First time I read this I was caught up in the awesomeness of your sig worthy analogy, then I noticed the slanderous quote. I am sure you will go back and fix this obvious html faux pas. If you were 88 or KCscrote, I'd look for a payday in court, but being recently divorced, I suspect that stone doesn't have a drop of blood left in it, so maybe I'll just put a note on your windshield or something.

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Sun Dec 20, 2015 5:50 pm

You'd be right about getting blood from a stone, but you can blame that on buying a new house.

Then again, I would've had more to put down, so I guess you can blame the divorce.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Mon Dec 21, 2015 6:05 am

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:Dead wrong, wags..

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
Why do you keep linking this website? It's no different than referencing http://www.venganza.org/ to support the existence of the spaghetti monster.

Okay, you suggest the site I posted is false. So..let's see you refute any part of it's assertions.

What? You can't, and indignantly refuse to even try? We're so surprised.

War Wagon wrote:For every article you can find backing your stance, I can find another debunking it.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... de-center/

Wags, the popular Mechanics piece has been examined and explained in detail as to its fatuous (and really sleazy) attempt at smear and diversion as its content and aim. Here's a basic outline of its robust falsity--
http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/676-deb ... anics.html

Its suggestions are ludicrous and have been clearly refuted. For example the theory that vast amounts of unspent jet fuel coursed down through the building during those forty five minuted between crash and collapse--and ignited in such a strategic fashion as to cripple the entire massive 100-plus storey steel-structure. C'mon... can you actually even consider such nonsense for a moment?

Notice how PM piece doesn't go near the bald fact of molten steel pouring out of the WTC tower just before the collapse. Here, have a good close look, and remind us again just what you're prepared to "debunk."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPu9IqBfMIw

What's wrong with being awake?

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 12:44 am

Best Answer: 1. No, it was not a design requirement of 1 or 2 World Trade Center to withstand the impact of a commercial airliner. Simplistic studies were done in 1964 to assess what might happen if a tower was stuck by a Boeing 707 on landing approach (low fuel, low speed) and it was decided the impact would not cause the tower to collapse.

2. If you were not such an ape you would know the Boeing 767 is larger, heavier and faster than the Boeing 707. The actual impact the towers absorbed was five to seven times greater than anticipated in the 1964 model.

3. If it is on Youtube chances are it was intended for morons. I imagine you spend a lot of time on Youtube

4. How does it feel to be made a complete fool of, again?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Tue Dec 22, 2015 2:34 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Okay, you suggest the site I posted is false. So..let's see you refute any part of it's assertions.

Why should I or anyone else? Of the three people responsible for that site, none of them have any expertise or authoritativeness on the topic. Also, have you actually checked their references? Most of them just link back to their website or other bunk sources.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 6:10 am

Wags, what's with this "slow and lightened airliner" theory? Are you kidding? Why? Why are you insistent an pretending to be an ignorant stooge?

As for the credentials of the various architects and engineers who have called total bullshit of the official 9/11 version--and who present clear evidence--well, what can you offer to dispute either their credentials or their evidence?

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:51 am

Nice grenade toss, Wolfie.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 8:03 am

Sure...nice grenade toss...

Now, whatever you pretend to be, "Diego," remember that whatever nasty shit you send out, comes back at you one hundred times in reverse..

Oh...you didn't know that?

..happy holidays... :twisted:

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 5:48 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Similarly, molten steel is clearly seen pouring out just before the collapse

how was the steel turned molten if it was a controlled demolition? controlled demolition simply collapses the structural columns, it has nothing to do with turning the metal to a molten state....

how long do you suppose it would take to turn hardened steel into a molten state?

where would that kind of heat come from in such a relatively short period of time? and don't say thermite, because a thermite burn is very very distinct, if you've ever seen thermite ignite, you know exactly what your seeing if it happens again...you'd have to have so much thermite that it would be all over the place, not just "evidence of micro thermite on structural beams".....and what is "thermite"....is it made up of compounds that are pretty common....do you think your buddies who believe this whole conspiracy horseshit maybe said "hey, we found some aluminum powder residue, obviously it was thermite"

I know, they had trucked in some blast furnaces during the late night

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:14 pm

Felix wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:Similarly, molten steel is clearly seen pouring out just before the collapse
how was the steel turned molten if it was a controlled demolition? controlled demolition simply collapses the structural columns, it has nothing to do with turning the metal to a molten state....

how long do you suppose it would take to turn hardened steel into a molten state?

where would that kind of heat come from in such a relatively short period of time? and don't say thermite, because a thermite burn is very very distinct, if you've ever seen thermite ignite, you know exactly what your seeing if it happens again...you'd have to have so much thermite that it would be all over the place, not just "evidence of micro thermite on structural beams".....and what is "thermite"....is it made up of compounds that are pretty common....do you think your buddies who believe this whole conspiracy horseshit maybe said "hey, we found some aluminum powder residue, obviously it was thermite"

I know, they had trucked in some blast furnaces during the late night

You are correct in that standard demolition does not use thermite. However, in the case of of all three WTC towers, the standard series of crippling explosions would have been all too obvious, and so thermite was installed. The "asbestos" situation which Larry Silverstein had declared a serious problem upon purchasing the WTC 1 and 2, allowed for constant extensive after hours work on the interiors of the towers. If you look at the video--from several cameras--you'll clearly see large amounts of molten steel pouring out just before the collapse. Of course thermite burns at 5000 C and would melt the steel immediately.

Consider there's no possible explanation within the official version to account for molten steel. None. So why is there still any seeming support for it? What's your excuse?

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 12:33 am

Papa Willie wrote:He's really getting bent out of shape about this, isn't he?

Isn't a whack job bent out of shape by default?

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 12:40 am

No, Diego, a "whack job" in this sense is someone who clearly sees the molten steel pouring out right before the collapse--and then continues to dutifully recite the "jet fuel weakened the steel" nonsense. What's yer excuse?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Wed Dec 23, 2015 1:11 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:...molten steel pouring out right before the collapse...

Sure...molten steel...riiiiight.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 1:13 am

'Sup, b-juice, didn't you look at the vid?

Check it out, it's a compilation of various witnesses with cameras in hand..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPu9IqBfMIw

So...what's your excuse?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Wed Dec 23, 2015 1:42 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:
So...what's your excuse?

I'm not mentally ill.