Comments by "Mark H" (@markh1011) on "Nine 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (Arguments) – Debunked (Ft. Secular TeeJay)" video.

  1. Nearly all the calls were from airfones not mobile phones. Planes had phones in the seats back then.
    8
  2. "Soooo... an airplane can bring down 3 of the worlds largest and strongest structures and but are too weak to make A dent in the pentagon and so flimsy they didn’t even leave debris at the 97 crash site? " Did you even think before typing that sentence? 2 planes caused the towers to collapse.....all the buildings near them were destroyed.... the plane at the pentagon did punch a hole into it...that area also collapsed...and there was debris at the flight 97 crash site...
    7
  3. "The Pentagon for me is the real talking point for a person flying a actual commercial plane for the first time" He had a commercial pilots license and had done advanced simulator training. No that doesn't make his a good pilot but all he had to do on 9/11 was hit one of the largest office buildings in the world. It's a big target. "to fly in at that angle into the Pentagon seems " How do you know he was trying to his at that angle? There were angles that would have done more damage. "Amazing plus no film or photos of the plane apart" Sure it's surprising. Cameras didn't have phones then and the pentagon wasnt set up to get footage of planes from the sky. The remaining evidence makes it hard to deny though I think.
    7
  4. David "The immensely strong thick steel construction of the Twin Towers were NOT brought down because of jet fuel and open air fires burning for an hour or so." They were brought down by a combination of impact damage.... the removal from SFRM...from the impact damage... and office fires...fires that were started with an accelerate - jet fuel.
    6
  5. Lets see how many errors I can find in this post. 1. The buildings were clad in aluminium not steel. The structural support was from steel however. 2. The towers collapsed mostly outside the footprint. 3. As the other poster is hinting at - you're thinking of free fall acceleration not speed. 4. The towers didn't fall at free fall. 5. Even WTC7 didn't. Some outer walls were at virtual free fall for a moment towards a later stage of their total collapse. 6. There was an accelerant. Jet fuel. 7. The temperature that jet fuel burns isn't relevant in that argument. The high temps came from the contents of the building not the jet fuel. 8. We have no evidence of molten iron apart from some erosion in the pile related to a eutectic solution. All that from 2 sentences. I'll stop there. Your post is a mess.
    6
  6.  @-._.-KRiS-._.-  " I think he means the angle to get that low without crashing into the ground before reaching the desired target." They didn't do a good job of it... a wing hit a light pole ... we don't even know if sure if he meant to get that low... he was a crap pilot. " digitally touched up with today's technology to see if it really was a plane or missile" The evidence is overwhelming that it was the plane in question.
    6
  7. What a profound and intellectual contribution to the channel.
    6
  8. The passport was never in the high temperature fires. it was most likely ejected in the impact.
    6
  9. A lot of bitter conspiracy theorists here.
    6
  10. The steel didn't melt, it weakened. The passport was never in the fires. It, and other objects from the plane were ejected in the collision.
    5
  11. I didnt expect a response.
    5
  12. The planes weighed over 100 tons.... stop thinking of them as light. " Imagine to smash the building with its heavy steel structure onto a plane which is even damaged by bird strikes" If a bird can damage a plane then surely a plane can damage a building. Planes weighing over 100 tons traveling hundreds of mph... breaking through some steel columns... its really not that surprising.
    5
  13.  @bidipbo  " What was the outside of the World Trade Center made of? steel" Well it was made of several things but the structural strength came from steel. I never said otherwise. I said that it was covered in an aluminum cladding. That is correct. I'm well aware of the design of the WTC. There were a group of core columns and perimeter columns linked by floor trusses. "The fact that you have not spent any time researching any of this means that you are not worth the effort." Anyone can see that I have spent more time on this than you have. Your post was riddled with basic errors. You aren't even trying to defend them.
    5
  14. "so a plane can penetrate the pentagon like a knife thru butter gotcha" Does your knife get destroyed when it cuts butter?
    5
  15.  @poli2730  "wrong, the plane profile which crashed in the pentagon didnt even had wings print." Wrong. There is damage to the left and right of the impact hole....the walls were even blown in to the left and right of the fuselage hole. "The surround didnt collapsed even the glass of the windows around the hole and above the hipotetich wings didnt shattered" Some were shattered ..some weren't... these windows were upgraded with blast resistant glass...think about that. "nd btw how u explain the fact that the important people declared to have been informed to stay away from the outher ring. " That didn't happen. Stop believing everything you read on the internet. Learn about critical thinking. "No wait! I guess u ll deny it cause this how u debated " I'll deny it because I'm more interested in facts than conspiracy fantasies. "They just didnt, i made it up!" I don't know who made it up... I don't even care.
    4
  16. Where is he wrong in the video?
    4
  17. " Old passports lying around an empty field is not an actual resource to prove there were terrorists on the plane. " If the passport belonged to one of the terrorists... then yeah... that's evidence that they were on the plane. "Do you have a single boarding pass or flight manifest with their names?...." The manifests with their names was released a very long time ago..... It's bizarre that you don't know this. "Clearly, you have no resources of your own and are just stating what you believe. " The irony.
    4
  18. " But when he made the comment about planes leaving a cartoon like outline in the wall, why did the wings not shear off at the towers?" The wings may have broken off as a result of the impacts but we can't see what happened inside. The important thing to remember is that fuel is stored in the wings. The tanks go for most of the lengths of the wings. That fuel weighs a lot.. The wings are stronger than you would expect so they can store that mass. So while the wings were probably torn apart... they had enough mass to punch through the outer steel columns traveling at those speeds. The fuel didn't go to the wing tips... the wing tips probably had little effect on what they hit. At those speeds they would still have smashed the aluminium cladding..broken windows etc but the tips would have probably had little effect on the steel.
    4
  19. What is there to cover? The Israelis were released... nothing found. Silverstein was someone who leased the buildings.
    4
  20. "..even top demolition experts n firefighters confirmed it was controlled" List all the demolition companies that say that WTC7 was a CD.
    4
  21.  Ron c  " and I can tell you people that NO WAY in the world could a 2-Jet Engine made out of Titanium no less , only cause just ONE,1-Hole. " That isn't the only hole. That's just one of the holes caused from debris that made though one of the rings.
    4
  22.  @donnetube73  "The pentagon also has a missile protection system" It did not have a missile system in 2001.
    4
  23.  @donnetube73  If you really want to believe in a conspiracy you can make up the evidence as you go yes.
    4
  24.  @donnetube73  "Did you know the President of the USA did not want a missile defense system prior to 2001 because the were planning a red flag operation to start a war." ...and your proof of that? Oh that's right ...none. "hence why there was a air-force training program happening at the same time also that took fighter jets away from the area.." There were no jets in the area to begin with..... training runs a large part of the year.... and there is no evidence that any active operation had any negative effect on the response of the air force to the hijackings....
    4
  25.  @gaugeking  " You really have lost a battle you never had a chance of winning. " You're welcome to back that up... go ahead... give it a go... back something up... what are you so afraid of?
    4
  26.  @Ethereum1789  You probably should have stopped after the first post. 🤦‍♂
    4
  27. Is he incorrect somewhere?
    4
  28.  @daktarioskarvannederhosen2568  "there exists (existed(?)) pretty clear video of the incoming projectile." It fits the size and shape of a large jet. " rolls royce replied that that engine model was manufactured (only) for cruise missiles" Prove it.
    3
  29. ...are you joking?
    3
  30. Where is he wrong?
    3
  31. No. 'Melting' means to become liquid. When heated, steel loses strength long before it becomes liquid.
    3
  32. Every wtc building was destroyed...wtc1 2 3 4 5 6 7
    3
  33. So...none then...
    3
  34.  @gaugeking  "What I have provided is irrefutable evidence you can’t debunk, simple! " You got called out... you panicked... you flailed and you spammed some links.. hoping that would cover your retreat ... Careful not to trip over that tail between your legs while you flee to your safe space..... " you really do come off as a fool" Ironically humorous. " Seriously, I’m done" You were done several posts back... but you stayed around trying to protect your ego while running.... (it didn't work)
    3
  35.  @donnetube73  I didn't realise you were joking. It certainly looked like you were making statements..
    3
  36. "This video fails miserably, because it failed to acknowledge the timeline of the events and explain how bombs were going off in the basement before the first plane hit a tower. " Present your evidence for this. "How did 19 hijackers with box cutters get access to the basement and have bombs" Simple. They didn't. Your claim is false.
    3
  37. "9 of the people that they said hijack the plane were confirmed alive" Not quite... that claim was all based on a BBC article about some early attempts to identify the hijackers that were wrong. It wasn't 9 of them. Either way it was cleared up within days. "Plus don't forget Barry Jennings who was a respectable city worker in New York testified about the bombs" He never testified but he said he heard exploding noises while still in WTC7... however if you look at all the evidence it's pretty clear he was talking about the impact of the collapse of one of the towers. "Who once he put his testimony on camera ended up Dying 2 days before the report contradicting everything he was saying was released " He died of natural causes... no suspicious circumstances.... the report does not contradict everything he was saying at all. It fits what he was describing... he felt the collapse of one of the towers. " he had perfect health 4 someone his age He was a very large man in his 50s.... "They said they could find no witness once he randomly dies " So explosions go off in a building...and we're expected to believe a single person noticed? Oh come on.
    3
  38.  @bidipbo  " You contradicted my first statement about the exterior to suggest that the thin veneer of cosmetic aluminium made the structure less robust" I never made any such suggestion. I was educating you that they were covered in an aluminium cladding. " I am not going to defend what thousands of architects and engineers already have. " So show me all their peer reviewed papers? If there were so many it should be easy for them to convince the scientific community... but that doesn't happen because their claims of the central people at the AE911 are nonsense. Science doesn't progress from a list on the internet.
    3
  39. "he guy that owned building 7 said the fire brigade called him and said they need to "pull it" " That wasn't what he said. "And did the flight 93 evaporate?" No it smashed into little pieces...as observed by the people who cleaned it up...
    3
  40. "The so called "terrorist" hijackers were documented in a another foreign country months later and this was on a mainstream TV" Bullshit. The whole claim of them being alive was about mistaken identity... and was corrected very quickly. "I've seen video's of experts say that the buildings are a classic case of demolition. " List all the demolition companies that support that claim. Take your time I'll wait. _" An eye witness weeks earlier spotting vans with no license plates numbers with men in white suits entering the twin towers with bags of explosives. " More bullshit. What witness? Do you really think they would be that obvious if it were a conspiracy?
    3
  41. What did he get wrong specifically?
    3
  42. I didnt expect an answer.
    3
  43. "you forgot united 93 where's the plane" It smashed into the ground.... first responders described plane parts and body parts.... all supporting evidence confirms that it was flight 93... "support columns cut in a 45 degree" Yep..they did that during the clean up. "building 7 was pulled silvertein said it " Complete bullshit.... and tired old bullshit at that. " you forgot that too" ...sigh.... he was already wealthy before 9/11.... he did not get the double payout he wanted.... he spent a fortune in legal costs...and renting an empty site was 10 million a month....insurance against terrorism wasn't so strange...in 93 the WTC was attacked and was insured at the time.... if you're leasing a building that has important government organisations in it...and is next to the location of a terrorist attack...it's really not such a surprise. You're grasping at straws.
    3
  44. "Phone calls could NOT have been made at the speeds NTSB " Of course they could. Most were made from airfones which were there for exactly that purpose.
    3
  45. ”The problem is, that of the the 19 suspects, several have been reported to be alive and well after the attacks. FBI has even conceded as much. And yet - AMAZINGLY - the official account of the alleged hijackers still stand!!” This all came from a BBC article about mistaken identity. In early attempts to identify the hijackers the FBI made errors… within days they had the right people. It was never a story about the actual hijackers being alive… it was a story about mistaking identify with people who were alive. ”So the question maybe isn't whether they boarded or not - but rather how they managed to survive the impacts..” They didn’t. ”The NIST report itself claims that the office fires in the Twin Towers would have burnt at temperatures of around 600 degrees - data collected from samples of steel.” No NIST estimated temperatures up at around 1000C. ”Physicist Robert Podolsky, Physicist/Engineer - AE for 911 Truth - has made estimations of the likely burning temperature of the kerosene and subsequent office fire under the conditions found in the building, and found that they would reach 750 degrees at most.” Then that guy is an idiot. Lets look at the temperatures reached in fire tests. BHP William street fire tests - Atmospheric temperature 1254Cs and 1228C for the tests with the sprinklers off. BHP Collins st fire tests - Atmospheric temp max 1163C Stuttgart-Vaihingen University - Temps exceeded 1000C Cardington tests ALL exceeded 1000C including the one fuelled only by office materials. ”His assertion is that those actual temperatures do NOTHING to the steel and is no way near enough to cause it to buckle or sag.” Lets stick to Celsius… Building fires regularly exceed 600C. As we see above they can even exceed 1000C. Steel is down to half it’s strength at a mere 600C. That there was buckling and sagging is no surprise. We can even see it happening. You can see the columns bowing inwards..and gradual sagging was also photographed. Bowing and sagging - WTC 1 - NCSTAR1-3C Figure 2-24 and 2-25, and NCSTAR 1-5A Figure 8-108. WTC 2 - NCSTAR1-3C Figure 2-37 and NCSTAR1-5A Figures 9-46, 9-59, 9-80, 9-82, and 9-83. Floor sag NCSTAR1-3C Figure 2-40 ”There are many, many examples of steel-framed buildings burning for much longer than both the Twin Towers and building 7, yet not collapsing, or even toppling over.” You dismiss the differences in the grenfel tower so quickly… but you point to other buildings that also had architectural differences. ”As for the Plasco building in Iran - which was the first steel building to collapse since 911 - it had no fire protection, which is quite relevant.” What is also relevant is that the WTC buildings relied on SFRM which only provide protection for a short time… the idea being that the fire fighters get water on the fire within a reasonable time – never happened at WTC7 for various reasons. It burned freely for 7 hours. ”failed to enforce some 22 building regulations prior to collapse” Sure but WTC7 would fail many regulations by today’s standard as well. ”In the case of the WTC buildings, they still remain the only fire-proofed, steel-framed buildings to have ever collapsed due to fire” 1. They aren’t the only steel framed buildings to collapse due fire. For example the Edifício Wilton Paes de Almeida. 2. They don’t build skyscrapers like that any more…because of the WTC collapses.. More concrete is used. 3. The towers didn’t collapse due to just fire. 4. Had the only event on 9/11 been a fire at WTC7 then the FDNY would have driven up and put it out… ”The NIST computer simulation of the collapse has been disavowed by serious, peer-reviewed investigations,” That’s a complete exaggeration. The conspiracy theorists have yet to produce analysis that match the NIST one… there has been a recent attempt but numerous errors have been pointed out with that. ”The building came down in the matter of seconds, barely giving a scrape-mark on any of the surrounding buildings.” The building next to it, Fitterman hall I think it was called, was destroyed by the collapse. ”The University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) made a detailed four-year analysis dismissing the NIST finding - along with other omprehensive investigations, I should add.” Lets be honest.. that is the only analysis that is a genuine attempt to challenge the NIST one… and Mick West has pointed out numerous problems with it. ”here are literally hundreds of witness accounts of explosions being heard, felt and seen at the site of the WTC.” Planes smash into buildings… jet fuel explosions…infernos everywhere…buildings collapsing.. Nearby people describe explosions – the conspiracy theorist assume bombs. It’s such an unintelligent argument. I’m sure you’re smart enough to step back and see this? It’s so bad that I don’t need to refute anything beyond this – there are many videos of the towers… show me the videos where I can hear the explosions going off… particularly before the collapse. Your failure to produce this will confirm that it’s all just witness testimony taken out of context. ”You may want to consider what causes the pyroclastic flow and clouds seen as the buildings come down. T” Oh god… please look up what a the pyroclastic flow is before you use the term… Dust clouds from a collapsing building… and a pyroclastic flow are very different things. It’s another utterly stupid claim. I’m not trying to be rude to you… you’re probably a very smart person… it annoys me that very smart people repeat the arguments of dumb conspiracy theorists. ” Even parts of computer and other office material turned into fine powder.” Gravity is an amazing force. This is what happens when two buildings, among the tallest in the world….smash themselves from the top down…..starting 1300 feet up.
    3
  46. There are plenty of 9/11 conspiracy videos on youtube...
    3
  47.  @klantifashakur9894  There are plenty of conspiracy videos that support the absurd 9/11 conspiracy theory. Have you looked?
    3
  48. "so you're telling me concrete is gonna hold up better than steel?" Concrete handles fire better than steel. Steel will weaken first. "but these are all weak arguments" Be specific. "all the scientists, structural engineers, witnesses, ivy league professors, and copycat tests since then are wrong" The scientific community overwhelmingly supports the official story.
    3
  49. " peer reviewed with no rebuttals." I gave you someone with rebuttals...you made excuses to ignore them.
    3
  50. David Icke is a total nutcase who thinks reptilians rule the world... don't listen to that guy.
    2
  51. Actually no.
    2
  52. Keep in mind that the pentagon is next to a major highway, has its own train station... The pentagon was open for public tours. It had security sure... but it had nothing to stop planes hitting or to capture footage of it happening.
    2
  53. "I always thought it was all of the secondary explosions that was the most compelling followed by the molten metal on the ground" Molten metal is not such a surprise considering the metals present and the ongoing fires. When you look at claims of secondary explosions in detail it's usually clear that someone is deceptively quote mining. There are no suspicious explosions on any of the video of the towers and there is a lot of video of the towers. "pictures of the perfectly cut beams and rush to remove everything," They were cut that way as part of the clean up..... and it took 6 months to clean up ground zero. Hardly a rush. "Your argument about what the buildings are made out of makes no sense since steel buildings are fireproofed--that was just stupid." These buildings relied on a spay on foam....which apparently could be dislodged with an impact... and there were a couple of big impacts that day... that was a factor in the failure. "You act like you know more about buildings than all of the architects and engineers who say the official story is wrong. " There are relatively few ..... a very small percentage of the scientific community..... so that actually goes both ways....and it's much worse for you because you think you know better than far more architects and engineers.... " That must have been when they told Silverstein they were going to "pull it". " You're totally misrepresenting his words. Post what he really said in its entirety. " don't know if any Jews were killed but I know they were warned on a certain website, also the dancing Jews who were held by police, said they were there to film the event when they got back to Israel. I" Oh god so much wrong in one sentence. Yes jews died. No they were not warned on a website... a company on the other side of the world got a warning that day....two people saw it...it had nothing connecting it to 9/11... The dancing israelis were handed over to immigration and never charged... They did not say they were there to film the event ...that is another out of context quote.... ". Like I aid plenty of people heard explosions, you could hear them plainly in many videos and it wasn't rivets popping, " Ok I think we can stop there for the moment because everything you've said so far has basically been wrong We can leave it at that point. Show me video of the towers with suspicious explosions going off. Back up your claim about being able to hear them in the videos....
    2
  54. "The fires at and below ground zero burned at temperatures above 1,000°F for 99 days" Where is your evidence for this? No one was at the site recording the temps. "That is PROOF of a controlled demolition by using nano thermite" That's utterly illogical. Nanothermite (a mysterious substance no one can produce) burns extremely quickly. Proposing that for a heat encountered for a long time doesn't make sense.
    2
  55. "Nano thermite is an incendiary that causes a small nuclear reaction which cannot be put out by water" Oh god... no it doesn't produce a nuclear reaction. 🤦‍♂
    2
  56. "That my friends is EVIDENCE not conspiracy theories.." No that's all nonsense. Every WTC building 1-7 collapsed or partially collapsed as did some buildings nearby.
    2
  57.  @joediffy4331  🤷‍♂
    2
  58. "Go do your research" Where is he wrong in the video?
    2
  59. I didn't expect a response.
    2
  60. "9/11 was a cover for the destruction of records in the pentagon " That's utterly ridiculous. The most needlessly complex conspiracy of all time was to hid some records? _"No aircraft crashed into the pentagon it was in fact a cruise missile which you can just make out in the video from the a camera in the car park. _ There is not evidence for a cruise missile and plenty of evidence for an aircraft crashing.
    2
  61.  @tonyjesshope6861  Engine remains were found. http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html The walls were blown into the left and right of the impact hole. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/docs/hole_measure.jpg You don't actually know anything about this topic do you? That's what I have come to expect from 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
    2
  62. NIST provided an explanation on how WTC7 collapsed. It was supported by their modeling.
    2
  63.  @JL-tj4hq  "Their model was just an animation. " They may have represented the modeling with animation but the walk through their modeling in their report. "Not replicable by other scientists. " Scientists are free to replicate the findings. "Therefore not scientific at all." Actually modeling is used frequently by scientists. "Actual scientists" Ah so scientists who don't support kooky conspiracies aren't real scientists.... " University of Alaska is the most important one i believe." It's really the only one ... the one where Mick West pointed out numerous problems....
    2
  64. "he Iraq plasco building did not remotely collapse in the same way the buildings on 911 did." The point is that it was a steel building that collapsed due to fire. It's not so suspicious at all.
    2
  65. Go to google. Type "pentagon debris" Press enter. Select Images. How difficult is that?
    2
  66. Don't think I've seen any seats. There is debris that may certainly be from a wing... If you're expecting to see the wings in their original condition I don't think you've thought about it enough. You can see part of an engine. The tail would have also been destroyed... So where is the problem?
    2
  67. "And only thermite gets how enough to melt steel" The buildings collapsed due to weakening steel... not melted steel.
    2
  68. Where is he wrong in the video?
    2
  69. Yeah didn't expect a response.
    2
  70. " that was a friendly tip for when you make your next video that I will not be watching." Did you find anything wrong in this video? .....apart from the make up?
    2
  71. "You did not debunk flight 93 crash and the fact that there was no debris." First responders saw debris.
    2
  72. "This is by far one of the Worst "debunked" videos I've seen" Point out the errors he makes in the video. Considering your comment this should be easy for you.
    2
  73.  @darlenehowell2274  "This kid is an idiot! He does not know what he is talking" I challenged you to show me where he was wrong... and instead you claimed that 9/11 was actually caused by a wizard who cast a spell...lol..
    2
  74. "no pancake theory because of how wtc 1&2 were built wrong again" That doesn't make sense.
    2
  75. How is that evidence at all? Tell me.
    2
  76. Cell phone calls were possible but extremely unreliable from altitude. However this is pretty irrelevant as nearly all the calls came from the airfones. "This is a very poorly researched video." Where is he wrong specifically?
    2
  77. "Was building 7 explained? " NIST released a report on it over a decade a go.
    2
  78.  @davidkettelle403  "So it’s worse. " Hardly "You say the fuel started burning the office furnishings, walls, carpet, etc. Then that fire melted the steel? " No... the fires weakened the steel. " That just doesn’t happen- anywhere. And it didn’t happen on 911. " Wrong. ..and wrong. Fire has caused steel to collapse before.. such as the Plasco building... and it did on 9/11... "You are living in an alternative universe and you need to put your thumb back in your mouth- and leave it in." Padding out your clumsy arguments with comments like that isn't helping you. I recommend that you focus on your arguments a little more and less on hollow bluster like that. "Fire never brought down skyscrapers, ever. " Fire caused the collapse of the Wilton Paes de Almeida Building and Plasco Building "You say it brought down 4 in one day." You're very confused. The towers were brought down by plane impacts and fires... other buildings around the WTC complex collapsed or partially collapsed due to fires and the damage from the debris. So you get everything wrong. " Go back to sleep." rudimentary "?? First you say it’s fire above, now your saying the aluminum planes knocked over the steel buildings?" Wow... you are a mess. 1. Let me educate you... the towers collapsed due to a combination of the impacts...and the fires started with jet fuel.. 2. I am not claiming the planes knocked over the buildings.. I have never said anything the sort.. as that didn't happen...we can see that didn't happen... I can't believe I need to explain this to you....you sound rather loopy... "You must be off your meds" Humorous irony. "Free fall speed happens to professionally demolished buildings, when all resistance has suddenly been removed and then they blow the building and it comes down." blah blah... I'm skimming for relevant statements now... "ven if towers had bent steel, there would still be resistance below holding up the structure or opposing it as it can down" The collapsed was slower than free fall so where was some resistance... you just debunked yourself. " There would have been a LOT more wreckage, not 3 % of steel and dust on the ground." Where did you get this percentage from? Show me your working. " Go back to your PlayStation, you can’t play coherently with adults. " ...and once again... your arguments are being torn to shreds here... you should be focusing on them.... not this schoolyard bluster... it isn't helping you. If anything it makes you look more desperate to distract from the topic which isn't going well for you. "The building structure was designed with very thick steel beams towards the bottom. The thickness tapers off as you go up, so how did lighter “pancake” heavier??" ....sigh...now you''re showing that you fail to understand the progressive collapse... Sure ...I'll explain it to you like you're a child...as you seem to need it. The upper block fell onto the (weakened) floor below ... starting a total collapse where each floor was destroyed by the upper block ...and the materials from that floor fell onto the floor below.. so the amount of material increased with each floor.... each second.. Halfway through the collapse how many floors are smashing down on those below? Is it 20-30? No. It was much more by that point.... with each floor being destroyed as the upper block hits it...and joining the collapse... the amount of force being applied to the the floors below also increased. It's like a hammer that keeps getting bigger.... so by the time you get down to the floors with thicker columns (you meant columns not beams).. you've got half the building coming down.... so the thickness of the columns is inconsequential. "YOU are like so many others, you don’t really know how the tower was built in the first place. " More desperate schoolyard bluster. I know about the construction. I just schooled you on why it made no difference to the collapse. "You need to stop making a damn fool of yourself. " someone End of lesson 1.
    2
  79. "? They talk about Pools of molten steel.." you can't identify what's in a molten material merely by looking at it. There were other metals at ground zero that had lower melting temps than steel/iron.
    2
  80. "I’ll remind you, the Pentagon has more CCTV on its premises than any other building in the world." Can you support this claim? "Why then was only ONE very brief video of the ‘so called’ plane released? " Only one caught anything. They didn't have the cameras set up for action shots of planes coming from the sky and hitting a nondescript section of wall "Soon after the ‘plane’ hit the Pentagon, a nearby service station had its own CCTV confiscated. Why? " Perhaps they wanted to be sure of what happened...perhaps they didn't want to allow more highlight reels for their enemies to celebrate...? The evidence for a plane hitting the pentagon is undeniable.
    2
  81.  @gaugeking  That's it? That's your response? Do you want to try again or are you happy with that poor effort?
    2
  82.  @gaugeking  Your feeble excuses amuse me. Run along kid... come back when you've done some research and found some courage....
    2
  83.  @gaugeking  Oh look he's back! I thought you were fleeing? "That feeble video amuses me." Could you point out the errors in the video? go on... give it a go... orrrr you could offer pitiful excuses... either way... "Maybe if you didn’t focus all your attention on just the Pentagon" I'm not... "More money was spent on the Bill Clinton scandal than what was spent on the 9/11 “investigation”" Not quite... this claim references money provided purely to NIST for their investigation but doesn't include the work done by the BPAT team which were lead by the ASCE or FEMA or all the people behind the missouri trial...or all those involved in the painstaking clean up at the three sites.. ...legal investigations regarding the poor response of the airforce... it goes on. A lot more was spent on 9/11. "I won’t be replying to you, " Sure you won't.... you realise you can't back up any of your bullshit and are making a tactical retreat... bye bye!
    2
  84.  @gaugeking  Oh look he's back again! This time, instead of offering whimpering excuses about why he can't provide an argument, he's showed his amazing ability to copy paste links. Was this a skill you learnt or have you always been this talented? So you can't actually make an argument can you? At least be a man and admit it.
    2
  85.  @gaugeking  "I’d be interested to see how you try and individually shoot down the credibility" So I need to write a response to other people's videos because you're incapable of supporting anything.... ? Hah no. Don't try to turn your failures into my homework. I'm not here to save you. "so I thought I’d show you some 9/11 facts that you just cannot, simply cannot debunk. " Tranlsation: You haven't done the research... you lack the ability to construct an argument... you're helplessly out of your depth... so you thought spamming links would save you while you're trying to flee with dignity still intact..... So that's it....? Another post of excuses... what are you even hanging around for any more? ...more failure?
    2
  86.  @gaugeking  I see a notification.. I see no post... did you delete it? Repost it. I hope you show some courage and put some actual content in this one... not embarrassing excuses...
    2
  87. The worst pilot of the group had a commercial pilots licence and could fly a cessna. The instructor who flew with him for months was convinced he did it. The story about not being able to fly a cessna came from someone who refused to let him rent one, Marcel Bernard....but that person also said there is no doubt he had the skill to do what he did on 9/11. "'the most complicated conspiracy of all times''" Hijack planes... fly them into things. Yeah so complicated.
    2
  88.  @secular13  Oh so moving the goalposts now huh? Once again... the instructor who flew with him thought he had the skill to do it. Even the guy who refused to let him rent the cessna said he had the skill to do it. They saw him fly. " all these pilots from Pilots for 9/11 truth are ignorant." Oh you mean a group of nutcases and misled people.... there are not many of them... no one takes them seriously. Perhaps you could list all the (real) airline and piloting associations that support the idiotic conspiracy....
    2
  89.  @secular13  So even though the people (such as a flight instructor) who saw them fly knew they had the skills to do it.... .you saw a guy once...and he said "na na" and that's your evidence. ...a guy said so. No you're not gullible at all.... Bye bye then!
    2
  90. The plane didnt vaporise...
    2
  91. "Hundred and hundreds of architects and engineers have come together calling for 9/11 truth because this is in fact impossible" Yeah look it up... that list includes hardly any structural engineers....and they don't actually say that it's impossible... they just added their name wanting yet another investigation.,.... " justify the complete symmetrical collapse of an entire building could have been caused by office fires alone." None of the collapses were symmetrical... but I suspect you don't care abut facts.
    2
  92. 1. They didn't. 2. The hole was the size of the fuselage.
    2
  93.  @revolutionarythinker  " it's impossible for 3mm aluminium to cut steal that too 10" steal," It's steel. Not steal. You're a structural engineer? I'll assume that's a language thing then. "shockingly watch the video even winglet cuts through steal" No. It doesn't. Even NIST said as much. The very tips of the wings may have broken the aluminum façade but it's very unlikely they did anything to the steel. ", how can it go through 12 walls of pentagon and come out on the other side" 1. Momentum.... these planes weighed over 100 tones.....and were traveling hundreds of mph. 2. The plane didn't come out the other side. It's interesting that you bring up bird strikes.... are birds particularly tough? ...no but they still have impact damage... now think of planes that weigh over 100 tons... hitting at hundreds of mph.
    2
  94. 1. A single camera caught something and the footage was released years ago. 2. That never happened. Prove me wrong. 3. They found the FDR from 2 of the planes.
    2
  95. 4. Is it really plausible that a media company from the other side of the world were involved... ? The BBC...really? There were several errors that day.. it's really not that surprising. 5. That never happened. Prove me wrong. 6. It was never in the very hot fires. "There’s hundreds of more questions but it doesn’t matter because nobody can answers just these simple ones" They aren't that difficult to answer.
    2
  96. Can you point out any errors in the video?
    2
  97.  @darlenehowell2274  Go ahead then.
    2
  98. ​ @darlenehowell2274  I flushed it? How did I do whatever what means? Delete the thread? I don't delete threads. **edit. Your page says you joined a few days ago. That's usually a bad sign.
    2
  99. Where is he wrong in the video?
    2
  100. Where is he wrong in the video above?
    2
  101. I didn't expect a response.
    2
  102. The plane that hit it was small (relative to a 767) and flying slowly lost in fog. It didn't cause much impact damage and there wasn't an instant inferno like there was with the planes on 9/11. I don't know to what extent but steel in the empire state building was encased in concrete. The steel in the WTC was covered with a fire resistant, spray-on foam that could be knocked off by an impact. This was a factor in the collapse.
    2
  103. "breaking third law of motion are facts." Prove this happened.
    2
  104.  @RychuPejaPsaKoncowka  You don't understand the progressive collapse. As each floor is destroyed the material from that floor joins the collapse... impacting the floors below it. After a few seconds it's a lot more than 12 floors smashing down on the floors beneath.
    2
  105.  @RychuPejaPsaKoncowka  No one found any mysterious cut steel beams... there is no mysterious explosions on any of the footage of the towers.
    2
  106. "The official story was that the stel had melted in the beghining," ..actually it just weakened but since when do conspiracy theorists know anything about the official story. That would take research...
    2
  107. Yeah man I'm like a secret spy! The reptilians pay me a well! God you're a moron.
    2
  108. No. He did not say that. Post what he really said.
    2
  109. "What about when they come found a paper pass port after a fire ball. " Passenger items were found at every crash site. It's not such a surprise.
    2
  110.  @coajrmusic  " Does his explanation of the BBCs prediction of the bld. #7 make sense to you?" Absolutely it does. Does the idea that the BBC... a company from another country... were part of the conspiracy... and were handed a script ... So a national media company from the other side of an ocean were involved in this ... needlessly complex conspiracy... for no good reason...and told what was planned to happen... for no good reason.... and messed it up... and they keep quiet about it after all these years... When you add the BBC in you make it even more implausible than it already was. " If so, going further would be a waste of time" I'm not gullible and know a little about this topic so perhaps it is a waste of your time. " But I would also ask if you believe the Shanksville plane vaporized?" It didn't vaporise.... a lot of it went into the ground... and parts went everywhere....a lot of it was destroyed in the collision... the end result is that you don't have much left. "and if not, where was the debris?" The people who arrived on the scene saw debris.... oh let me guess they were all lying? " And landing-gear created the inner hole, where is the landing gear. T" Who know.. at the bottom? Can you prove it was never there? "The blacksmith said his furnace was 300 degrees hotter than the temp. of burning jet fuel" The tempt that the jet fuel burned at wasn't that relevant... the jet fuel only started the fires... it wasn't responsible for the highest temps. ". I could go on and on with the laws of physics" Go ahead. " nothing falls through the path of greatest resistance" Oh you mean truther physics.... ..which isn't real physics... it's repeating lines you saw on a conspiracy page... The implication here is that debris magically dodges what is beneath it... this is nonsense. Gravity pulls things down. If you drop a brick on your head.. it's not going to dodge your head. " I could go on and on" When are you going to refute anything from the video? You are challenging this guy to a debate and it doesn't look like you're prepared.
    2
  111.  @poli2730  "? U answerd nothing" Oh I answered... with facts... you just didn't like the facts.
    2
  112. "But steel WAS melted!!!" Surface erosion that may have happened in the pile afterwards. Similar analysis was done on some eroded steel from the towers and it almost certainly happened while in the pile. "There are also countless eye witness accounts of molten steel at ground zero, " There are accounts of glowing steel (no surprise) ..molten metal (no surprise) and some of molten steel. But no one actually confirmed if what they saw was steel. You can't perform a metallurgical analysis by merely looking at it.... and there were various other metals present. "here is molten steel seen on video pouring from a window" Again you don't actually know if that's steel. " RJ Lee Group determined that as much as 6% " The R J Lee group specifically say that what they found in the dust was a result of fires and collapses.... they have been clear that they disagree with claims of explosives. "nd the thermal images of ground zero indicate extremely hot temperatures" Again..not a surprise. Explosives don't stay hot for months.... fast burning incendiaries don't stay hot for months....
    2
  113. ...no one has ever found evidence to support that.
    2
  114.  @daktarioskarvannederhosen2568  "i would suggest that there is an immense amount of extremely damning circumstantial evidence " Present it then. " please point us in the direction that reasonably allows for any other conclusion " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XImQ6a-VrnA& Do you know better than the fire fighters who were actually there? You're trying to shift the burden though. You've made claims. Now it's time to stop whining and back them up.
    2
  115. ", everybody knows 9/11 was just a farce played by the government to start the US-led invasion" No....only gullible people think that.
    2
  116. "what about the surrounding buildings why those buildings didn't collapse due to fire -" All the buildings in the vicinity ...WTC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 collapsed or partially collapsed due to damage and or fire...
    2
  117. Where is he wrong, specifically?
    2
  118. "Phones weren’t strong enough to make those calls. " Most of the calls were from the airfones in the back of the seats... it's exactly what they were designed to do. " How is the fire hottest at the ground? " When?
    2
  119. Where is he wrong?
    2
  120. Didnt expect a response.
    2
  121. " Bonjovi here wants us to take his "scientific" (credentials please)opinion over those of Architect's and Engineers, Commercial Airline Pilots, and Attorneys for 911." If you're going to start appealing to authority then you're still going to look foolish. Here are peer reviewed papers written by engineers.. http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm They performed analysis that passed actual peer review. All support the official story... Analyses were done by many organisations such as MIT, Purdue, Exponent Failure Analysis, Weidlinger Associates and others... All agreed. All support the official story. The ASCE openly supports the official story. Over 100 000 engineers in that group. In recent years at the annual conference for the AIA, they architects took a vote on whether there should be another investigation into the collapse of WTC7. They always lose in embarrassing fashion... e.g. 96% to 4%. It seems that the architects of America support the official story as well. "Franken who's office was in the WTC claims to what he described as The Jew Call from non other than Rudy Guiliani" The comment was sarcastic. ..and no it wasn't guliani he was referring to... but this is irrelevant... it wasn't a serious comment. "What about Larry Silverstine. The Jew who bought the WTC six weeks prior to the attack" He leased the buildings. " He insured the condemned (asbestos) to more that double it's value " Double it's value? No. ..and no, they weren't condemned... that's just stupid. " special clause that paid in the event the buildins were brought down by terrorists" No it wasn't a special clause. It was not uncommon. ... what makes it even more likely is that it was a building that was the target of a terrorist attack only a few years earlier.... AND it was insured against terrorism when that happened. it would only be logical to insure against it again.
    2
  122. ...lots of witnesses say otherwise.
    2
  123. "100 of the top most respected structural and engineering firms in the US gave their conclusions on how the buildings collapsed." No...that didn't happen. Not 100. Several engineering firms did perform analyses on the towers collapse and agreed with NIST.
    2
  124. "A plastic airplane can not fly through steel and concrete....period.." Plastic? You think planes are made of plastic? Would you fly in a plane to the other side of the world with hundreds of people in a plastic plane? What a ridiculous statement. The planes all weighed over 100 tons.... you hit some steel and glass (there was very little concrete in the towers) with an object weighing over 100 tons...traveling hundreds of mph...then yeah its going to break though.
    1
  125.  @timwozniak7574  "planes are made of fiberglass you dip shit" Err no. They are a mix of several components. Predominantly aluminum on the outer shell. The engines are titanium. "100 tons??? Are you that stupid?" Stop. Educate yourself. You're making a total fool of yourself. https://modernairliners.com/boeing-767/ Go to the take off weight. "yes the towers where built mostly of heavy steel beams." I didn't say otherwise. "no matter how fast or heavy the object they can't disappear into the steel" Disappear into the steel? The planes broke through it. "it would have broke apart on impact" The planes would have been torn apart in the impacts yes...that's right. "do more research please" When someone as clueless as you... says something like that it just becomes comedic.
    1
  126.  @timwozniak7574  "I have a bit more knowledge then you on this subject." It's not my knowledge. I'm giving you the specs of the plane. "I have a bit more knowledge then you on this subject." This subject? It doesn't appear that you do actually. Not so far. "yes commercial jets are made of aluminum and fiberglass." So you've learnt about the aluminum now that I have taught you. That's good. "With the biggest weighing no where even close to 100 tons." Their take off weight is over 100. https://www.globalair.com/aircraft-for-sale/Specifications?specid=1 "Isnt it kinda of strange that the plane that supposedly hit the second tower was grey???" No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175 Have a look at the picture. It was a grey plane. "how do they find a engine from the plane laying in a alley and its not even the proper engine" It was. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/explaining-the-9-11-murray-st-engine-from-flight-175-n612ua-that-hit-wtc2.9022/
    1
  127. "Sooo convenient that inside all of the debris, the molten steel and god knows what, the government was able to retrieve tiny pieces of paper (the passports) from what " The passport was found on the sidewalk before any of the collapses... it was never in the debris or extreme temps. " do you really believe that 4/5 stores of wakened steel can bring down the WHOLE TOWER" When you're talking about 15-20 stories dropping it would probably only take 1 or 2 floors to be weakened.... "The London building was ENGULFED by fire. " A concrete structure. "Furthermore the Plasco building is still under investigatio" Nothing has been found. Conspiracy theorists are acting desperate because it's a good example that shows their claims are stupid.
    1
  128.  @1VirFortis  It seems they didn't have one. The only cameras pointed at the section of wall caught something that fit the shape of a plane and those shots were released.
    1
  129. Judy Wood is a nutcase who thinks death ray beams destroyed the towers.
    1
  130.  @Antoine-619 Response from a 2 year old post. The pictures from the pentagon certainly fit the description of jet fuel as do the first responder descriptions from Shanksville..
    1
  131.  @Antoine-619  " We didn't see it burning at either those two sites like at the towers why is that?" What are you talking about? There was a very large fire at the pentagon. The first responders at Shanksville described fires.
    1
  132.  @Antoine-619  "no they didn't describe fire" They were not the first people on the site. The first people on the site saw plane parts and body parts. The coroner Wally Miller identified the victims himself. "Nor could you see any fire from when the news first reported from shanksville.." It was different to the other crashes because it went into the dirt. But there was fire, plane parts and body parts.
    1
  133.  @Antoine-619  ..and...you've completely abandoned talk of the pentagon. Which is telling. So....what else have you got?
    1
  134.  @Antoine-619  "yeah didn't think so mark" What sort of dodge is that? lol... "and again we didn't see it at the Pentagon either" There was an enormous fire at the pentagon. Is there something wrong with you?
    1
  135.  @Antoine-619  "The coroner didn't see anything remotely close to that" The coroner Wally Miller personally identified most of the victims. He's on record saying this. You really have no idea about this do you? 🤣🤣
    1
  136. ​ @Antoine-619 Dude, see the video of him complaining about conspiracy theorists misrepresenting what he said.
    1
  137.  @Antoine-619  "no I'll take what he said initially." So you've got him on camera explaining that you're taking the wrong interpretation - and you ignore it. That says it all really. You don't care about evidence or reality. You dismiss your own witnesses. "with the official story changed their stories. Coincidence?" He never changed his story. You're not understanding what he said. He explains what he said and you refuse to listen. It's comical. You have no interest in logic or reason.
    1
  138. " All the government needs to do ,to prove it had no involvement in 911, is release to the public all the footage that was confiscated so we can see for ourselves what actually hit the Pentagon." That's naive. We have footage of the towers impacts and people still think its a conspiracy. There is no amount evidence that will satisfy conspiracy theorists ...evidence doesn't really matter for them. "How is it possible that two 6k pound engines could hit a bldg at a reported 400 mph and not leave a mark" They did leave marks.....the walls to the left and right of the fuselage hole were blown in.
    1
  139. You're being too logical for conspiracy theorists.
    1
  140.  @frankjones643  "Also, I’ve been stalked and bullied by shills who clone my accounts to post embarasing things in my name. These shills are payed by Isreal and the NWO so keep an eye out for that. You should also check out what David Ike has prooven about possible reptilian involvement in 9/11" You're a bit nutty aren't ya Frank? No one is bullying you.... you don't really believe about the reptilians do you?
    1
  141. "Tell me boys how WTC6 burned to the ground and much more roasted than anyother that "colapsed" due to fire, also frame-stell but with thinner pilars which makes his structure more vulnerable to fire. " What are you talking about? " I want to believe that debunk shit Debunk what? You don't make an intelligent argument to respond to.
    1
  142.  @Fixundfertig1  "Have you seen how fire affected WT1, 2 and 7 vs how fire affected to the WTC3, 4, 5, and 6?" You're not taking all the factors into account. The first three are much much taller than the remaining 4. WTC1 and 2 were in the top 10 tallest buildings in the world at the time.... their fires were accelerated by jet fuel... WTC7 wasn't damaged in the same way those smaller buildings were.... and it's collapse was not partial but more spectacular. " It's so cool dump two different glasses to the ground and pretend to know a bit more than a shit about steel and concrete in the building of skyscrapers." What are you talking about?
    1
  143.  @BrianSEPT11  From godlessmath Here it is again, Brian. The video of the terrorists at Dulles is time-stamped: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLEqjpHVPhM Here is the way in which it is time stamped, see page 13: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/253703/1/video-report.pdf Loronix, another company that provides digital surveillance equipment, has developed a digital video surveillance system linked to cash register transactions in Dayton Hudson retail stores, and Washington Dulles International Airport. This system captures digital video which is stored on Sony DAT tapes housed in a "jukebox". The recording system is in line with an atomic clock synchronization system that Dayton Hudson uses on its registers, so the time stamp on the video is accurate to within 500 milliseconds. Each recorded event also stores other important information, such as register, number, receipt, etc. Software to search and locate specific events is provided, saving time and effort. Loronix’s system tries to ensure that the images captured are tamper-proof by encoding a "fingerprint" into them: "Each video clip is fingerprinted through a mathematical algorithm during the video capture process. The fingerprint becomes part of the clip and is used by the playback software to verify the video has not been altered."" So why does the Dulles video that we see not have a time-stamp displayed? Because the video can be exported so that no time-stamp is displayed, that way we can see the entire video without any details missing. But in the system, the video is fingerprinted with a time-stamp. This time-stamp would have been verified by David Brent, the security expert who found the Dulles video: https://www.securityinfowatch.com/video-surveillance/article/10489184/boschs-david-brent-looks-at-how-tv-shows-like-criminal-minds-and-csi-crime-scene-investigation-have-changed-expectations-on-video-surveillance-and-then-explains-todays-reality-for-cctv Misconceptions create problems when you are dealing with large systems and looking for the needle in the haystack. In 2001, I worked for a manufacturer that at the time had its CCTV system in the Washington Dulles International Airport and the Pentagon. After the 9/11 attacks, I was part of a team that had the laborious task of reviewing all the video from the airport with several federal agents looking over our shoulders. Did you notice I said all the video? That's every frame from over 300 cameras with 30 days of retention time. The task took three weeks of 15-hour days."
    1
  144. Where is he wrong in the video?
    1
  145. Didn't expect you to have an answer.
    1
  146.  @JL-tj4hq  "Who is Mick West? Do you have a link?" Mick West who runs the metabunk site. It's not a single link. There are multiple threads on it. They will come up with any search though. " Just modeling without making it open source." They detail their modeling in their report. They just didn't release all the input data.
    1
  147.  @JL-tj4hq  -" Like, i can see what i just said."_ Oh does this bother you?
    1
  148.  @JL-tj4hq  "No it's just a bit strange." Not really. I see it all the time. " Thought you might have a reason." To make it clear what I'm responding to.
    1
  149.  @JL-tj4hq  Good chat.
    1
  150. ". If you beleive carosene (jetfuel) melted or weakened those HUNDREDS of metres of solid steelbeems " You're showing you still don't understand the basics. the jet fuel didn't cause the high temps.. it just started the fire very quickly. "While you are at it debunk iron stoves, carosene stoves, newtons 2nd law and the fact that Zionist jews own the media and are greedy, " You're a raving neo nazi lunatic.
    1
  151.  @Vixxing21  You evaded my whole post to ask me a nonsensical question. You're obviously not ready to discuss this topic nazi.
    1
  152.  @Vixxing21  blah blah nazi nutcase ranting.... It's always the same Danny. you lose your argument, you cry about zionists. You sound pathetic.
    1
  153.  @BrianSEPT11  Are you even fooling yourself? I responded to your post and destroyed you. You are too scared to even address the refutation I wrong.... just a terrified little loser... This guy Daniel is blathering halfwit... he tries to talk about physics sometimes but makes a fool of himself... He's a crackpot neo nazi. You're allying with neo nazis..... Usually a bad sign....
    1
  154. "At the time they said they found a passport in amongst all the rubble." Get your facts right. It was not found in the rubble. It was found on the sidewalk before any of the collapses.
    1
  155. Those at the scene saw bodies. Oh wait they must have been in on it too.
    1
  156.  @daktarioskarvannederhosen2568  " i've never seen anything other than photos of a giant crater" There aren't a lot of photos... there certainly weren't people walking around photographic body parts... however the point remains... those at the scene saw them. "are you suggesting there is crash evidence being with held from the public?" I'm telling you that the area sectioned off from the public and that the people involved saw body parts. "please direct me as to where i might educate my self" Most links to 9/11 sites are dead now because it's a forgotten pile of nonsense. I found at least one in 30 seconds of searching. Voices of 9/11: Witness, first responder, coroner, relative Links get blocked. That's the title. "We found personal effects for everyone, and at least a little human remains for each person. Everything that was positively identified was returned to the families," he said."
    1
  157. " was brought down by demolition the look at the video when the building 7 collapse " The video with no demolition explosives going off.... " the whole structure free fall to the ground evenly watch " Not quite.. It collapsed in the centre first...leaving the outer structure holding what was left, with very little lateral support...columns buckle and the collapse begins...
    1
  158.  @domprivate7787  "None of it is convincing " Some people will never be convinced if they don't want to. "There is material evidence of molted steel in the debris" No. There are claims of glowing steel, molten metal and a few of molten steel...but no one ever confirmed them. There was some eroded steel found but it was affected by sulfur... "According to a group of over 3000 architects and engineers conducting an independent investigation" Which is an entirely false statement. There aren't that many conducting an investigation. There is supposedly that many who added their names to a list... All they needed to do was add their name....no investigation required. On another channel there was an engineer who was proud about how he'd added his name. I asked him if he knew specifically what caused the towers to collapse.... he didn't know. Think about that. He was there claiming it's a conspiracy but didn't even know the basics of what he was objecting to. The list is a joke. They should try to do some real science.... "You are making the unfounded assumption that in a fire induced collapse of a steel framed building, all the columns would eventually just give up at the exact same time offering zero resistance whatsoever. " The didn't all collapse at the same time...the interior had collapsed...leaving the outer shell...the columns buckled near the bottom...the building collapses..during that total collapse those buckled columns are useless....they are bending stilts in a collapsing building...they do nothing... you have a moment of virtual free fall... it's really not so surprising. "Sorry not buying it!" that isn't a particularly strong refutation. "Your explanation is fine as a possible explanation if you believed the mainstream narrative. I do not" Nor is that. " The "No Jewish people died on 9/11" claim is not part of the 9/11 truth movement." 9/11 truthers tell me that all the time.... You're applying a no scotsman fallacy. "Where is your evidence that the hole was made by the landing gear and why did you simply ignore " The main hole was from the fuselage...there is damage to the left and right of that from the engines and the wings.
    1
  159. "The one and only jet engine found at the pentagon comes back as from a cruise missile engine" What a ridiculous claim.
    1
  160.  @daktarioskarvannederhosen2568  ", as you know, this can misrepresent the original context/alter the original" There is no misrepresentation here... your whole post was ridiculous. Your claim was ridiculous. "i note no comments of which are other than emotional utterances of disagreement." Perhaps you should read your own posts some time. "if you disagree with somebody's post or claim then state WHY you disagree" I do. In your case however, your claim was so absurd that my comment is appropriate. Your emotional response is dismissed. "AGAIN, IF YOU DISAGREE WITH SOMEONE'S" Throwing tantrums isn't helping you kiddo. Post evidence of your absurd claim ..or go away.
    1
  161.  @darlenehowell2274  You've been challenged to show where the video is wrong and you're babbling about wizards and Jung....
    1
  162.  @arkyudetoo9555  I wouldn't be surprised.
    1
  163. They did withstand the collision. ... and we know the firs were weakening the steel. There are photos leading to the collapse that demonstrates this.
    1
  164. Lame. Go back to your tinfoil hats dumbass.
    1
  165. So the screwball nazi crackpot reveals himself. So you're not just a conspiracy sheep. You're a nazi conspiracy sheep who hates the jews. The rest of society looks down on nutcase loses like you. You know it too.
    1
  166. " I care if people know I don't like Jews and zionists? " Yeah insane nazi losers probably stop caring after being picked on an ridiculed by everyone for so long.
    1
  167. You fantasise about weird things.
    1
  168. Richard Gage isn't highly qualified. He's an architect who never worked on high rises... he's also an idiot.
    1
  169.  @antonellocalc  "your reply is quite superficial." ...just calling it as i see it mate. " Indeed it does not take into account all of the experts involved in the movement." When you consider the number of actual experts in the world... the number they have is actually rather pathetic. The ACSE openly supports the official story and they have over 100 000 members... If you're going to try to resort to fallacious appeals to authority and appeals to numbers then it will backfire. "The video is full of data" It's full of distortions and half baked claims... There is a reason why the real scientific community ignore idiots like Richard Gage.
    1
  170.  @antonellocalc  .....and? They are still yet to actually achieve anything. Gage is still a buffoon...his claims are still stupid. They will get nowhere.
    1
  171. "And there weren’t any planes either;" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WGu345fr6o What are they?
    1
  172.  @ivanfairbanks6563  "videos you can see the wings of the 2nd plane disappear." I've seen that claim about one video and the wings didn't disappear. it was a perspective thing. "but it could be after all be true as absurd as it sounds" It would require so much more than some CGI... (the best CGI ever... from nearly 20 years ago) it would require thousands of people to lie... it would require civilians to have their video altered...and say nothing... it would require the occupants of the buildings to lie... the first responders... the people at airport traffic control... etc.. It's simply not plausible.
    1
  173.  @ivanfairbanks6563  "And many pilots claim that no plane can fly top speed 500 mph at sea level. " It wasn't quite sea level... it was higher than that.. coming down from altitude where its easy to build speed. The claim comes from conspiracy idiots who don't understand that the VMO is recommended limit not a physical one. No reputable airline or piloting association supports the claims of the conspiracy theorists.
    1
  174.  @ivanfairbanks6563  The 9/11 conspiracy claims don't stand up to scrutiny.
    1
  175.  @daktarioskarvannederhosen2568  "reputable independent investigators subsequently attempted to replicate the circumstances of the calls" There are multiple examples of mobiles working at altitude from that era. " i am, unfortunately, not motivated " So you can't point out anything wrong then.
    1
  176.  @daktarioskarvannederhosen2568  You waited a year to ask me that question?
    1
  177.  @daktarioskarvannederhosen2568  This subject interests me. Oh look there is another comment for you. Does that hurt your feelings?
    1
  178.  @daktarioskarvannederhosen2568  " none of which are of substance." Feel free to refute anything I have said. Or keep whining... either way....
    1
  179.  @daktarioskarvannederhosen2568  Yes!
    1
  180.  @daktarioskarvannederhosen2568  "i should be concerned for your (lack of) mental health," Says the troll obsessing over me be cause he lost an argument.... 😂😂
    1
  181. Are you serious?
    1
  182. "I have seen Silverstein admit on camera that they pulled building 7. " That's not what he said at all.
    1
  183.  @davidkettelle403  "Mark H most of it would burned off in the crash from the impact, though." A lot of it was. What is your point? I'm saying that the explosions and rapid ignition from impact got the fires going quickly. ", there these are the twin towers that were very sturdy structural steel." ....as opposed to other buildings? Yes the steel was sturdy... so were the planes.. "If the heated steel even bent and it would have only even possibly bent in the area of the crash" No. The hottest areas were not the impact areas.. they were on the other sides....that is where the bowing was seeing... that it where the collapses initiated. " building would NOT have just collapsed at free fall speed," The towers did not collapse at free fall. "the free fall spreed is what Proves help by explosives " If' that's the "proof" you're relying on then your proof fails and your argument fails. "would ha FALLEN OVER- " You're confusing a tree being sawed with a skyscraper...There was no magical pivot point to allow the upper structure to hold together while a magical lateral force finishes the job. Gravity pulls down..and that's the direction it had to fall. " the pancaking is just absolute fucking nonsense" Pancaking... as in floors hitting the floors below during the collapse is an undeniable fact. It's on the videos. ". I and quite a lot of others have done a LOT of checking and it takes some considerable personal research to read and see it, but the evidence is all still out there. " ..sigh.....the number of conspiracy theorists who have proudly told me how much research they have done... as if that's going to make their arguments more correct... but then go on to make BASIC ERRORS.....like saying that the towers fell at free fall...or confusion about pancaking... "The problem is we were fed a bunch of lies," Stick to the facts thanks... . not flat earther conspiracy lines from the handbook. Ok I skimmed the rest of your post and it was more of that. I'm interested in facts and evidence.... not conspiracy theorist pontification.
    1
  184.  @davidkettelle403  "NO, it’s not." Upper case doesn't make your ridiculous statements any less ridiculous unfortunately. "NO, it’s not. Resistance from the rest of the building below would have made the top piece fall over. " 1. No.. for the top to fall over would require a magical pivot point ... and a the upper floors to hold together... which would require magic...and finally we would need magical lateral force... with the power to push it... you're living in a cartoon. I educated you on this in the last post. 2. Your total confusion there isn't a respond to the fact that pancaking happened.... You're a very confused person. "When they don’t get the explosives cutting out and blowing up the lower, the top DOES NOT pancake" ..sigh... you don't get it... you're talking about little buildings of a few stories... I'm talking about 20 stories coming down onto 1 weakened floor... I can show you little buildings pancaking.... but as they are intentional demolitions (without explosives) you will say that they don't count. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o The point is that your position is entirely wrong...and pancaking can happen. "NIST (by itself) came up with that crap so it could support its “no explosions” statement" Once again you are completely confused. I will have to educate you. NIST didn't invent pancaking... it's a descriptive term that has been around for a long time. In the context of 9/11...the pancake theory was something FEMA came up with for describing the collapse initiation. NIST did not use the pancake theory. Their theory of collapse initiation was different ...but this is something different to the description of pancaking that happened during the collapse...which we can see happening on video. To deny what is clearly on the video requires quite a lot of self delusion. " ignoring all those recorded at the scene saying there were explosions that the heard bring it down" More confusion.... people describing the collapse and saying the work "explosion" is no surprise at all.. But we can see the videos... and we can see what they are describing...they are describing a pancaking building....there are no explosions on the videos.... this is a fairly important point that you can't seem to compute. "You got “pancaking” from the official narrative you were fed, not from any research you di" blah blah hollow conspiracy babbling... you rejected pancaking..because of the conspiracy narrative..not from any research you did..that's for sure... I just gave you a quick lesson... for free.... I bet you don't even thank me. Your ignorance is only matched by your arrogance it seems. " You bought the Kool Aid you were given and still do. " blah blah from page 2 of the conspiracy theorist handbook.... you forgot to say something about sheeple...and "your government would never lie!!"... yawn... "You mean scholars, architects, engineers who risked considerable " What risk? If they risk looking foolish then that's their fault for being so bad at their job. when doctors become anti vaxxers it's generally bad for their career and with good reason. End of lesson 2.
    1
  185.  @davidkettelle403  "continuing to finish, because your crackpot reply can’t be left without one. " The irony... I have exposed your remarkable ignorance ..your repeated self delusion... and I've had to teach you some basics about this topic. Half of your posts are hollow bluster... My advice - spend some more time researching and less time posting your playground quips. "You just go with what the pre-arranged narrative " Says the guy reading from a conspiracy theorist script. " Good luck with the KoolAid." 10 conspiracy troll points for you! You worked the kool aid comment in twice! Straight for page 2 of the conspiracy theorists handbook. "The earth is round, stop pontificating your prejudice towards me and convince me how planes bring down 2 skyscrapers, with something other than 1200 degree fire and gravity?" You're asking me to convince you something that didn't happen... it was a combination of impact and fires. You're digging your heels in and being as arrogant as possible...but when challenged about the topic you show you don't know this that well at all. You have a superficial understanding that you got from conspiracy theorists.. "BTW, no plane hit WTC7, your saying fires started in that building were hot enough to bring the building straight down without explosives? " The fire department noted that it was looking unstable look before it collapsed... why won't you listen to them? You think you know better than those fire fighters who were there? "You mean hours and hours of reading " ..and yet you get so much wrong. You make BASIC ERRORS... I need to teach you like you're new to this. You probably wont even thank me for the free lesson as well. End of lesson 3.
    1
  186.  @davidkettelle403  " have you taken the time to take another look at your errors " Point out the errors. Go ahead. You panicked and ran away last time.. did you muster up the courage to come back and have another go.... ? ..and that post was the best you could do? I tore your arguments apart in those last posts... it must have really spooked you. "our ego really took over your comments" How ironic. "too many claims that just don’t add u" What are these claims? You failed to demonstrate them last time.... feel try to have another go.... Over to you. Respond to those posts that made you flee.
    1
  187.  @davidkettelle1581  This thread is two years old... Some troll wants to meet me. ...yeah sounds like a great idea! 🤣🤣
    1
  188. "A plane does NOT leave a cartoon like hole in reinforced concrete" Nor did that happen on 9/11. "t does however leave a cartoon like hole in a steelframed building, since aluminum is a lot harder than steel and will slice right through it. " Slice? More like break through... we're talking about a plane weighing over 100 tons...traveling hundreds of mph.... yeah it can break through a few columns. "When a firefighter says the floors popped out, floor by floor, he actually means the floors collapsed floor by floor, so that is also debunked." You're talking about a guy describing one of the collapses.... do you realise we have them on video?! ...we KNOW he's not talking about explosives. "the fact that at least 5 of them are still alive and" ..the BBC article... it was about early attempts to identify them....they got some wrong... and then they corrected it... If you think they are still alive then show me where they are... take your time I'll wait. " And building 7 collapsed due to a few scattered office fires," The fire fighters who were there disagree with you Jose.
    1
  189.  @josegerrits3927  " told you before, the building hit the plane with the same amount of speed as the aircraft did the building, the building " Yes I'm well aware of the physics involved. I'm also aware that you're not from a physics background. "the building weighed a whole lot more than the plane" Not relevant. A person weighs more than a bullet but a bullet can still penetrate the skin and skull. The overall mass of the building isn't important here. what matters is how the columns in one area can resist a plane weighing over 100 tons, traveling hundreds of mph. "steel is a lot stronger than aluminum" Not relevant. With enough force you can shoot a ping pong ball through a bat. Water is just a liquid... if a plane hits water it smashes into pieces. So none of your arguments make sense here. "so parts of the plane should have fallen down on impact. " You're living in a road runner cartoon. You think material is going to go from a couple hundred metres per second to stopping dead in an instant? ..because there are some steel columns? No. Momentum won't allow that to happen. "Instead the entire thing, nose (made of plastic), wings, tail disappeared into the building and then it blew up. " That's right. How could the nose not make it in? It has a 100+ ton plane behind it? Where could it go? You've not thought this through.
    1
  190.  @josegerrits3927  "If the plane had hit an unbreakable wall, it would have come to a dead stop, the force of the collapse would act upon the plane alone. Since steel beams are not unbreakable, the force will act upon them, causing them to bend or break. " ...? .... o ...k.... I assume you mean collision not collapse but still..... o....k.... "But the plane is not unbreakable either, the force would also act upon the plane, but in this video you can clearly see that the plane is sliding right through the wall, without slowing down or breaking up, this is impossible." Without slowing down? The planes came to a stop inside the buildings. Think about that. You don't need to be a physics expert. To come to a stop.....you need to slow down right? "n this video you can clearly see squibs racing down the far right of the building in front of the collaps" You cling to so many stupid ideas.... 1. There are no explosion noise. 2. The supposed squibs move at the speed of the falling building 3. Explosions cause a building to collapse...they go off before a building collapses ...you see... pay attention here... that's what makes the building collapse!... (I can't believe I need to explain things like this) 4. It's dust and debris being forced out... consistent with testimony given by the last people out of the buildings .... "Have i missed your comment on the Acars perhaps?" I've had to educate you about ACARS over and over... it's possible you've missed a comment... you seem to miss everything that doesn't work with your conspiracy fantasies... " I have not read your explanation for the Acars " Have you now switched to one of the towers planes? Seriously? .or are you back at the claims that not only failed.. but don't even match the evidence you're trying to fudge! lol.... .do you ever step back and wonder if 12132 failures and refuted claims could be something of a problem? Look at your clumsy attempts here... ..ah no.. this time... this time that you mindlessly repeat a claim from the incompetent pilots4truth or ae911 idiots ..like an uncritical, unthinking zombie.... this time!... this will be the first time that something doesn't completely fall apart in front of you... riight... 232423th time is a charm right?. How many claims need to be refuted before you step back and apply some critical thinking? You've thrown ..what 50 claims ..and over 100 questions at me? and I've smacked them down.... and STILL you have nothing other than you deep religious-like desire to believe... do you ever reach a point of realisation? or are you too deluded? How do you explain that all the question answered and all the claims refuted.... ? It's time for you to have a look at yourself. Explain how so many are just wrong. ... do you think 99% can be wrong and eventually you'll hit one that's right? ..that can't be how it works... when 99% are so easily refuted... the reasonable analysis is that the conspiracy is fantasy. Will you answer these question honestly?
    1
  191.  @josegerrits3927  " as I have shown you those ACARS messages will be send from a groundstation which is determined by a router," Which is debateable and the document YOU REFERENCED refutes it. Over and over you reference evidence that debunks your own claims "ou haven´t explained the missing jolt, you ramble about multiple small jolts, " WRONG. Actually I did explain it. You couldn't refute what I said. so YOU rambled about NIST and Bazant.... "So eventhough YOU made up some explanation, the official story remains unchanged. " I refuted it. You couldn't address it what I said.. It's consistent with NISTs explanation. You're confused. As usual. "The phonecalls have not been explained or refuted by you, you " WRONG. They have been well and truly explained. You lost the argument...so you moved on. " but no test results" I mentioned examples where it has worked. WHY DO YOU LIE SO MUCH? "nobody has been able to refute the testresults " I pointed out several problems with his test. WHY DO YOU LIE SO MUCH? "You have not refuted the opportunity the FBI had in Shanksville " WRONG. We went through that at length... and your position was shown to be WRONG. You kept making claims that I showed to be false. " A few witnesses mentioned seeing bodyparts, but a lot of other witnesses saw nothing" The first half of the sentence proves you are wrong.... the second half shows that you can't understand basic logic. We're back to this idiotic argument - "Oh sure a lot of witnesses did see my client kill the vitcim, but a lot of witnesses didn't!" Imagine a lawyer saying that. That's how hopeless your argument is. Body parts were found over a large radius, even in the trees (according to your witness). The FBI did not seal off the entire area....people saw body parts...there were numerous organisations there.... your idea that the body parts were planted is completely implausible and just ridiculous. "The available footage from the first hour after the crash does not show any bodyparts. " That footage is from far away...the witnesses say the body parts were small. Your argument fails. "You have not explained how the plane could go inside the building without breaking up at least partially" They probably did break up .... they would have been torn to shreds from the impacts....that's why they exploded. "But how was it able to destroy core columns when in the other crash, where the fuselage did not hit the core, it did not destroy the perimeter columns and shoot right through the building" You sound so confused. Perimeter columns (on one side) were destroyed in both the impacts. Your comment here is nonsensical. "ou have not refuted the fact that not one single piece of planewreckage has been identified through protocol. " Wrong. I have addressed that passenger personal items and dna makes it undeniable that it was the correct plane. What's really stupid here is that you don't accept the many body parts of the passengers as evidence....you claim that the FBI somehow planted that in front of people...but you are under the impression that it would be impossible for them to switch a part with a serial number.... Your claims not only are refuted....they aren't even consistent or well thought out. " You have not explained why we only get to see the transcripts of the cvr and the call made by Felt." I've never seen you mention that. More intellectual dishonesty on your part I assume.... "So you might think you did, but in fact, you didn´t." I've taken apart your claims over and over....as each one is dismantled you just move on to something else.....then when it's pointed out to you what you're doing....you just cling to denials.... "oh no no no you never refuted that...I just really wanted to talk about something else " Your denials are hardly surprising through considering the deep fanatical faith you have in the conspiracy. You could lose every argument..... every piece of evidence refuted (basically what's happened so far lol) and you would still believe no matter what. Your mind is closed. It's all about faith. You don't care if you're 0 out of 55. Maybe the next claim! ..that'll be the one!
    1
  192. ​ @josegerrits3927  " So again, what is your motive and what are your credentials?" So again, it doesn't look good for you that you want to turn attention to me. Why not stick with evidence? ... oh that's right because the evidence isn't on your side. "How can this be debatable?" It's entirely debateable whether that plane was where you said it was. How do we know? Your own witness doesn't think it was! The other people in the document don't think it was! ..the people in that document confirm the plane crashed and stop getting signals! Your own references debunk you... AGAIN. You are wrong You're clinging to denial. " The transponder showing the plane at 8200 feet confirms this fact. " NO. It was at 8200 feet just before it crashed.. that's what that document proves.. they lose contact a minute later... AND that document contradicts your claims on where the plane is from the previous paragraph. Your own references debunk you... AGAIN. You are wrong You're clinging to denial. "YOU might have explained it" That's right I refuted it. You can't address what I said. You lack the ability to do so. So what I say stands. This is a problem for you so you invent these pathetic dismissals. You're clinging to denial. " the official story is still the rigid block slamming onto the lower part with tremendous force." ....and?! There WAS tremendous force... "So much force it could be picked up on a seismometer according to Bazant." The collapses WERE picked up on seismographs. "Since this remains the official story, there SHOULD BE a jolt" WRONG. You're a mess here. You're obviously well out of your depth of understanding with this one. There was tremendous force. The collapses were noted on seismographs. There was not a single neat jolt because the collapse wasn't a CD. The upper block came down on an angle making for numerous smaller impacts... the structural elements did not meet their counterparts directly below. It was a messy collapse on an angle... lots of impacts... not a single neat impact. This has been explained to you. You can't refute it. Not only are you not refuting it, you're responding with confusion. So you are WRONG. You're clinging to denial. "The phonecalls were not explained" Most of the calls WERE NOT from cell phones. " And some of the calls lasted for several minutes. " So now you're conceding that they have happened... AND you're conceding that most of the calls were from airfones... but now you've backtracked to time limits? Ok then, you tell me which cell phone call you're talking about now. Are you going to try talk about airfone calls AGAIN.... or calls "The objections against the Dewdney experiment, such as his location, were not refuted by testing it in a rural environment " You're clinging to denial. I have pointed out problems with his test and WHY it is not a good representation. He did a few laps around London, Ontario. ..around base stations that have less power. I've also given you examples that show it can happen. I've given you experts saying it can happen. You've really got nowhere to go here. "There is not one expert cited that says, those phonecalls at those altitudes flying at that speed were possible, you would have a strong signal for minutes on end without losing contact." No one is talking about never losing contact. You're resorting to straw men now... ''The fact of the matter is that cell phones can work in almost all phases of a commercial flight,'' said Marvin Sirbu, professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University. ' "Yes, there were many agencies working the site, but after the FBI finished its research." You're clinging to denial. The fire department were there before the FBI and saw remains. Other people saw remains. The coroner was there the whole time and saw remains... he even identified some of them himself. There were remains well beyond the crash site. The FBI only took control of the crash site. There were remains even in trees. "King said the Red Cross has been on the scene from the beginning, providing food and water to more than 600 exhausted workers from local fire departments, FBI, ATF, NTSB, FEMA, state police and coroners' offices from around Pennsylvania. "I've seen the Red Cross at the command center, down with the media crews, and around the perimeter," King said. "They're doing a great job. They've definitely got their ducks in a row in a pretty hectic situation."" http://archive.li/3avfM#selection-401.1-401.354 It was not just the FBI. Your theory that the FBI somehow spread body parts out is not only i implausible, it's idiotic and doesn't fit the evidence at all. You're clinging to denial. "but after the FBI finished its research." Not according to witness testimony. Not according to the red cross You are WRONG " The dispatcher that took the call was not allowed to hear the copy, according to him, the transcript is incomplete. " ....and? Could you clutch at those straws any harder? "You have not taken apart my claims" They have been dismantled, refuted and stomped into the dirt. You're stuck. Your current position is to ignore all the evidence that proves you wrong - some of this evidence you referenced lol - and to just deny that your arguments haven't been refuted... no matter how many times they are... and how much information works against you. Your behavior is that of a religious fanatic. No amount of evidence or reason will make you question your conspiracy fantasy. "next is because you simply refuse to even consider an alternative explanation on whatever" I've considered it but you see I care about evidence, logic, reason. You don't. You just want to believe. You have faith.... no amount of evidence will crack your faith...
    1
  193.  @josegerrits3927  "Just a few experts about calling on a plane. " You just posted experts supporting me.. lol... They said that cell phones work but are not reliable. We already know this. However, the calls could be made. ..and some were... and looking at the calls you listed... they were not cell phone calls. You know this. Deniual... clutching at straws... all your claims about where the plane was has been well and truly refuted... hilariously... a lot by evidence you pointed to... "About the FBI at Shanksville, not according to YOUR witness testimonies": You're not making any sense here.. my witnesses proved you were WRONG... hilariously, your witnesses proved you were wrong. " I have given you numerous examples that make it very clear who was at the site" No you haven't.. All you've done is invent idiotic fantasies about the FBI somehow planting body parts and passenger items... every time you try to prove this nonsense you are refuted by witnesses... but you're so deluded... you're far beyond logic... you just ignore the evidence you don't like... "Also, I asked you, what would all those people be doing there while the FBI was busy processing the crime scene?" ...and I answered....their fucking jobs.... you figure it out... your question is stupid... They were there... even if we play fantasy for a while and forget about all the body parts that the people saw... BEFORE the FBI got there.. and ignore the retarded claims about FBI people planting skin in trees.... and all this happening at a place where people WERE taking photos..... and that's just a tip of an iceberg of idiocy.... but even if we ignore all that stupidity..... body parts were found on a wide area... well beyond the impact hole... your conspiracy fantasy fails on EVERY LEVEL. "(nobody needed to be rescued)" FEMA aren't just responsible for rescuing victims. You're a confused mess.... "primary scientific advisor to Somerset County (Pennsylvania) Coroner Wallace Miller during the recovery and identification " ..how does this help you?! lol... you're not making sense. "YOU ARE WRONG" You referenced Miller in the first place... however he was there the whole time... saw body parts in the first hour... and personally identified some of them. OH LOOK ANOTHER WITNESS REFUTES YOU... How is the weather on whatever planet you live on? "OU are clinging to denial. That's some humorous projecting there. The things that's amazing here is not only that you have been proven wrong.... you've been proven wrong OVER AND OVER AND OVER... but also that your own references keep proving you wrong... but you just look away every time reality steps in and ruins your fantasy... la la la...everything is suspicious... all the evidence is planted... la la la fantasy is better than reality..... "Can I have your credentials now?" Why the fuck would I give my credentials to a dishonest person who has no grip on reality...and lacks integrity? Tell me why I would do that?
    1
  194.  @josegerrits3927  " all of these calls were reported as being cellphonecalls," Some initially were. But they weren't from cell phones. "Dewdney debunked " That's simply nonsense. They worked out that they weren't cell phone calls....his flawed experiment has nothing to do with that. His flawed experiment (4 laps around a city) didn't actually debunk anything. "Verizon the airphone company is also used by the military." so now the airphone company is in on it too? According to you ...thousands of people were needed to pull of your ridiculous charade... "They never showed creditcard bills to prove they were airphone calls" So you have no evidence....you have nothing...but you want to make that their fault? ", some of the calls could not even be assigned to a row. So no, they were NOT airphone calls." Again basic logic fails you. if they don't provide evidence to your level of expectation that doesn't prove you are right. It only proves they didn't have all the evidence. A gap of evidence doesn't prove a conspiracy. Even more absurd is that you don't accept the evidence they do provide....according to you ...all that is fake. Your logic: Clear evidence = fake = conspiracy! Evidence undetermined = conspiracy! Everything = conspiracy in your brainwashed mind. "How did my witnesses prove me wrong about Shanksville? They did not and you know that." WRONG. You repeatedly made claims about no one seeing body parts...no one seeing plane wreckage...no one going near the crater... etc ...all shown to be wrong OVER and OVER. "He was there the first hour, and he saw a piece of bone, not a single drop of blood, how does a bone get there without any blood or flesh" Plane crash...explosion... Use your brain occasionally.... it's sitting right there dormant... Miller also said " The only thing I can deduce is that the crash was over in half a second. There was a fireball 15-20 metres high, so all of that material just got vaporised.'" You're referencing someone who answers the question...but you ignore that part...because you reaaaaaaaallllly need there to be some mystery somewhere. Once again you're referencing someone who debunks you.... "Was it even human?" The coroner personally identified a dozen victims.... so...yeah... it was. " You again, have read this over and over, but refuse to believe a coroner had no business there when the FBI was processing the site. " You're not making sense again.... you're denying he was there seeing remains...even though he tells us the opposite! "Because I gave you mine, told you my motive, and am trying my best to show you something is wrong with 9-11. " I don't remember your background. Your motive is that you desperately want to believe in this conspiracy and are working backwards from a conclusion to try and find something to support it... "You keep saying you debunked things, which you didn't, you only denied it or twisted the evidence to match your story." I've never seen someone describe their own actions so perfectly. I do keep debunking things....that's why you drop the topics and move on to something else. "Why do you think you know everything, even things that are not in the report." Do you think reality is limited to a report? ...a report which you basically claim is entirely false? Odd. "Why would I even take you serious?" I don't care if you do. Address my arguments...address the evidence... or instead choose to live in a fantasy. either way.
    1
  195.  @josegerrits3927  " All that is left is look at the statements the witnesses gave and how those statements were reported by the FBI." Looking at witness statements is the LAST THING you want to do.... you keep waving them away or making terrible excuses for all the many witnesses that debunk your fantasy. "What makes you think their later report is correct? " It's consistent with all the evidence.... you see...evidence..and being consistent with evidence matters.... The fantasies and speculation you produce doesn't....not to me anyway. "I specifically said there were people near the crater in the first hour after impact. Those people saw nothing" ..except for plane parts...body parts.... yeah nothing.. You just deny reality because you prefer conspiracy fantasies... ", no identifiable plane parts, no human remains, nothing. " Why do you lie so much? Do think lies are acceptable if they support your faith? You only end up looking not only deluded, but dishonest .....and a little pathetic. "The only one with a little credibility would be the coroner," You mean one of the many people who debunked you a long time ago... " But he also said that he never ever during the whole search saw one drop of blood. So I asked you, how could a piece of vertebrae end up on the ground without any blood or flesh attached to it?" I've answered this... he even answered this. Stop wasting my time with stupid questions you got answers to the first time. This is a game you contiually play... You: "ah but explain this!!!" Me: "ok...blah blah" You: "erm... um... but you still need to explain this!!" (again) Me: "?? Ignoring answers you can't deal with isn't a rebuttal. It's desperation. " it is clear that they worked outside the premises until the FBI turned the site over." 1. You have not done so. 2. We've established that other organisations were there WITH the FBI - FEMA etc. 3. We've established that people NOT from the FBI such as fire fighters say body parts and plane parts instantly.. 4. We've established that the coroner saw body parts... and even identified some of them himself... 5. We've established that video and photos were taken of the site while the FBI were in control of the crater.... so no they weren't faking a crash with body parts somehow magically prepared for them.. 6. We've established that there were body parts well beyond the crash area... even if 1-5 didn't destroy your argument several times over... the FBI couldn't have planted all this evidence (it's so stupid) everywhere.... "AGAIN why would any of those agencies be at the crime scene during an investigation?" That's their job... and we have confirmation that they were there on the scene...AND saw body parts.. So AGAIN you’re hiding from evidence, logic ….all because you prefer to cling to a nonsensical fantasy that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny… ”His mind came up with a somewhat logical explanation” ….and as we know… logic has no place in your fantasy world. If you can prove the explanation wrong feel free to try…. I have a suspicion you won’t do a good job of it. ”Your assumption that the vertebrae must have burned clean after the fireball is not based on anything solid, so your belittling demeanor just shows your insecurity.” Now that’s some interesting projecting. Not based on anything solid? A fireball burning flesh and blood?! Are you so unaware that you don’t realise that explosions burn things? Just step back and look at your desperate, incompetent deniual here. You can’t refute it… so you just declare its false…just because… and therefore… it’s an anomaly… therefore it’s a conspiracy?! ..and all the other evidence goes away.. Oh dear…. What a mess of nonsense, self-delusion and non-sequiturs. ”I told you my motive, but you are so stuck in your belief that EVERY TRUTHER wants to believe a conspiracy,” I never claimed that… but hey you’re happy to just make shit up as you go. You have no interest in the truth… ”, that you deliberately twist it so it makes sense to you.” LOL….. ahem…irony…. ”you flatout deny even my testimony about myself, without any proof.” I deny your claim that you’re after the truth. You’re not. You want the conspiracy to be true…and you’re applying common cognitive biases to get there…. You’ve given me all the evidence I need. You wave away mountains of evidence merely because it debunks your claim. You don’t care about evidence unless you think you can use it… otherwise it’s discarded… ”well, how would you describe your own actions?” Making a conclusion from the evidence… not the other way around. You see, no matter what evidence is put in front of you… you will always invent an excuse…”oh that was planted”…”oh they were faked”… ect. ”Isn't it true that you are working backwards from the official story as being the ABSOLUTE truth?” Nope. The other way. ”But the fact is, you defend everything in the report, you don't even question their witnesses, you only question the account of witnesses that were ignored in the report,” Wrong, wrong and wrong. You're wrong most of the time... ”but when you come up with explanations that were NOT in the report,” …and you’re confused quite a lot. My explanation of the failure of Szamboti matches NISTs explanation of the collapse. So it IS in the report… it’s THEIR collapse sequence… I’ve explained this to you… but you’re not interested in anything that doesn’t lead to mysterious conspiracies…4 ”, what evidence would you need to question even a little thing in the official story?” I’ve already done that… I’ve already questioned…. I’ve looked at the conspiracy claims….. that should have become apparently to you by now… guess what? – they are bullshit.
    1
  196.  @josegerrits3927  " I am talking about the witnesses who claimed the phonecalls were cellphone calls," What witnesses? Burnett? She wasn't sure how many calls she received. She may certainly have been called once by a mobile but we KNOW the others were from airfones... you're clutching at straws.... permanently it seems. " WHAT is the EVIDENCE those were airphonecalls? " People actually said they were using airfones... Do you not see how pathetically desperate your situation here is? You have tried to made a series of claims. They all failed. So now you're trying to recover by demanding that I prove everything else to you. We KNOW that people were using airfones on 9/11... deal with that. "We have NOT established there were other organizations working with the FBI," Yeah we have. "We have NOT established there were other organizations working with the FBI, " We've established that numerous other organisations were at the crash site. 8 Police Departments • 7 EMS Services • 8 Fire Departments • 10 Emergency Management Agencies • NTSB • ATF • FBI • CISM • Red Cross • United Airlines Volunteer first responders.... there on 9/11.... Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company, Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company, Central City Fire Department, Berlin Fire Department, Friedens Volunteer Fire Department, Listie Volunteer Fire Company, Somerset Volunteer Fire Department, Somerset Ambulance Association, Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department, and the Hooversville Rescue Squad. ..you know.. the people who saw body parts.. ..the testimony you refuse to accept... " they were at the crash site AFTER the FBI left. " NO. That list is organisations who were there on 9/11...on that day... "The coroner did not even SEE the blast of fire, so how COULD he know that was what vaporized everything" Oh come one... do you see how ridiculous you sound? you don't need to see the blast to know that there would be one! A plane loaded with fuel crashed into the ground! He saw what it looked like afterwards... people on the scene smelled the jet fuel. "If the fireball was that hot, how could the bandana and the passport survive? " That's what happens in all crashes... you get some items that survive.... blood is a liquid inside the circulatory system.. it's not an item easily ejected by the force of an explosion... remember that a ticket survived the hindenburg crash. "This defies all logic and you know it." Nope. It all fits... and since when do you care about logic? If we wanted to see real defiance of logic all we need to do is start thinking about alternative explanations.... hrm.. "I have a question for you, what would create white smoke?" Lots of things can create white smoke. "Another one, why are you so sure it was NOT controlled demolition?" That has been explained to you in my posts. "Was there ever some detail that made you doubt the official story, and if so, what was that?" Do you want me to do your work for you now? I don't think you like/respect me enough (admittedly haven't I given you reason to) to actually be interested in my thoughts on this.
    1
  197.  @josegerrits3927  "The calls made by Britton, Hanson, Bradshaw, Wainio, Glick, Sweeney were also reported as being cellphone calls" So you've moved on to all the other flights now? ...sigh..can you prove they were cell phone calls?.. you're not going to get anywhere here... the evidence that it was those planes undeniable... but you're trying... you're just ignoring the evidence that doesn't fit your worldview and inventing completely implausible and utterly absurd fantasies about planting evidence and faking crashes... "The Fire departments were there, but again, after the FBI closed off the scene, it changed." Did you even read that quote?! He is saying that they were allowed on the site but without their equipment..... ...and another of your witnesses shows you are wrong. "About that white smoke, have you seen the footage from the wtc, " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTXFnAIP6A0 "I am interested actually, because i cannot understand why you don't have doubts." I cannot understand why you reject reality in the face of evidence, logic and reason.
    1
  198.  @josegerrits3927  "No I cannot prove they were cellphone calls" Noted. You've got nothing to work with here... Just a deep desire to believe in conspiracy fantasies. "The FBI reported those calls as being cell phone calls." ..except they worked out that they weren't... "Disregarding the witness reports. " Bullshit. We went through the Burnett example... one may have been...but not all were. In her retelling she wasn't even clear how many times he was called. To say you're clutching at straws .... for an argument that doesn't make sense... and is contradictory to a mountain of evidence...would be kind on my part... " They told the FBI they were surprised to see their number on caller ID. " You're being vague here...we went through this with Burnett... one call may certainly have been through the cell phone...the others weren't.. How fucking hard is it to understand that they tried the cell phone... it didn't work...it cut out... so they used the airfones? What about that confuses you? What part of that is sooooooo complicated that your head just spins trying to compute it? "there are numerous people even reporters, reporting live that state that there was nothing " aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand we're back to this. This is the dumbest argument I've heard a conspiracy theorist make in a while... and I've had discussions with flat earthers... Once again...you're backpedaling to this stupidity..... Lawyer: "But your honor!.. Sure a lot of people saw my client kill the victim!.... But a lot of people didn't see my client kill the victim!! " Please don't waste my time with such stupid line of reasoning. You're embarrassing yourself. " because 2 witnesses said they did see human remains" It's more than 2.... but you have no interest in the facts... all you're interested in ..is ways to skirt around them or wave them away... "According to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, when former firefighter Dave Fox arrived at the scene, "He saw a wiring harness, and a piston. None of the other pieces was bigger than a TV remote. He saw three chunks of torn human tissue. He swallowed hard. 'You knew there were people there, but you couldn't see them,' " Oh look there's another. He must have been a secret FBI agent! yeah! So I force you to concede that you are WRONG and people DID see remains INCLUDING someone YOU referenced... and your response is ..."yeah only 2".. Once again, you're only making a fool of yourself with these denials... no matter what evidence is rammed down your throat you will just make terrible excuses... "One of those also saw a piece of the landing gear, although this was never mentioned in any other witness account, " ?! It's baffling that you think this is some sort of point... you're actively debunking your own pitiful fantasy here.... Wreckage was found. Body parts were found. Passenger personal effects were found. Your theory doesn't work.. "The coroner saw bone without any human tissue attached to it" No. Tissue was found. A lot of tissue apparently... see the quote above for confirmation.... he made a comment about blood. Interesting comment from https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/magazine/2002/05/12/hallowed-ground/0c7b4753-ecca-48bd-8267-f11d2fc43a4f/?utm_term=.d51d83e7a3ae "Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total" Searchers... no doubt after the FBI opened up the area.. found remains.. but it was all over the place... .. in the woods.. I've referenced this point before... it's damning to your theory... remains were found in a very wide area...beyond what the FBI controlled... (this is of course ignoring all the other evidence that already refuted your theory). "Have you ever had a BBQ?" You think a plane crash is like a little bbq? Oh god you sound ridiculous sometimes... come on...try harder you're smarter than this. "Only 8% of all the humans on board was found, how did they get ripped up in so many pieces when 95%" Not as durable as metal I guess... maybe one day when we become cyborgs... You're not actually making a point here... you're clutching at at straws harder than anyone I've ever seen.... it's actually a little sad.. "what evidence shows the planes being there?" dna, passenger items, FDR, radar, witness testimony, the calls...etc etc.. the list goes on. You don't give a damn about evidence though.... all you care about is ways to avoid the evidence that refutes your conspiracy fantasy while you cling to anything you hope seems like an anomaly...
    1
  199.  @josegerrits3927  " But the others were not, more proof the calls were cellphone calls. " You're still going nowhere here... some calls were cellphone calls...they weren't reliable... the airfones were. "What evidence do you have to prove they were airphone calls? " You're just trying to shift the burden now...we know that aifones were used...this has been established... One of the many problems you have here is that you don't have evidence of anything.. you can't back up your strange (illogical, nonsensical debunked) theories. Your attempt to shift the burden just highlights your total failure. " showed you numerous reports, you showed *nothing*. " You've shown nothing that supports your claims or refutes the official story. Merely pointing to a report doesn't mean you've proven anything...in fact over and over your reference material that contradicts your claims... "The human remains were all found in the 70 acre surrounding the crash point" ..that's right...70 acres....well beyond what the FBI could control...and somehow plant body parts ...that were seen within an hour...and none of the following noticed... 8 Police Departments • 7 EMS Services • 8 Fire Departments • 10 Emergency Management Agencies • NTSB • ATF • FBI • CISM • Red Cross • United Airlines So you're claiming the FBI maintained a perimeter of 70 acres...? Ah but according to you they were all somehow kept away while the FBI faked a crash scene!? ""King said the Red Cross has been on the scene from the beginning, providing food and water to more than 600 exhausted workers from local fire departments, FBI, ATF, NTSB, FEMA, state police and coroners' offices from around Pennsylvania. "I've seen the Red Cross at the command center, down with the media crews, and around the perimeter," Oh look EVEN THE RED CROSS would have been able to see what they were doing.... if they red cross were that close those other orgnaisations were... ..and we already know that first responders saw body parts.... You're living in a fantasy. "Again, you are the one in denial." For you to use those words is just humorous. You think that the planes were flown somewhere else... no one noticed this...or kept it quiet... you think the passengers were murdered...then the body parts burned..crushed...passenger items collected...then somehow these were transported with the FBI (who got there after first responders who saw body parts but hey we'll move on) ...and you think the FBI planted those body parts... in a day...over 70 acres...in front of thousands of first responders...and the coroner...even in the trees... why would they do that?! Not only is it debunked...it's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. That's just the tip of the iceberg as far as your moronic conspiracy goes...it gets worse if you actually think about it.. - something you will never do... All the evidence proves that idiotic conspiracy is wrong.... but you dodge..dance...divert...deny... and cling to such a stupid idea. "Even the departure time in the official report is wrong, when you look at RITA and search for flight 93 you'll see the wheels off time was 8.28 not 8.41 as was written in the report. There are also 2 different gates for the same flight, 26 and 32." Wow that means it was a conspiracy! lol " The coordinates were 39.51, -78.46 " So you've failed at this type of claim 5 times already.....each time theorising a different location...contradicting your previous half baked attempt... What are you saying right/wrong this time? I previously asked how many times you need to be wrong before you wake up.... the answer is infinity....you don't care show bad your arguments are...how many fail (a lot) you have such faith that you move onto the next claim without a second of critical thinking.... "Nice comment trying to make me look pretty stupid, y" To be fair you do most of the work there. "And you actually believe that?" Yeah who would have thought a plane crash and jet fuel would be explosive and destructive.... that's so mysterious! Oh but what a bbq.......sigh... "the grass near the crater is untouched, not even scorched, but apparently it burned so hot it vaporized human beings instantly? " The crash area was burnt...parts around it werent. Your inability to understand things ...and your refusal to accept reality...isn't an argument.
    1
  200.  @josegerrits3927  " No, I mean this white smoke, visible at 0.49 coming from the ground." ... there isn't enough footage to get an idea.
    1
  201.  @josegerrits3927  "Why not try and debunk some of the proof I gave you." I've been doing that for weeks.... you've accidentally done it yourself a few times as well. "Not only were they not reliable, at 35.000 feet at 500 mph they were impossible." You've not proven that any of the calls in question were made at 35, 000 feet..or claimed to have been made then. " How was it established and by whom?" We've already been through this...one of the passengers last conversation was with an airfone operator...passengers apparently mentioned being on the airfones.. to deny that passengers in the plane would use the phones...that are right there...during a hijacking is bizarre...you just deny everything and don't care how insane you appear. " The creditcard bills? " You're the one making the claims about cellphones...you cant support them...so you try and shift the burden to others to prove you wrong.. That's just sheer desperation... "I have showed you the 302's by the FBI, showed you the RITA logs, the ACARS logs, project Achilles, witness statements that nothing was found, witness statements that the FBI treated it as a crime scene, coordinates on radar that show the plane had already passed the crash site and was at 8200 feet after it crashed. " All of which has been clarified for you...refuted...debunked...not only that...in all of those claims you often debunked yourself... as those records confirm the plane crashed! You refer to claims that confirm the crash...confirm the loss of contact... and you try to use that to mean the plane didn't crash....AND your claims contradict each other....you never notice how foolish you look. Not only are you debunked by my evidence....you are debunked by your own.. Fail. "Showed you nobody has seen the wreckage and it is still in FBI possession. " But you were wrong...people DID see wreckage. Fail. "Showed you that simulations were ongoing, showed you the white smoke from below before the towers collapsed, showed you witness testimonies that report secondary explosions in the buildings. " Simulations? There is an explanation for the white smoke...there were burning cars nearby... the witness testimony supports the official story...you just need to read it properly in full...without quote mining and distorting.. Fail. "Pointed out to you that protocol was not followed a" Yet when protocol is followed (the FBI at the crash site) you claim that's a conspiracy. Regarding the identification of the plane.... the passenger items and body parts (among other evidence) make that claim rather stupid. You've got undeniable physical evidence at the scene. You think the FBI can actually somehow get body parts ..looking burnt and crushed..at the scene...but you don't think they can get a couple of switched plane parts? Your logic is full of more holes than swiss cheese. Fail. "Pointed out the lack of contamination at Shanksville." There was no "lack"..it just didn't exceed a dangerous level...the fuel burnt in the crash.... Fail. "Pointed out the color of the smoke at Shanksville, showed you how it was supposed to look." You've done no such thing... You've not established the smoke being wrong at all. It's odd that you think you have. Fail. "Pointed out lack of proof concerning the boarding of the hijackers. " It's true there is limited evidence of this...but with all the other mountains of evidence there is hardly a reason to doubt it. I'll be nice and wont give you a fail on that one. "The list goes on and on..." Yes the list of your failures and lost arguments goes on as far as they eye can see. "You have tried your best to make me look foolish although I have been open and honest about my reasons, you refuse to give your motive or credentials. " I haven't been trying to make you look foolish. I have been addressing your evidence. However I do lose patience with people who live in denial and cling to fantasies regardless of how bad the evidence is.. it wouldn't matter how many times your claims are refuted you would still have faith...your behavior is like that of a religious fanatic. Your mind is closed. You only want validation that the conspiracy is real. you refuse to accept anything else. The chemtrail people are the same. My motive is that I'm a very argumentative skeptic. My credentials, you don't need to know. I don't know yours. "So I am gonna stop debating you, it leads to nothing," .You've not presented evidence that stands up to scrutiny no.
    1
  202.  @josegerrits3927  You're still trying? how many desperate, bad claims do you need to make before you wake up from your deam? So now you've got a reporter, we don't know when he got there...we don't know where he looked... we know he wasn't allowed near the crash site because you keep claiming that.. So is it now your claim that all the reporters had a good view of what was happening? That completely undermines your debunked, implausible fantasy about the FBI planting burnt, crushed body parts and passenger items.... Your theories have more holes that swiss cheese... What else did Konicki say? ------------ FOX News reporter: It looks like there's nothing there, except for a hole in the ground. Photographer Chris Konicki: Ah, basically that's right. The only thing you can see from where we where, ah, was a big gouge in the earth and some broken trees. We could see some people working, walking around in the area, but from where we could see it, there wasn't much left. Reporter: Any large pieces of debris at all? Konicki: Na, there was nothing, nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there. Reporter: Smoke? Fire? Konicki: Nothing. It was absolutely quite. It was, uh, actually very quiet. Um, nothing going on down there. No smoke. No fire. Just a couple of people walking around. They looked like part of the NTSB crew walking around, looking at the pieces..." ------------------- So you've got him saying that there WERE pieces...AND that the NTSB were looking at them. Oops your witness refutes you again.
    1
  203.  @josegerrits3927  "o he said it looked like part of the NTSB." So you're quoting a witness and at the same time you're refusing to accept what he saw. haha... this is just comical. You keep trying to use testimony that debunks you. So once again, you're referencing witnesses watching the investigation...your witness contradicts your other claims...but also this shows that people could see what was happening which makes your weird fantasy about planting evidence simply impossible. Your theory fails on every level. "Don't twist his words!" What?! By listening to his description I'm twisting his words?! ...again..just comical. "Jim Parsons" His testimony is entirely consistent with the official story...it's odd that you're posting it... " real evidence as in identified plane parts. " ...aaaaaaaaand you're back to this terrible argument... in your twisted imagination the FBI were able to walk in with prepared body parts and passenger items and plant them...(utterly absurd and debunked) you also try to claim that the FBI personally recovered one of the engines... but you think it's significant that they didn't ID the plane parts... You're so deluded that if they did, you wouldn't accept it. You would just say they planted it... can you not see how insane you sound? "I am still waiting for your evidence on that flight crashing there, " So you've got testimony, dna, photo, video, physical evidence, passenger personal effects, FDR etc...the list goes on and on. You ignore all the evidence you don't like. It would not matter what evidence was given to you, you would invent some absurd reason to ignore it... There is no evidence that can be given to you that you won't imagine a excuse for .. you will always just declare that it was planted by the evil government...
    1
  204.  @josegerrits3927  " he saw people that looked like part of NTSB, which part don't you get? " ...and you're saying he was WRONG. You've got a witness telling you want he saw and you refuse to believe him. You won't accept what your own witness says....lol... as i said..it's just comical watching you try to rationalise how all your witnesses seem to debunk you. "He did not see body parts or even human remains, " Of course not...as has already been explained to you ..the remains were small pieces.. he was not walking around doing a search... he was merely looking at the investigation.... Note how he says " looking at the pieces.." So he even saw plane parts.... Oh look he debunked you again! "Jim Parsons is not consistent as he did not smell jet fuel, " So what?! It burned out as part of the crash...I've already explained this to you as well.... people who did search around near the crash site smelled it... He was a reporter who also didn't take part in the search... people who did get closer like the fire department said they did smell jet fuel. Think about how hopeless your position is here... your best witnesses are people who didn't get near the crash.... you're using people who couldn't get a good look...as evidence as to what wasn't there? This is laughably bad logic. What makes it even worse is that witnesses who were there...straight away...saw plane parts...smelled jet fuel...and saw body parts... Even more ridiculous, if that were possible, by using witnesses who weren't given free access or the area as experts on what happened at the crash site you're admitting that it would be impossible for anyone to fake a plane crash without it being noticed....... Imagine a lawyer calling only on witnesses who were too far away to see anything because the witnesses who were in a position to see something ruin his whole case. It's such a desperate and absurd argument. "I do not ignore that evidence, " Actually you do....dna, witness testimony, physical evidence...FDR etc etc...as I said in the last post the list goes on and on.... you ignore it all and try to use testimony that doesn't even support you! " Such as 95% of the wreckage and a positive identification of plane parts," I've addressed this about six times and you've never produced an intelligent response...just repetition of the claim. "Yet they didn't and even refuse to give those serial numbers." What difference would it make? They gave personal effects of the dead passengers and you refuse to accept it....they identified BODY PARTS (!!) of the dead passengers and you wouldn't accept it... a serial number would make no difference to you because you're so deep in your irrational delusion.
    1
  205.  @josegerrits3927  ”You keep trying to twist my words don't you? Trying to ridicule my comments by cherry picking them and misquoting, I might be delusional, you are dishonest.” Show where I have done that or retract it. I will keep asking. ”Because I DO accept what that witness said.” So you believe the NTSB were there looking at plane parts. In one sentence there he debunks two points you refuse to accept. It wasn’t just the FBI at the scene and there were plane parts. This is just embarrassing for you. ”he apparently was NOT SURE about what agency they were.” Where does he say he wasn’t sure. Post where he says those words. Oh that’s right he never said he wasn’t sure. You’re just making things up. YOU are dishonest. You are delusional. ”He was however sure he DID NOT see any part that resembled a plane.” He saw parts….they no longer resembled a plane….that’s a result of the impact. I cannot believe I need to explain that to you. That’s physics for you. So you’ve got a witness who completely debunks your claims…you refuse to accept what he says…but because he said the plane was in small parts (as expected) you think you can somehow use that to support you? Just stop. You’re embarrassing yourself. ”So according to you he could not see human remains but he COULD see what those investigators were looking at” He could see they were looking at plane parts apparently yes. He its your witness. Oh that’s right you refuse to accept what your own witnesses say……lol this is just bizarre. ”They might have been looking at pieces of a drone for all I care.” Maybe they were pieces of the lost city of Atlantis! OR as supported by all the other evidence, they were pieces of the flight that crashed there. ”I have seen the footage by Jim Parsons,” Post a link. ”He is NOT smelling jet fuel.” He smelled burnt earth…. The people who were there first, the fire department DID smell jet fuel. They put the fires out… They are outside…the jet fuel mostly burned in the crash… a reporter gets near the crash later and smells burnt earth (a result of the jet fuel) but says he can’t smell the jet fuel…..this is entirely to be expected… the witnesses who where there first DID smell jet fuel. You’re back to this entirely illogical argument “ but your honour! Sure a lot of witnesses DID see my client kill the victim…but there were witnesses there later on that DIDN’T see my client kill the victim!” It’s just a terrible argument. ”If it burned out there should have been a thick black cloud of smoke, this was not the case. It was a mushroom like plume of grey smoke. Completely inconsistent with a plane crash.” You say so many stupid things. There was a dark cloud of smoke when the crash happened…this is also hardly surprising. It wasn’t an ongoing burn…it was an impact… You say it’s “completely inconsistent” but all you need to do is go to google….type ‘plane crash smoke’ look at the images.. and you’ll see that many of them have grey smoke. You’re not thinking. Your blind faith trips you up over and over. ”Jim Parsons was a witness who was there after the crash, so were a lot of other people, they said there were NO plane parts, NO human remains,” Already addressed…people saw plane parts..people saw body parts..even Parson saw plane parts! LOL… You keep shooting yourself in the foot ….but you’re here again using the same argument as the lawyer…..it’s beyond clutching at straws… ”You choose to believe witnesses that are not refuting the official story and you choose to disregard any other witness. Something you ironically keep accusing me of.” No. I’m being logical. You’re not. Some people saw the debris and body parts and some did not. It depends where they were…what they were there for ect…. But the fact that some didn’t doesn’t make the others go away… THAT is ignoring testimony merely because you don’t like it. “ but your honour! Sure a lot of witnesses DID see my client kill the victim…but there were witnesses there later on that DIDN’T see my client kill the victim!” You sound so desperate. ”Like I told you before, the dna evidence was provided by a military lab, the personal effects could have been placed by the FBI and although” But according to you people could see the crash site… for all of that to be planted means all those people were in on it… as well as all these people… 8 Police Departments • 7 EMS Services • 8 Fire Departments • 10 Emergency Management Agencies • NTSB • ATF • FBI • CISM • Red Cross • United Airlines That’s insane. Your fantasy about them faking the plane crash…killing the people somewhere else…making it look like they were burnt etc… then planting that somehow is not only stupid…it’s not only implausible….the evidence we have shows it cannot have happened… ”There is a lot of proof showing the plane was airborne after the time it supposedly crashed.” You tried this and it failed miserably for you. The evidence you referenced from more than one source actually confirmed that the plane stopped responding… it confirmed that the plane crashed. You shot yourself in the foot again. ”There are no plane parts,” The witness testimony proves you wrong. ”{no serial numbers,” Iv’e addressed this 9 times. ”the radar and ACARS logs are inconsistent” They prove the plane crashed. They prove you are wrong. They use different methods to locate…so they don’t produce the same results…but we know for sure they prove the plane crashed. ”yet you claim I am the delusional” That’s right…you keep presenting evidence that destroys your arguments….but you brush away hose little problems and keep going…. You aren’t rational… you just want to believe and your mind is closed. This is like a religion for you. ”something is wrong with this picture.” Something is wrong but the problem is you.
    1
  206.  @gaugeking ...sigh... I haven't deleted any messages. I can't delete your messages...
    1
  207.  @gaugeking  " I don’t think you could handle what I put to you" What, your babbling about make up?
    1
  208.  @gaugeking  I haven't deleted your reply. A reply of mine disappeared a couple of hours ago. Quit being a drama queen.
    1
  209.  @gaugeking  See previous post.... quit whining drama queen.
    1
  210.  @gaugeking  "This video post is a passion to you, obviously" ..because I've posted on it a few times? You set the bar pretty low for a passion. It's not like you and make up....... Considering you're being such a drama queen about this... it seems you're rather passionate.
    1
  211.  @gaugeking  Nope... I'm not gay. You obviously don't have anything to say if this is what you're producing.
    1
  212.  @gaugeking  Go away ... i'm not interested in your desperate chit chat.
    1
  213.  @gaugeking  Excuse me. I have great teeth.
    1
  214.  @darlenehowell2274  Rudimentary conspiracy theorist prattling... "wake up" "sheeple"...something about "koolaid".... blah blah... Get back to me when you can actually make an argument.
    1
  215.  @darlenehowell2274  "Prattling?" How very droll and uninventive of you." It is the perfect explanation for the drivel you are spouting troll. Come up with a better response. Your bland, boring trolling gets you nowhere. It just makes you sound like a whiny loser.
    1
  216.  @darlenehowell2274  ..apparently he didn't write it... it was presented to him by joint chiefs of staff... but either way... you're not making an argument that relates to 9/11.
    1
  217.  @darlenehowell2274  "The US Gov did not commit 911 for a pretext to War with other Countries" Ah yes it was all part of a magical spell involving Crowley... you saw it on a horror movie.... lol... You live in an alternate reality. You're asked to back your claims about 9/11 and as a response you start talking about magic, numerology and what you saw in a horror movie. Wow.
    1
  218.  @darlenehowell2274  Yes yes ... your explanation for 9/11 is... a wizard cast a spell.... ...sigh... seek professional help. You aren't just poor at debating this topic.... your arguments aren't just poor.... they are all comical....
    1
  219.  @darlenehowell2274  What are you babbling about nutcase? You've shown that you can't debate this topic without making a monumental fool of yourself.... Your big argument was that a wizard cast a spell to cause 9/11... you should have stopped there... and scurried away... Learn when to quit ....
    1
  220.  @revolutionarythinker  "please see all the videos of impact complete wing goes inside, even the tail section cuts through" I've already addressed this. .... the end sections did not cut the steel... the tail would have been unlikely to cut steel... you're looking at the aluminum façade. "Already all structural scientists countered NIST conclusions .. " No...some conspiracy theorists made some claims that don't stand up to scrutiny. "why NIST is avoiding debate," It's not NISTs job to spend their days educating conspiracy theorists. "why they are not disclosing the simulation model to researchers," Ah that old chestnut. Their conclusions don't rely on the modeling.... Modeling on the towers was performed by several different organisations other than NIST - they reached the same conclusions as NIST. Organisations such as MIT, Purdue, Exponent Failure Analysis, Weidlinger Associates used modeling as part of their investigations into the towers collapse. Independent studies... different models... different inputs... consistent results with NIST. This validates the NIST modeling. " how did entire went inside building without buckling" The airplanes would have been torn apart as part of the impacts.... "If you don't know buckling make a paper aircraft and hit it to wall " Not analogous. It's clear you haven't thought this through properly.
    1
  221. "What did he debunk ?" Bad arguments.
    1
  222.  Edd Spencer  all 10 000 pages? No. But I am quite familiar with the report. What was the point of this question? You're choosing to attack me because you didn't like my comment?
    1
  223.  Edd Spencer  " Wow, getting asked a question is now an attack." Don't play games. You're questioning whether I knew the subject or not. It was an unusual question to ask someone you've had no exchange with. If you were not doing that, you would explain here... but instead you go into further insinuations like " The sounds suspiciously like paranoia on your part." "I think you owe me an apology for that irrational statement" Nope. Now is your chance to explain why you asked... and where you were going with your question. Go.
    1
  224.  Edd Spencer  .....and with that response, you showed you weren't serious...you were just playing games. I gave you a chance to explain the reason for your question. You refused to answer and instead babbled on about paranoia for a few sentences. You've shown you were not serious. You just wanted to play games. Thanks.
    1
  225.  Ed Spencer  ..oh and not only that, from your recent comments about the pancake theory I can assume you have not read the NIST report and know very little about it.
    1
  226. How odd that my post disappeared.
    1
  227.  @darlenehowell2274  "lush meaning I had you against the ropes the whole time and you never admitted defeat. " If that's your recollection it was likely not me. "Yes you do delete threads among other things." Again... not me... "What is it about being a shill that keeps you doing it?" You're throwing insults...asking me about something I don't do.... It seems rather unlikely that you would have any skill at debating... you show all the behavior of a classic demented internet troll. You're welcome to prove me wrong.
    1
  228.  @darlenehowell2274  "And you show no resemblance in intellect to Carl Jung" ?? Why would you compare me to Jung? Weird. You were supposed to be backing up your claims about the video... and since then you've given me numerous trollish posts.... My assumption is that trolling is all you can do.
    1
  229.  @darlenehowell2274  "You haven't even spoken to my response. What about the 911 War Games" We can get to that... but you're changing the subject. "That's what I mean about flushing and redirects." YOU are the one changing the subject from Northwoods.... YOU are the one redirecting.... " You avoid because you have nothing. " You're obviously projecting your problems onto others. This is comical... you're accusing me of doing the very thing you are doing. Does this normally work for you? So far all you've done is dodge and try to change the topic... you post a lot but never say anything.
    1
  230.  @darlenehowell2274  " You know exactly how these comments relate too, "Northwoods." It's about access!" ? What does that mean? It's about access... your whole argument regarding Northwoods .. is ...its about access... You're confirming my suspicions... you're terrible at debating this topic ...all you do is churn out pointless trollish drivel . "You're not Carl Jung so don't play games." You mean that game where I address your terrible arguments and show them to be failures? The only one playing games here is you kiddo. You have been challenged to support your claims ... yet you dodge and dance all over the place changing the topic and blurting out trollish nonsense.
    1
  231.  @darlenehowell2274  ""GOV WAR GAMES ON 911, " More than happy to get to this after Northwoods.... You're stalling. "These things relate to Northwoods because they relate to the Deep State " You can say that anything relates to anything.... So will I just take your defeat that you can't actually say anything about Northwoods....? Note that Northwoods was the other thread btw.. In that thread you are evading because you are too hopeless to talk about Northwoods In this thread you are evading because you are too hopeless to back up your claim about errors in the video "You know this so stop playing your little gov shill games " lol you're the only one playing games... you aren't right in the head. You're supposed to be defending the Northwoods argument and you're flailing about ...running in circles looking desperate.
    1
  232.  @darlenehowell2274  I'm still waiting for this... "The whole video is an error and I can deconstruct it point by point." Whenever you're ready, I do hope you've got something better than your story about how a wizard cast a spell and caused 9/11.... oh and the numerology and satan..... ...sigh...
    1
  233.  @bidipbo  " Your problem is that you believe, like a religion, what you have been told to believe." Says the guy believing what he read on the internet. It must be true if its on the internet! Hilarious projection. "The bottom line is that you cannot part with your magical thinking" Hilarious projection. " 'the world is as I have been told that it is.' " Hilarious projection. "To engage with someone that willfully refuses to see controlled demolition, after more than 20 years of opportunity, is a gigantic waste of time." It may seem a waste of time to you because you don't really know anything about this. " I consider this thread closed" Because you just got schooled. You realise you're out of your depth and you're running. But you're going to throw a tantrum first and then flee. 😂😂
    1
  234.  @bidipbo  " Your problem is that you believe, like a religion, what you have been told to believe." Says the guy believing what he read on the internet. It must be true if its on the internet! Hilarious projection. "The bottom line is that you cannot part with your magical thinking" Hilarious projection. " 'the world is as I have been told that it is.' " Hilarious projection.
    1
  235.  @bidipbo  "To engage with someone that willfully refuses to see controlled demolition, after more than 20 years of opportunity, is a gigantic waste of time." It may seem a waste of time to you because you don't really know anything about this. " I consider this thread closed" You realise you're out of your depth and you're running. But you're going to throw a tantrum first and then flee. 😂😂
    1
  236.  @bidipbo  I talk about facts. You whine about me while scurrying away....
    1
  237.  @bidipbo  Do you know what wasn't even a 'nice try'? Your original post. It was a total mess and you couldn't address the problems I raised. You were educated, had no real response and you didn't like it.
    1
  238. " Their own footage of the Pentagon crash doesn’t show any HUGE AIRCRAFT " There is a blur that fits an aircraft. " No signs of any HUGE AIRCRAFT? " It went into the ground....first responders describe wreckage and body parts. "Just a hole and some debris" That's physics for ya.
    1
  239. " The molten steel must come from somewhere. Where does it come from?"" It was never confirmed to be steel and not one of the other metals at the site. There were other metals that would have been molten in the temps expected.
    1
  240.  @michaelvanliempt8779  Above you referenced "There are records of molten steel, recorded by eye-witness testimonies, camera-footage, and research data. " Now you are specifically speaking about the flow seen on footage. So you've changed or narrowed the point there. Aluminium is silver when it is pure and heated to the point of melting.... no one was controlling the temperature in the fires and no one was keeping it all pure.
    1
  241.  Ed Spencer  We don't know for sure what it was. But ruling to point to aluminium that's pure ..and heated to just the right temps isn't enough to imply any conspiracy. We see something similar in the Windsor tower fire... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKvgD9NyIi4
    1
  242.  Edd Spencer  Go to about 1:12 "The problem with the molten metal flowing from the towers is a) it simply cannot be aluminum" It's not pure aluminium heated to just above it's melting point. We know that much. "the unbelievable amount of it." It wasn't such a large amount. As i said we see something similar at the windsor tower. "it does not cool its hundreds of feet fal" I've not seen a video/photo that gives a clear enough indication of its colour hundreds of feet below. "Go to any aluminum foundry in the world and show that too them," ..again that's pure aluimnium...and at foundrys they do not heat the alumimium hundreds of degrees above the melting point. It would be expensive to do that ..and dangerous.
    1
  243.  Edd Spencer  "Since I have found you to be a paranoid and delusional individual I cannot in good conscience argue with someone with me mental health issues. " When you resort to such comments it shows your lack on integrity, maturity and your insecurities. " Aluminum does not keep an orange glow, and it doesn't hold heat very well. " I've already addressed this. You're referring to pure aluminium heated just above the melting point. "eat it to 2000 F,( far above what office fires are)" Not far above. A very large office fire could reach temps in that range. You're getting to the likely upper limits though yes. "That metal cannot be aluminum," I've already addressed this as well. It's not pure aluminium heated just above the melting point no. "the silly argument that it is molten aluminum with impurities in it ignores specific gravity, " I've never seen anyone make that argument. " Go get yourself a good psychiatrist" ..and now you're back to this. You probably didn't even read my post at all. No response regarding the video of the madrid tower.....the falling material and embers looks similar. ...you repeated the same claims I addressed in the last post. It appears that all you have is insults.
    1
  244.  Ed Spencer  Got nothing else? When challenged with an argument you couldn't handle...you threw some insults and fled...
    1
  245. " you are are a multi-millionaire soon to be a multi-billionaire, are you going to disrupt your very valuable schedule for a 200K/per year physician" Rich people make appointments to.... rich people keep appointments... He was already worth billions on 9/11.....the idea that 9/11 was a (very fucking costly) scam for a billioniare to make some money is just idiotic.... what was the pentagon crash? ...what was the point of flight 93? ...... if he wanted money he could have used bombs instead of faking plane hijackings... it makes no sense at all.
    1
  246. "Rivets don’t sound like bombs. " Nothing in any of the videos of the towers sounds like bombs.
    1
  247.  @VinceG18  That's it ...laugh of boring reality... because conspiracy fantasies are more fun.
    1
  248. Wow, words in upper case. That's great but do you have any evidence?
    1
  249. " They cannot be placed at the airports on Sept 11. " Except for eyewitnesses, photo and video evidence.
    1
  250.  @BrianSEPT11  So if the government, who apparently are able to fake just about EVERYTHING.... edited the photos to put a timestamp on it... would you then believe it? No. It's a game conspiracy theorists play. No matter how much evidence you give them they declare it's faked and not enough.
    1
  251.  @BrianSEPT11  Your suspicion isn't worth anything. What matters is evidence.... you've had years... let me know when you get some. "OFFICIAL STORY full of holes and sinking fast" hah..right..... and let me guess, alien disclosure is right around the corner!
    1
  252. What is the point of the northwoods reference?
    1
  253.  @benjaminfranklin4760  I know all about Northwoods. I'm trying to get you to make an argument. you're not.
    1
  254.  @benjaminfranklin4760  "So please go ahead if you think you can explain the ‘good intention’ in those plans" You don't understand what I'm saying. You tell me... why is Northwoods significant? what does it prove? Go
    1
  255.  @darlenehowell2274  "What Northwood proves is that there are minds in our Goverments Hierarchical Structure that have devised such plans" So what... there are terrorists who have devised such plans... if I point to a terrorist attack does that alone prove anything with 9/11? Your answer should be "no"... and it is just the same as with Northwoods...
    1
  256.  @darlenehowell2274  "stop showing me in your posts what I have said" Oh does this bother you? Oh well. So you avoided the point with three posts of nonsense....
    1
  257.  @darlenehowell2274  "What point Mark. The point had been addressed. " Nope... the point was Northwoods... it doesn't prove the conspiracy any more than it terrorist attacks debunk the conspiracy. I am using logic here and you are crying like a baby about it. "Why don't you comment on the post that spoke to your response directly?" What comment have I missed? Show me. "You redirect because you have nothing." lol ..no troll. I am the one trying to address the point ...while YOU are redirecting with your boring trolling...
    1
  258.  @darlenehowell2274  This is comical... You're supposed to be putting an argument together regarding Nothwoods... You're dodging. You're dancing. You're stalling. You're changing the subject.... Then... you accuse me of playing games. You're a waste of space. A troll. ...which was what I guessed early on. You're utterly incompetent......
    1
  259.  @darlenehowell2274  "ONCE AGAIN ROBERT MCNAMARA WROTE NORTHWOODS. HE WAS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE" Apparently he didn't... it was something given to him by joint chiefs of staff........but either way don't actually make an argument relevant to 9/11.... So many posts....and still you can't make an argument.
    1
  260.  @darlenehowell2274  You have made no further progress so all I need to do is repeat my last post. Apparently he didn't... it was something given to him by joint chiefs of staff........but either way don't actually make an argument relevant to 9/11.... So many posts....and still you can't make an argument.
    1
  261.  @darlenehowell2274  " I have responded over and over again concerning Northwoods" lol... you've yet to make an argument. You're a joke. You're not a challenge at all. You're an inept troll. Happy to move on to whatever you're blathering about ... I'll take that as you conceding you can't actually make any argument about Northwoods that relates to 9/11..... at all.... ya got nuthin.
    1
  262.  @darlenehowell2274  " You do the samething everytime." I have no idea who you are... but I assume you're referring to refuting your arguments... I'm guessing other people do that to you all the time.
    1
  263.  @darlenehowell2274  "They do not have the resource to accomplish 911" Some men don't have the resources to hijack some planes? That's absurd.
    1
  264.  @darlenehowell2274  "You do this same song and dance everytime" You're projecting your actions again.... and once again.. I don't know who you are... "911 planning pre-dates WW2. " Oh lordy you are loopy... "Aleister Crowley designed the Ritual" Riiiiiiiight..... hey perhaps it goes back further! Maybe Merlin started it! Give me a break... how much drugs did it take for you to be so detached from reality to believe such nonsense... Not only are you totally incompetent... not only are you constantly evading and deflecting like a coward... you're as nutty as squirrel shit.
    1
  265.  @darlenehowell2274  "McNamara conceived" No. Apparently it was presented to him because he was the secretary of defense. The authors are in the document. https://libcom.org/library/operation-northwoods-justification-u-s-military-intervention-cuba https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//news/20010430/doc1.pdf "Northwoods was never going to be used by KENNEDY. " None of this is helping you... " It was written because Rockefeller was moving close to the building of the WTC and needed a plan to complete the ritual. " Ah yes the magical ritual with Crowley and Merlin.... You're a running joke to me now. You're certainly no challenge.... you're a crazy person who is hopeless at debating.... " It was never intented for anything else but 911." Got any evidence for that fantasy?
    1
  266.  @darlenehowell2274  " Now get to the War Games on 911" You've yet to make an argument about Northwoods. You have claimed it was linked to 9/11 because of ....wait for it... Aleister Crowley ... You've presented no evidence for this idiotic claim.... you've just asserted it.... You're a clown. I remember you claiming you had someone on the ropes in a debate... one thing is clear... anyone and everyone destroys you in a debate...
    1
  267.  @darlenehowell2274  "Explain 9/11/1941? " What is to explain? It was a date on the calendar. does that surprise you? " just happened to be in Kennedy's Administration when Northwoods was conceived. " ..as above... what is there to explain? He was in Kennedy's administration... the guy who didn't even come up with Northwoods.... "Do you know what 11 175 93 and 77AA have in common? " They have numbers in them. "These numbers are the very tip of the" They are not anything. " I've an IQ of 138." No ... you don't.... and your embarrassing attempts to try and convince people you are smart just fall flat once they see your posts.
    1
  268.  @darlenehowell2274  "What do you know about, "As Above; So Below?"" Ah so you're getting your evidence from horror movies... sounds like a great idea. Have you worked out if Freddy Kruger was involved? Do you have any understanding of how terrible your arguments are... and how deluded you are? Of course you don't.
    1
  269.  @darlenehowell2274  So it was Clowley... Merlin... and the Blair Witch.... AND Freddy Kruger... who were really to blame for 9/11.... got it... Do yourself a favor... go to bed like you said you were going to... you're getting nowhere here...
    1
  270.  @darlenehowell2274  20 posts? You posted 20 times? I'm going to skim a bit because your posts are mostly worthless ...devoid of evidence or an intelligent, relevant point. "Coincidence? " It isn't even a coincidence... it isn't anything. "Did you know that Nelson and David Rockefeller started US Army Intelligence?" False. "Aleister Crowley was an MI5 Agent during WW2" A claim that has never been substantiated. "Did you know that every aspect of 911 has Crowleyian Numerology involved in it." lol..you can link anything with numbers if you want to. Generally only stupid and/or uneducated people fall for numerology. "I haven't made a case for Northwoods you say? You're an idiot! 11+175=186÷2=93" haha this getting more comical by the post. No you haven't made an intelligent argument yet. You made some claims you don't support. You made some claims that are wrong. You made some claims that are laughably stupid. Then you've blurted out a bunch of numbers...... You're not only failing to make an argument regarding Northwoods, you're making a total fool of yourself.
    1
  271.  @darlenehowell2274  "Everything I have said relates to Northwoods." You've yet to make any argument about Northwoods. You've spouted gibberish about Crowley and american intelligence and even then you can't get your facts right. You can't even get your facts right about McNamara. Your don't address Northwoods but build an absurd conspiracies based on errors and unsubstantiated claims.
    1
  272.  @darlenehowell2274  "We still have lots and lots to go." When are you going to say something relevant to Northwoods?.... what was the point.
    1
  273.  @darlenehowell2274  "As the Secretary of Defense everything that comes from his Office he is responsible fore." You claimed he conceived it... you claimed he wrote it...you were wrong. Your whole conspiracy depends on something you got wrong....lol.... Now you're backpedaling to "responsible for".... You're a mess.
    1
  274.  @darlenehowell2274  "As Above? The Number of the Beast " You can't tell the difference between a horror movie and real life.....
    1
  275.  @darlenehowell2274  " You do know that the Occult is a Science?" haha only to the most deluded and clueless members of society... You probably think the Harry Potter movies are documentaries....hahaha,.....so dumb.
    1
  276.  @darlenehowell2274  " you somehow have accessed that I can not debate" You can't. You are inept when it comes to debating. You've yet to support any argument about Northwoods... . if you were in a public debate you would be laughed off the stage... You're a clown. So do you have any argument to make about Northwoods at all?
    1
  277.  @darlenehowell2274  Working for the CIA ..doesn't mean you started Army Intel.... army intelligence had been going for a very long time before that... Good lord you're a moron.
    1
  278.  @darlenehowell2274  "Is that you have no rebuttal for what I have said as it's over your head. " You've not presented anything sensible... and even in your bizarre conspiracy you can't even get basic facts right. "Numerology is a joke?" Yep. "Aleister Crowley is consider a, "Genius." " bahaha... he was nutty... it's simply hilarious that you try to support numerology by saying that Aleister Crowley was smart... as if that somehow supports such an absurd belief..... " There are rules to every school of Numerology" ...and? There are rules to lots of stupid things. "s As Above; So Below my doing as well?" You support your batshit crazy theory... that is full of holes....and never even addresses the argument... by referencing a horror movie. That says it all really. So many posts... and you've gone nowhere.
    1
  279.  @darlenehowell2274  You have no evidence for any of the claims you make.... you claimed that army intel was started in the middle of last century...! you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. No one has confirmed that Crowley was a spy.... "What facts about McNamara do I not have right." You claimed "ROBERT MCNAMARA WROTE NORTHWOODS".... he didn't. You are wrong. Your conspiracy is idiotic and you can't even get your facts right. You're challenged to make some argument about Northwoods and how it relates to 9/11.... your response: "But Aleister Crowley cast a spell 50 years earlier!!!!" lol... SMH.... people must laugh at you all the time...
    1
  280.  @darlenehowell2274  " Point to these holes? " I keep doing so... you keep blurting out deflections or backpedaling. "Crowley is consider by many "Great People" to be a Genius." LOL... so you try to claim that numerology is valid because Crowley supported it... a stupid appeal to authority... you try to support your stupid appeal to authority with... anther stupid appeal to authority... a vague claim about great people saying he's smart. " Go take a stats class. " I did stats at high school.... you've yet to make an argument... you're being torn to shreds here and making a complete fool of yourself. "Where am I wrong about McNamara? " I keep answering this. YOU claimed he wrote Northwoods. You are wrong. I educated you. I had to teach you. You don't even know the basics of your own idiotic theory. Then you did a little tap dance...backpedaled a little... then mumbled something about him approving it... Now you're asking me where you are wrong. I have told you. You don't know what to do.. so you... just ask me again. Sorry but you're not bright enough to debate this topic...
    1
  281.  @darlenehowell2274  "You think I am referencing the Horror movie As Above; So Below?" What are you referencing then?! Do you even know? You don't seem to know what you're doing.
    1
  282.  @darlenehowell2274  " He endorsed it via" You claimed he wrote it. I point out your lies... and you claim that is pathetic... you're drooling moron.
    1
  283.  @darlenehowell2274  "You are nothing but a complete waste of my time!" 50 posts in and you STILL can't make an argument about Northwoods....lol.. you're comical... you're flazzled mess.... you've no ability to construct a coherent argument. You're just reinforcing my suspicion. In a debate, you lose to anybody and everybody..... you couldn't even get off the ground here....
    1
  284.  @darlenehowell2274  ". You are "STUPID!"" Explanation for Northwoods was a story about Aleister Crowley and a magical spell.... and a bunch of facts you can't even get right... and you're calling someone else stupid.....haha
    1
  285.  @darlenehowell2274  "You don't understand how the Hierarchical Structure of McNamara's Office worked even after I explain it too you." Ah right so you can't even get basic facts right and that's my lack of understanding.... lol no dumbass... you're a mess. Your theories are idiotic... only the most stupid people would even consider them....and you still screw up basic claims within them! "ou're so dense and so void of historical understanding that you can't see how Rockefeller had to run US Military Intel." Blah blah the conspiracy nut crying because their best evidence is ludicrous ... "They're the Deep State Dumb Dumb. The US Gov works for them. " You try to prop up all your idiotic claims with more idiotic claims... you can't support anything... you can't even make sense. You're a raving lunatic... lol
    1
  286.  @darlenehowell2274  You're crying because your "argument" fell apart ... it was laughably bad and I had to correct your BASIC ERRORs....LOL It was all a magical spell from Crowley! Of course!..... so...Nothwoods... ?! You're a mess.... take your meds crazy person... you lose every debate don't you?
    1
  287.  @darlenehowell2274  "Are you affraid of Trigonometry" You're a moron. "You took Stats in High School. Did you flunk it? " No.. unlike you.. I have an education. "Crowley, Page and Great People? " That's not a sentence... " I was simply offering different view. " You were spouting irrelevant bullshit to support your irrelevant bullshit. "You've nothing to refute Crowleyian Numerology " You've done nothing to support it....what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence...although everyone with half a brain knows numerology is bullshit ...only idiots believe in it in 2021. You also believe in magic... you probably think Harry Potter is based on real events... you probably follow astrology... chemtrails... flat earth... all these idiotic beliefs would be right up your alley.
    1
  288.  @darlenehowell2274  "ONE LAST TIME! NORTHWOODS WAS MCNAMARA'S CONCEPT PERIOD. HE CONCEIVED IT" Except that he didn't. He didn't write it. He merely forwarded it. ". IT GOT HIM FIRED BECAUSE HIS OFFICE" Except that isn't the reason he was fired. "WHICH MAKES HIM THE AUTHOR IN THAT CONTEXT" Except that he wasn't... at all.... Your fantasy is total mess. Nearly 100 post in and you still can't come up with an intelligent argument.
    1
  289.  @darlenehowell2274  "He was fired for Northwoods by JFK in 1963 " Except that he didn't write Northwoods as you claimed and that wasn't why he was fired. " A little known fact" haha you mean a made up fact that you can't support.... you can't support anything you claim.... "I do not care what you think anymore as you are a completely brainwashed moron." Yeah that's what flat earthers say when you don't accept their idiotic claims. You are exactly the same.... in fact after your story about 9/11 and the magic spell form the Wizard you are actually more idiotic that flat earthers... which is really quite amazing.
    1
  290.  @darlenehowell2274  "What do you think about David Rockefeller" I don't care.... it has nothing to do with 9/11.... you're a babbling halfwit... you can't even get your dumbass conspiracies right... lol You think 9/11 was all about a magic spell from a wizard! Oh you are just priceless.
    1
  291.  @darlenehowell2274  "You've got to read between the lines." bahahah a wizards spell! You think 9/11 was caused by a wizard doing a magic spell! LOL read between the lines she says....
    1
  292.  @darlenehowell2274  "Stats, coincidence and numerology. " You said it was a wizard's spell.... now you're too embarrassed to even admit it... Oh and numerology (in this day) is for morons... only the most stupid people believe it.... generally it's scientifically illiterate gullible fools... oh look you fit perfectly! "Argue with that for awhile." Argue with what? ... you just spouted a lot of irrelevant gibberish... You can't argue against irrelevant claims that don't make any sense.... lol... lordy you're inept...
    1
  293.  @darlenehowell2274  "Newtonian Physics proves 911 was a demolition" I've done physics ... i did it at high school and did some at Uni ... I can tell you were never educated... and every time you post you make a total fool of yourself... but sure... show me your physics... Go... I want a laugh.
    1
  294.  @darlenehowell2274  Oh and after making such a fool of yourself with your stories about wizard spells and screwing up basic facts... you still never made any argument about Northwoods and 9/11. What a failure.... Do you work hard at being this stupid? ..or does it just come naturally?
    1
  295.  @darlenehowell2274  "Is this equation correct? Yes or No?" Are you ever going to say something intelligent? Yes or No?
    1
  296.  @darlenehowell2274  " You're under the spell of a Cult Order called Goverment." Baahaha... you think Harry Potter is real! hahaha... how do you get through the day being this dumb?
    1
  297.  @darlenehowell2274  " JUST LIKE I AM CORRECT ABOUT MCNAMARA, ROCKEFELLER, ARMY INTEL AND CROWLEY'S 911 OCCULT RITUAL" You made basic errors....your conspiracy is total idiocy and you can't even get basic stuff right.
    1
  298.  @darlenehowell2274  "ANSWER THE QUESTION" You lost your argument. You made a total arse of yourself..... and now you're crying and ranting .... You just don't know when to quit crazy person. You're having a hissy fit....you're showing how weak you really are..... as well as being confused...naïve....gullible......
    1
  299.  @darlenehowell2274  ""You think it was wizards casting spells." No, I know it was evil men with resources and access. You're a stooge!" Now you're backpedaling. Funny.
    1
  300.  @darlenehowell2274  "The Plasco Building also did not collapse A Symmetrically." Are you trying to say symmetrically or asymmetrically? Sort yourself out idiot.
    1
  301.  @darlenehowell2274  " As to the 12ft exit hole made by landing gear in the Pentagon? Where's the fucking landing gear? " You see parts of it in the debris.
    1
  302.  @darlenehowell2274  "Do you know why there's no landing gear shown" Good lord you're a clueless twit.... lol http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html ". It was a cruise missile" There is zero evidence for a cruise missile... there is plenty of evidence that it was a large plane. You're hapless... stick to your harry potter stories dumbass.
    1
  303.  @darlenehowell2274  "You are an idiot! Those pics prove nothing." Yeah pics of wreckage... even landing gear at the pentagon..... yeah what would that prove? haha your stupidity has no limits.
    1
  304.  @darlenehowell2274  Yeah that's it cry it out because I won't go through your idiotic harry potter stories with you. You're so mad. Poor nutcase...can't tell when reality ends and fantasy begins..... you must get laughed at a lot.
    1
  305.  @darlenehowell2274  "From looking at those pics you can't tell if it's nose cone, " Who cares.. you're a moron who doesn't know their arse from their toe....lol
    1
  306.  @darlenehowell2274  " It's hard to imagine a company with more Military Contracts" Ah so they must be in on it too! with the army the police NASA the reptilians AND the wizards! Go play with your spell books fruitloop.
    1
  307.  @darlenehowell2274  " Did you also participate in any Medical Experiments for extra money? You know, the kind that are advertised in magazines and papers looking for people to participate in trials for experimental drugs and such." Keep your embarrassing history to yourself fruitcake.
    1
  308.  @darlenehowell2274  "So this is how you work. "There's pics of landing gear at the Pentagon." Thus, it must belong to AA77." No... here is how you work: Moron - "There is no landing gear!!!" Me - here are photos of a landing gear Moron - "They don't count!!!... because... I say so!!!" Me - "So you won't accept evidence merely because you don't like it" Moron - "erm... lets change ..err.. the subject... er... it was a missile!!!!" Me - "so lets set the evidence that it was a missile" Moron - "So lets err.. change the subject again... erm... derp ....errr.. you're incorrigible !!!" " Yet, no claim from Boeing or AA that it belongs to AA77. " Nor is that required. Passenger DNA matched with families. Passenger personal effects identified by families. The FDR. Image from the security footage with a shape that fits a large plane. Light poles knocked down on the way into the impact. Plane wreckage photographed. over 100 witnesses who saw a plane hit the pentagon.... Also how the moron works: Moron - "Unless the manufacturer and owner verify it... it wasn't there!!!! Me - "So did the owner and manufacturer verfiy your missile... Moron "erm....ummmm lets change the subject again... derp...." It's not hard to make you look foolish ... you do all the work for me.
    1
  309.  @darlenehowell2274  " No 757 does 530 mph at 5ft off the ground" It wasn't cruising you twit .. it was coming down from altitude and crashing.... "It was a one of a kind cruise missile built by the MIC to resemble an aircraft." hahahahahahaha... so it looked like a plane but it was really a missile in disguise! You're hilarious... Wizards casting spells and pretend planes that were really missiles...
    1
  310.  @darlenehowell2274  " No ID means no plane" The plane is confirmed with the remainder of the evidence. Passenger DNA matched with families. Passenger personal effects identified by families. The FDR. Image from the security footage with a shape that fits a large plane. Light poles knocked down on the way into the impact. Plane wreckage photographed. over 100 witnesses who saw a plane hit the pentagon.... Loads of evidence there... Your evidence: Nothing.
    1
  311.  @darlenehowell2274  " What do you know about the, "Planet Venus."" Let me guess... you're going to tell me more about wizards or bases on venus or some wackiness... no..forget it .. I couldn't care less nutcase.
    1
  312.  @darlenehowell2274  " The Hi-Jackers c" Oh look you invented something new again... like you A Symmetry.... It's hijackers...
    1
  313.  @darlenehowell2274  "AA77 was crashing?" It was coming out of altitude to crash ...into the side of a building... Seriously how dense are you that you can't understand that?! Wow. ..just ...wow... A child could understand that... But you're bewildered.....hahah Not only do you never produce evidence....not only do you never make an intelligent argument...... you can't even grasp basic concepts... You're a mess...take you medication nutcase...lol..
    1
  314.  @darlenehowell2274  "Crashing the plane into an objects like the Pentagon would take a great deal of, "Precision."" It was the largest building in the world in terms of office space.... the towers were in the top ten tallest buildings in the world at the time... You couldn't get larger targets... precision? Good lord you're an idiot.
    1
  315.  @darlenehowell2274  "Venus has something uniquely incommon with the Pentagon/Pentagram. " Suuuuuuuuure it does... poor crazy person... you really hate reality... perhaps life has been hard for you... that's why you cling to these silly fantasies... "Only people who read and work towards a life long ideal of higher" haha sure thing nutcase... you tell yourself that.... "But ya, the Pentagon/Pentagram, Venus77, AA77, Aleister Crowley? No planning or synchronicity there." There is nothing there... no coincidences... nothing strange... just your sad delusions... "Just meaningless drivel from an out of touch nutcase. God you're dumb! " This statement just becomes comedic... the irony will be lost on you of course. So no evidence... but hey who needs evidence right? ...because ...wizards... and a planet...and smart people say so! hahahaha
    1
  316.  @darlenehowell2274  "No need for precision? Wow!!!." Their targets were massive you dumbass.
    1
  317.  @darlenehowell2274  "The Time Lord's are Single in their Vision. Money dumb dumb." Did you just say... the time lords? Wow.... LOL... Somehow you manage to make yourself look more and more stupid with each post... The time lords! Poor stupid darlene... no education... no critical thinking... she believes in wizards...lol
    1
  318.  @darlenehowell2274  Sure i do it's all about the wizards and the time lords! hahaha dumbass crackpot.
    1
  319.  @darlenehowell2274  "Venus forms a Pentagram in it's orbit." Not quite... in conduction with earth... there is a cycle that happens 5 times over 8 years. It's a pattern... bit the orbit isn't a pentagram "Was flying over DC on 911 when the Pentagon was attacked" ...and!? There was no attack there.... None of this means anything. Your theories are a total mess.... "Just some more mindless drivel from the nutcase." Exactly. This is exactly what you produce. No evidence... you can't support anything... you just blurt out idiotic theories to try and fix the other idiotic theories that fell apart...
    1
  320.  @darlenehowell2274  "YT the pentagram of venus y" ...it shows I am right... "Wow!!!... You're fucking stupid!" You keep projecting your problems onto others. Just as with northwoods... you can't even get basic facts right. You're a drooling moron.
    1
  321. ​ @darlenehowell2274  "Arlington and DC are consider" ...so ...nearby... you're going to cling to that. A plane was nearby... and the pentagon was attacked.... . WOW! that really proves your harry potter theory! You are truly stupid.
    1
  322.  @darlenehowell2274  " have known about the Venus/Earth Pentagram Conjuction since 1980" You don't seem to even understand it now. It's pretty embarrassing for you that you don't even understand the basic claims of your wacky false claims....lol
    1
  323.  @darlenehowell2274  Read my post about again you uneducated gullible conspiracy moron.
    1
  324.  @darlenehowell2274  "You think that because I did not mention the Venus/Earth Conjuction that I was not aware of it?" Look at you backpedaling and flailing trying to make it seem like you know what you're doing... haha.. no.. you don't...you don't even understand your own theories.. you can't even get basic facts right... you're a joke.
    1
  325.  @darlenehowell2274  " You are being completely owned by me " Even as deluded as you are.. you realise that isn't true... Summary... Thinkshesawizard - "There is no landing gear!!!" Me - here are photos of a landing gear Thinkshesawizard - "They don't count!!!... because... I say so!!!" Me - "So you won't accept evidence merely because you don't like it" Thinkshesawizard - "erm... lets change ..err.. the subject... er... it was a missile!!!!" Me - "so lets set the evidence that it was a missile" Thinkshesawizard - "So lets err.. change the subject again... erm... derp ....errr.. you're incorrigible !!!" Thinkshesawizard - "Unless the manufacturer and owner verify it... it wasn't there!!!! Me - "So did the owner and manufacturer verfiy your missile... Thinkshesawizard "erm....ummmm lets change the subject again... derp...." Thinkshesawizard "erm...but but but veeeeeeenusss!! You own yourself... I don't even have to do anything.
    1
  326.  @darlenehowell2274  "You're truely pathetic! Remember dumb dumb. We are the only two people reading this." You're trying so hard to get some confidence back after you lost on every single point.
    1
  327.  @darlenehowell2274  "I give you the short version of the Venus Pentagram Orbit" I had to explain it to you....lol... You're so hopeless... Your conspiracies are stupid. You can't produce evidence of anything. You believe in wizards and the time lords....hahahaha
    1
  328.  @darlenehowell2274  "t's not my theory; it's fact" Who cares... I'm not the least bit interested on who came up with the drivel you spout. All these posts and you've yet to address any evidence. you've yet to present any evidence. you've yet to even say anything intelligent. You're a total failure.
    1
  329.  @darlenehowell2274  " I keep calling you an idiot." Which is only funny considering how dense you are. "Your just programmed. I" Also funny because you're gullible sheep who believes all sorts of dumbass conspiracies.... When challenged for evidence... you panic and change the topic...lol... "You're in a trap called the, "Saturn Cube."" I'm in a trap called "picking on the village idiot and can't stop" lol.. " That is one of the ways that they occult what they are doing from us. " Ah yes the wizards! You were probably a dungeons and dragons nerd who didn't want the game to ever stop... so you decided it was real... Poor uneducated nutcase.
    1
  330.  @darlenehowell2274  "We both know that you resort to all kinds of bullshit when you're up against it." I'm roasting you with facts and evidence while you cry and squeal about wizards and time lords. I'm picking on the village idiot while they talk about wizards..... it's a little cruel.
    1
  331.  @darlenehowell2274  You try so hard to recover your confidence after being ridiculed... tell me more about the time lords! haha nah don't ... I don't care.
    1
  332.  @darlenehowell2274  You're not that sharp. I don't care about your book recommendations nutcase. I think you're a gullible, ignorant twit....
    1
  333.  @darlenehowell2274  blah blah nutcase thinks harry potter is real....blah blah.. nutcase thinks dr who is real.... blah blah..
    1
  334.  @darlenehowell2274  "You do care. If you didn't care Mark then you wouldn't lie. " Wrong and wrong. You get everything wrong. "The thing is Mark is that I see every lie that you tell. " You just can't demonstrate one single lie. "You are a product of your own indoctrination " blah blah nutcase thinks harry potter is real...blah blah...
    1
  335. Is there anything in his video that stands out as very wrong?
    1
  336.  @Kofi_Mensahs_BurnerAccount  "im Shea Convenient isn't it, for the investigators to find the passports in legible condition exiting the plane upon impact despite the fact that on the footage of the first collision, a visible flash is seen before it collided with the North Tower" You're kidding yourself. You're looking at a video of the impact.... the impact causes the flash. "And to correct you, 3 black boxes were found in the ruins of the WTC. " None of the black boxes were found at the towers. "Next, the firefighters that went into the Towers all have said over the years that they consistently heard explosions as they ascended the towers" Quote mined testimony....There were exploding noises...and it's usually obvious that they are referring to the collapse of one of the towers. the FDNY does not support the conspiracy. There are no mysterious explosions on any of the videos of the towers.. ". Furthermore, isn't it a coincidence that Silverstein got the Towers insured and had 'acts of terrorism' included 6 " Not really... it wasn't uncommon.. The WTC was the target of a terrorist attack only a few years earlier...and it was insured then. "The cameras atop the Pentagon mysteriously weren't working either." The cameras were working...but they weren't set up to get footage of a plane coming from the sky....hitting a nondescript section of wall.
    1
  337. "That's the most obviously a demo. ' We have video of the collapse...and there is nothing that resembles demolition explosives before collapse.
    1
  338.  @AlexAnder-qe9jq  A poor response. If you have a video with demolition explosives going off before the collapse of WTC7 or the towers then show it.
    1
  339.  @darlenehowell2274  "The problem is that people like you know nothing of real history." Your idea of "real history" is every crackpot conspiracy story ever put together. You think 9/11 was caused by a wizard performing a ritual That's all anyone needs to know about you to see you're not quite sane.
    1
  340.  @darlenehowell2274  "Crackpot Conspiracies? " Yes... you think 9/11 was caused by a wizard casting a spell.... and you think the "time lords" are involved. Yep. Crackpot conspiracies. Even the 9/11 conspiracy theorists probably laugh at you.
    1
  341.  @darlenehowell2274  Sure sure anyone who doesn't believe that harry potter is real must be brainwashed.... You're nuts.
    1
  342.  @darlenehowell2274  You think 9/11 was caused by a wizard casting a spell... and you think the time lords are involved. You make a total fool of yourself every time you post crackpot. "Venus creates a, "Pentagram?" I had to explain this to you... lol.. you don't even know your own crackpot theories.... lol you're a mess crackpot. "What does stupid think about 911 numerology now? " That's it's a load of nonsense that only morons would believe in. You've only made this more clear....
    1
  343.  @darlenehowell2274  Go play with your magic wand nutcase... go cast some spells to make you smarter lol
    1
  344.  @darlenehowell2274  "You and I both know what you are" I'm someone who doesn't believe that wizards are real.
    1
  345.  @darlenehowell2274  "It does not matter what evidence of the truth I post." You've yet to provide evidence of anything... "You'll claim it is just wizards casting spells in the fairy land" This is what you are telling me. You claim that a wizard caused 9/11 by casting a spell.... You're batshit crazy.
    1
  346.  @darlenehowell2274  "? It ain't like I am Quigley or Trapley." It aint like you're sane.... or even a good person.
    1
  347.  @darlenehowell2274  "How am I not a good person? This lunacy I've just got too hear" You're a vile nutcase who insults everyone who doesn't go along with their stories about wizards and timelords.... I can deal with nutty people who believe stupid things... it even interests me why at times that they do... which is partly why I end up in exchanges like this. But you have no redeeming qualities and abuse people for not going along with your batty stories about wizards being real and 9/11 being caused by a magic spell. I can deal with nice nutty people... but vile nutty people aren't worth the effort.
    1
  348.  @darlenehowell2274  "You delete them as they've some rather damning evidence concerning the case " I don't have the power to delete your posts. It happens to me sometimes as well.
    1
  349.  @darlenehowell2274  "Dr Woods and DEW?" lol... yeah... only idiots fall for her nonsense... oh look there you are!
    1
  350.  @eusebiollupi4629  "he official.claim is that calls by individual passengers were EXECUTED VIA THEIR CELL PHONES->" You have no idea. The phone calls are itemised. They are nearly all from the airfones. "So please please at least let's not blatantly LIE and present officially claimed facts about " You've obviously done no research about this at all. "That's the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY" Except it isn't and you are clueless. People that type in upper case like that are always nutty. "the study presents an overwhelming 118 professional " The "study" done by Graeme Macqueen? yeah I know it. He takes testimony of people describing the collapse, and using the word explosion, as evidence for bombs. That makes him either an idiot or deceptive or both.
    1
  351. Nope. Wasn't a concrete structure. No evidence for demolition. Learn about critical thinking.
    1
  352. Get out and fight the good fight against NASA and the truth of the flat earth! Go!
    1
  353. I'm a fake jew? Not jewish. don't even know any jewish people. Your posts are just nonsensical blathering. So you're not just a conspiracy sheep. You're a nazi conspiracy sheep who hates the jews. The rest of society looks down on nutcase loses like you. You know it too.
    1
  354. So is the problem that you've taken too much medication or not enough? Perhaps see your doctor.
    1
  355. " So the Fire expert states that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel which is true so how come there are dozens of videos here on you tube that clearly show molten metal pouring from the structure during collapse ,days later " There were metals there that would have been molten in the fires. We don't know if that was steel. "days later in the rubble being Crain lifted from the debris, as well as months later" Molten metal in the burning pile is also not a surprise. "thermal detection reveals that temperatures of ground zero and below rubble are still over 1000 degrees ." You're referring to two scans from NASA's AVIRIS... one on the 16th of September and the second on the 23rd. The hottest temperature recorded was about 700C.
    1
  356. "So a jet doesn’t make a cartoon like entry when impacting on the CIA building but it does with the world trade centre?" Are you serious? One was a military installation with thick concrete walls and blast resistance windows..... the other was a skyscraper with some steel and glass. What are you confused about?
    1
  357.  @dotmatrix831  So you don't know what he actually said do you?
    1
  358.  @dotmatrix831  "He got awfully rich and pushed his luck, " He was wealthy beforehand. "managed to get double insurance for the buildings" No. He lost that battle. It cost him a small fortune in legal fees....all the while he was paying 10 million a month to rent an empty site. "I would not like to quote him without reviewing the evidence though," This is the quote that nutty conspiracy theorists refer to. "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." Nowhere does he say it was demolished.
    1
  359. "A lot of this is just handwaving and strawmen" He is addressing arguments made by 9/11 truthers... so no.. they are straw men. " if you truly wanted to "debunk" only the strongest arguments" Every truther seems to have a different opinion on what the supposed strongest arguments are. "why bring up something like the Grenfell tower at all? " A lot of 9/11 truthers brought that up after the fire... probably around the time this video was made. " and something like One Meridian " Fire fighters actually tried to put that building out. It had water streaming on it for hours... it didn't just burn away freely with no fire fighting efforts at all... so the fire spread more slowly and would most likely have not reached the same high temperatures. This is an example why you can't simply count the number of hours. Each situation is different. "Beijing Television Cultural Centre fire?" Built by Arup construction AFTER they analysed the WTC collapses... and as a result of this it was a combination of concrete and steel. Don't just take the half truths that conspiracy theorists feed you. " So what they did instead is make a computer cartoon that kinda-sorta looked like the collapse" Read their report on WTC7 to see their methodology... read the faq... do something to educate yourself. To represent their investigation as just 'doing a cartoon' is merely absurd.
    1
  360.  @DeverHB  "Yeah, and it's a bad argument. Wouldn't an intellectually honest debunking ignore it in favour of more difficult arguments, like One Meridian Plaza?" He's gone for the more common arguments. Don't pretend that addressing the most common arguments is intellectually dishonest. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. As for One Meridian Plaza, that's not even a difficult argument. "Just because firefighters are trying to spray water on it from a distance doesn't mean the fire wasn't massively destructive." You're brushing away an important point. Getting water on the fire slowed down the burn. It slows down the progress. It will lead to reduced temps. This is important. On 9/11, WTC7 was just allowed to burn away. "So massive fires burning out of control for almost an entire day. " See previous point. Counting the hours that a fire burns doesn't tell the whole story. They had water on it the whole time. That didn't happen at all with WTC7. "I've read the FAQ. Two reasons I called it a cartoon: 1) They never actually examined the steel. " That doesn't make it a cartoon. Are you really trying to claim that the only way to know what happened was the steel? Video evidence doesn't matter? Experimental evidence doesn't matter? This is another absurd argument. ". 2) They never released the files they used to make the simulation" They didn't release all their inputs...however the showed their methodology. Anyone can replicate their work... But again... that doesn't make it a cartoon. "But the more important thing about One Meridian Plaza isn't that it didn't collapse, it's more that nobody at the scene ANTICIPATED the collapse." Wrong. Re read the very article you just referenced: "Structural damage observed inside the building by firefighters and consultations with a structural engineer led to fears that the damaged floors might collapse. At 7:00 AM an order to evacuate the building was issued by Fire Commissioner Roger Ulshafer, and the building was completely evacuated by 7:30 AM. " " This makes sense, as the firefighters at the scene all knew that a steel building has never collapsed due to fire." Except that they have... and they did... and you are wrong. " But in the case of WTC 7, everyone somehow anticipated something that had literally never happened before. How? " Because it had... and they had... and you're wrong. Here is a fire fighter making it pretty clear. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XImQ6a-VrnA&list=FL7SPTPUSPyvjciLeyOsBZmA&
    1
  361.  @DeverHB  " but obviously they're only able to cover a small portion." You're making an assessment of all their fire fighting efforts from a few seconds of footage? This is a classic case of your confirmation bias. " There's a ton of areas in the building where they can't reach with the water," So they went to another position... people can move you know. Your assessment of the overall firefighting efforts is rather comical. "Due to the fears of floors collapsing, firefighters were pulled out and the fire basically burned " That's what I told you. Did you really just repeat back to me ...the thing that i told you? YOU CLAIMED " nobody at the scene ANTICIPATED the collapse." I showed you otherwise... and you just repeated it back. Is there something wrong with you? "You can read all this on the Wiki:" I posted directly from that page when I educated you "But two things about that. One, they actually didn't collapse. " You're backpedaling and moving goal posts. You claimed that no one would have expected it. "econd, fire-affected floors collapsing is COMPLETELY different than the entire building coming straight dow" You're showing a poor understanding of collapses... it's the collapse of the fire affected floors that may trigger an entire building collapse... just as we saw with the WTC buildings.... as with the Wilton Paes de Almeida Building and the Plasco Building. " Also, this would mean thousands of steel buildings would have to be deemed unsafe for firefighters to attempt to save" 1. Not all buildings were built like the WTC buildings. 2. There were numerous code changes as a result of the collapses and buildings after 9/11 were different. "You can try, but it's sort of like doing an autopsy without ever examining the dead body. " Not quite. There are whole fields of science (e.g. astronomy) that rely heavily on observation and applying physics. The short answer is that there is no reason you can't work out what happened with all the evidence at hand. To your example... if we had video of the person being shot... but no body... we could still comfortably say what happened. "According to the NIST FAQ, it was the first steel building to ever collapse due to fire." Wrong. It was the first skyscraper. Not the first steel building. Steel and fire doesn't change when the building gets taller. " few hours is enough to bring down steel buildings, look at this" Ah the Cardington fire tests. I know them quite well actually. Let me educate you about this as well. They built a structure to perform a series of test. They limited the fuel to certain sections... why? Because they DID NOT want the structure to collapse. That was not the point of the test. Imagine you had 6 tests to run and the large structure (you just built) collapsed on the first one. In fact in one of the early tests they noted columns weakening when the temps reached about 700C (from memory I can look it up I have the report) and they made a point of shielding all columns after that - why? .because they wanted to ensure it wouldn't collapse. Do I need to go any further? "Like, they mixed it up with other steel garbage and could no longer tell where it's all from lmao. " Some steel they could... as it is itemised in the reports. But you're missing the context. When the clean up started it was a rescue mission. They removed everything as quickly as they could and some people were found caught in rubble. Any comparisons with a crime scene that you've seen on TV is showing a lack of awareness of history. " A giant steel building was brought down by fire for the first time in history, and nobody bothered to make sure any steel from it was preserved for forensic examination? " Except that they did. Engineers like Dr Astaneh, Barnett and Biederman (who contributed to the FEMA report) spent months going through the rubble. These samples are shown in NCSTAR1-3C. "Completely absurd." The problem here is that you don't know much about this topic and you've got all your information from conspiracy theorists who either don't know the facts or don't want them. You're no different to a flat earth who gets all their information from flat earth videos. " I would LOVE it if NIST did an actual, physical experiment on a similar building " Let me educate you once again. NIST did perform their own experiments.. .they performed burn tests to confirm raw data for modeling and their overall analysis. These tests produced consistent results with the Cardington tests and other fire tests I can cite....but you don't really care. You see, testing the theory doesn't necessarily involve building a whole building to collapse it. In this century we know enough about architecture and engineering to know the results of collapsing floors. "but as far as I know, they haven't." As far as you know. That's part of the problem.
    1
  362.  @DeverHB  " This firefighter here is accurately predicting something that has literally never happened before." Except it had. Buildings had collapsed from fire. Fire fighters had abandoned buildings thinking they would collapse from fire. That you don't know or understand this is the only problem here. "But what we know from NIST is that the collapse had nothing to do with the building "leaning".." Whether it had something to do with the collapse is irrelevant. It was showing signs of instability.... that's rather important. That insatiability is what made the collapse more dramatic. "So this firefighter is correct about the building coming down soon, but for the wrong reasons." Nope. He's right. You're wrong.
    1
  363.  @DeverHB  " Did the firefighters on One Meridian Plaza fear or anticipate the ENTIRE building coming down, yes or no?" 1. That question was never specifically asked. 2. Whether a collapse continues depends on factors such as how many floors collapse and how many floors are above those that collapse. So fear of the 'fire damaged floors collapsing" doesn't mean that they could be the only floors that collapse. 3. If just look at any case study of the fire it says: "The most courageous safety decision occurred when Fire Commissioner Roger Ulshafer ordered the cessation of interior firefighting efforts and evacuated the building due to the danger of structural collapse." If the only fear was 1 or two floors collapsing then why evacuate a whole building? Obviously the danger is an entire collapse. "Except nobody died in the collapse of WTC 7," Had that been the case then the investigation would have been focused on it. But you're missing the point. The focus was WTC 1 and 2 and clearing rubble. All the WTC buildings collapsed or partially collapsed. That's 1-7. The other buildings were collateral damage. There was no reason to stop the clean up or rescue operations ... or to make entire investigations out of each building. "Hmm, I don't understand, the FAQ clearly states that no actual steel from WTC 7 was examined for the NIST report." I'm saying that all the steel was inspected at the scrap yards by engineers for months. All the steel, which includes steel beyond that of the WTC 1 and 2 steel. FEMA hand picked a couple from WTC7 that were interested and reported on them.
    1
  364.  @DeverHB  "Well, the firefighters were obviously only on the floors that were on fire, fighting it. Or perhaps directly below those floors. What would they do on the lower floors where there was no fire?" ...the answer should be obvious... because the entire building could have collapsed. "ut after it was cleaned up, how did they not keep the steel separately so it doesn't get mixed up and become unidentifiable?" Again missing the point. If they rushed the collection of the steel it would be very difficult to itemise at the scrap yards. As you said, no one died in WTC7 it was just collateral damage. There was no interest in the collapse until years later. They didn't separate all the debris from the other buildings either... " Wouldn't you want to know exactly how that happened," They did an investigation. They determined what happened. What are you confused about? "but I'm not sure how that's relevant if NIST didn't consider any of that in their report for some reason" It's relevant because you're acting like no one ever looked at the steel. Which is wrong. ...and as for considering their report - they have multiple references to the FEMA report in the NIST report. You have no idea. "So they themselves admit that the investigation included no physical evidence" ...we've already been through this... entire fields of science progress without physical evidence. You're implying that the only thing that constitutes evidence is steel...this is again, quite absurd. "Does it make any sense to believe some terrorist or whoever would use this data to bring down steel skyscrapers " It's possible yes. " The computer model that, again, is not publicly released." ..and again... anyone is free to replicate their findings. The inputs to the model aren't entirely released... the evidence and methodology are described. You're not offering any strong augments for anything. Most of what you say is either incorrect or lacking all the facts.
    1
  365.  @DeverHB  ". If they thought the building was going to collapse, they should've evacuated the whole area like they did with WTC 7. They didn't" With WTC7 they weren't even trying to put the fire out. With the Meridian Plaza they were. "Really, a tall structure was brought down by fire (supposedly) for the first time in history, during the most heinous crime in history, and there was no interest? " You're still missing many facts. 1. Buildings had collapsed due to fire. The fact that it was a taller building doesn't represent some shocking surprise no one could understand. 2. The other WTC buildings all collapsed or partially collapsed due to fire. 3. The WTC buildings were the focus... not all the collateral damage. 4. I doubt it was the "most heinous crime in history". ... people WERE interested in the crime. Very interested. They were just not interested in all the buildings that were collateral damage.... from what was obviously a result of fire and damage. " nothing of interest to see here. " Your argument was full of omissions distortion and confusion. " but the FAQ says nothing about this. " FEMA is referenced. "The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which had launched its Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) Study in early October 2001, sent a team of experts to review the steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards. These experts, including one from NIST, identified pieces of steel of potential interest to a follow-on investigation. Beginning in February 2002, NIST, on its own initiative, began identifying additional steel pieces of potential interest at the salvage yards and transporting them to NIST to preserve and secure the evidence in anticipation of launching its own investigation, which it announced in August 2002. NIST NCSTAR 1-3 fully documents the steel recovered from the site." ...and referenced in the report. So you are wrong again. " Would be interesting to know what the FEMA report was about if you have that information. " FEMA released reports on the collapses which included information about the steel. They also had report on the pentagon from memory. I could probably find something on it. " Jupiter, my good friend, is 588 million kilometres away. If you could pick up samples of Jupiter's gas from the middle of Manhattan, I'm sure astronomers would do that. " Yep... and the steel isn't available... all piled up in mountains...neatly grouped by the WTC building either. So other methods of analyses are utilised. Science works from observation and experimentation all the time. ..just like with astronomy. "Look out, the dastardly ISIS are going to ignite regular office fires in skyscrapers to make them collapse! Oh, the humanity!" Flippant comments aren't compensating for your inability to present an argument.
    1
  366.  @DeverHB  "Yes, but again, nothing like WTC 7 (Or WTC 1 & 2 for that matter)," Different scenarios...different collapses. You're switching your argument again. You keep talking about how its never happened before. I point out that it has. You say 'yes but the collapse was different'. So it's happened before. It's not such a mysterious event. " despite probably hundreds of fires in similar buildings throughout history. " Oh god. What a terrible argument. Usually when there is a fire, the fire department rolls up and puts it out. 9/11 was a slightly different scenario. If all that happened on 9/11 was a little old fire at WTC7 then it would have been put out. However things were rather different. Do I really need to spell it out further for you? " I'm not sure how you think this serves your argument rather than mine. A" I have explained why. The properties of fire and steel are quite well known. Fire causing building collapses is well understood and has happened before. The whole situation isn't turned on its head when the building has a few more floors on it. Do you understand that? "I can't find the text you quoted in the FAQ" Are you looking at the WTC7 faq or the WTC1 and 2 faq? "Either way, the FAQ clearly states NIST never looked at a single piece of physical steel from WTC 7 " Actually they discuss one of the samples from WTC7 in NCSTAR1-3C. But you're just repeating statements I've already addressed. There is evidence other than steel. You don't seem to realise this. You don't seem to understand how analysis is done. "What do you mean? It was all right there. " It's gone... the steel is gone.. there are some samples... " Once it was removed from Ground Zero, all you had to do was make sure it was separated from other steel and preserved for future examination." As I have already explained to you... investigating the buildings that collapsed due to collateral damage was not the focus... no one died in these buildings... they weren't the target of the attack... it wasn't confusing to anyone that they collapsed. The fire department predicted that WTC7 would collapse... WTC1 and 2 was all that everyone cared about at the time.
    1
  367.  @DeverHB  "Not me, NIST: "The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires."" All I need to do is just repost from my last post. The properties of fire and steel are quite well known. Fire causing building collapses is well understood and has happened before. The whole situation isn't turned on its head when the building has a few more floors on it. Do you understand that? (the answer must have been 'no') "You're telling me that if I set a couple normal office fires in a steel skyscraper and let it burn for about 7 hours without any water, the whole thing is going to suddenly come straight down in about 6 seconds, just like WTC 7?" It the building was built in the manner that WTC7 was... then possibly. Some facts to bring it into perspective. 1. Many building codes were changed as a result of the collapses on 9/11 2. The plasco building collapsed in about 3 hours. 3. The Wilton Paes de Almeida Building collapsed after about an hour and a half. "But it would be nice if someone could do a scientific experiment on this." Consider the collapses of the two buildings above your experiments. "Yeah, but WHY is it gone? Why didn't they preserve it?" I have already addressed this. What were they going to do? ..keep mountains of steel from all the buildings? The engineers spent months looking over it in the scrap yards.. but their focus was WTC1 and 2 and it's really quite amazing that you can't grasp why. Sure it would be great if they kept it all. It wouldn't make a difference to conspiracy theorists though... they will still believe in their conspiracy fantasy. "Hmm yeah, nobody. Nobody at all. Except, you know, the lead investigator at NIST" All of your "arguments" seem to be distortions of facts. He is talking about the mechanics of the collapse... the specifics... but (just as the fire fighter predicted) we know that ultimately the fires led to the collapse. "t was so apparent and not confusing at all," Another confused comment.. and another flippant comment. None of this is compensating for your ignorance, constant errors and inability to make any sort of argument.
    1
  368.  @DeverHB  "If it's the case that the firefighting efforts saved One Meridian Plaza from total collapse in your view, why didn't similar efforts save the Plasco tower?" My point about the Median Plaza wasn't that the fire stopped the collapse... it was that counting the hours isn't an accurate measure. I will post my exact words again. "Fire fighters actually tried to put that building out. It had water streaming on it for hours... it didn't just burn away freely with no fire fighting efforts at all... so the fire spread more slowly and would most likely have not reached the same high temperatures. This is an example why you can't simply count the number of hours. Each situation is different." You know, some people have been shot and lived. So does that mean bullets can't kill you? Each situation is different. Some buildings have had fires and burned... some have not. It depends on multiple factors. I guess conspiracy theorists can't, or don't want to, compute this.
    1
  369.  @DeverHB  " If it's so apparent and obvious that steel buildings collapse from fires, why wasn't it apparent to the firefighters on the Plasco tower? " I didn't say it was so apparent and obvious to all. In fact, as we can see from you and the conspiracy theorists... some people are ignorant of such matters and can't grasp it. Who knows how Iranian fire fighters are trained.... "I don't know, that kind of sounds like he came up with the conclusion first" A little like when you see someone get shot and die... and you start with that crazy conclusion about it before you start an autopsy. " then worked to make the evidence fit." Show that he did that.
    1
  370.  @DeverHB  "I guess you meant "collapsed" here instead of "burned", right?" Burned and collapsed..whatever... "how did so many people on the scene on 9/11 KNOW, for sure, that WTC 7 was going to DEFINITELY collapse?" We don't know how many knew... we know that at least one fire fighter was sure... and enough people were sure to decide to pull back... It was showing signs of instability... so it was no surprise when it collapsed. Hardly a big mystery. You're clutching at straws....
    1
  371.  @DeverHB  "But you said yourself that sometimes buildings collapse, sometimes they don't." ..and this one was showing signs that it would. "One Meridian Plaza endured massive fires for 19 hours and didn't collapse" 1. I have addressed how flawed it is to merely refer to the number of hours... That you persist in this inaccurate representation says a lot. 2. They thought it might. "Whether or not a building will collapse is something that's pretty hard to tell" WTC7 was showing signs that it would. "But you would agree that a building like WTC 7 totally collapsing from fire is RARER, than not collapsing, yes?" That's too simplistic. As I have said... if all that happened on 9/11 was a plain old fire at WTC7 then it wouldn't have collapsed. But it was merely one incident on a day of many. To look at WTC7 as a regular old building fire is at best short sighted, at worst, intellectually dishonest. "it is a very uncommon event." They don't construct skyscrapers like that any more (jn part because of 9/11) so it should become even less common. " it was being correctly predicted and reported on news channels hours before. " Apparently there were several incorrect news reports that day. They weren't all conspiracies... it's not hard to see how they could have got it wrong when the FDNY thought it would collapse long before it did. "so we can end the discussion here I guess." I've yet to see a solid argument from anything you're presented. It seems you have a lot of suspicion about everything but nothing beyond that.
    1
  372.  @DeverHB  "Well, I invite NIST to reduce my suspicions by releasing all the files and data they used for the simulation. " Oh come on you haven't even read their report. You hadn't even done some basic research on the topic. Their methodology, reasoning and evidence is explained in their report... If they released their input data tomorrow you still wouldn't accept it. " And since all buildings since then have been built with collapses like WTC 7 in mind, like you said, it should no longer be dangerous." There are still buildings standing that were built before 9/11..
    1
  373.  @DeverHB  "Shouldn't those have been reinforced against such collapses after 9/11?" Sure maybe. Inspections happen all the time. Perhaps it's happened. " architects all over the world can check the work they did. " As I have said multiple times...they can all replicate the work and verify it for themselves..... no one is stopping them. "It's not about me," It is. You are the one making all sorts of claims and half baked arguments. You're backpedaling from that now.
    1
  374.  @DeverHB  You're not getting it. They can perform their own analyses of the same event. They can replicate the modeling with their own data. NIST step out their methodology... they explain the factors... No one is stopping them from doing the same and comparing. You don't seen to have any legitimate arguments.
    1
  375. ​ @DeverHB  " I guess they could, but NIST had 7 years and millions of dollars to make theirs." As with most of your arguments, this is a distortion of the facts. NIST didn't spend 7 years on the WTC7 report. When the funding was received they investigated WTC 1 and 2. WTC7 came later. The event happened nearly 20 years ago... how many more decades do conspiracy theorists need to actually come up with something? " you're insanely gullible." After your posts it only becomes comedy for you to say that... lol... I'm guessing you don't get that though.
    1
  376.  @DeverHB  "I just think scientific research should be open and transparent, so it can be peer reviewed. " I doubt you have much idea about scientific research. Be honest.. that isnt what you think... what you think is the the NWO put magic bombs in the buildings and its a world wide conspiracy that thousands keep secret... or some ridiculous notion such as that. You can skirt around it all you want but the problems remain... The event happened nearly 20 years ago... how many more decades do conspiracy theorists need to actually come up with something? After all these years if all you have is whining about NIST and the input data then you don't have anything.
    1
  377.  @jtgd  Fair point.
    1
  378.  @VinceG18  See previous comment. Try a better response.
    1
  379.  @VinceG18  She thinks 9/11 was caused by a wizard casting a spell.... I'm not even joking.
    1
  380.  @darlenehowell2274 You claimed that Crowley caused 9/11 by casting a ritual..... Are you now backpedaling because you're embarrassed?
    1
  381.  @darlenehowell2274  So yeah....my point stands.. you think a wizard caused 9/11 by casting a spell You are a total nutcase.
    1
  382.  @darlenehowell2274  So yeah....my point stands.. you think a wizard caused 9/11 by casting a spell You are a total nutcase.
    1
  383. Could you start by pointing out where he is wrong in this video?
    1
  384.  @poli2730  " that they modified the video its not do debate" Prove it. Telling you're right isn't going to get you far. Your assurance doesn't mean anything to me. "here's video of NBC with the police counting down exactly till the building actually start to collapse." Prove it. Let me get this straight... you think the NYPD were involved as well? ..and they all stay quiet about it? ..even though thousands died. Total implausible. "Seriously man I don't want to seem rude but u appear like u don't want certain informations to be true..." No I'm just interested in facts and reality...not conspiracy fantasies.
    1
  385.  @poli2730  " so I think u gave up therefore I'm right." ? Huh? What are you a 10 year old? That's a pitiful response.
    1
  386.  @poli2730  " U even deleted the comment." Oh and no... I didn't delete the comment... but I can't see it anymore... I don't know why.
    1
  387.  @poli2730  Not everything is a conspiracy.
    1
  388.  @poli2730  "okey kiddo... u didnt bring any facts u just said: "tHey DidnT" You seem to have it all wrong...kiddo... the problem is that you kept making false statements. ....kiddo... You see ..kiddo...when you start off with questions like "why were none of the black boxes found" I can tell that you don't know much about this subject.... kiddo.... oh sure you've watched a couple of the main videos and bought everything they said, hook line and sinker.... but you haven't really done the research.... kiddo.... you started off with such a basic error.... .kiddo.. "U just limit urself to deny things u cant explain because they are uncomfy and they scare u. " You already used that stupid line....kiddo... you made several false statements. I pointed out your errors... kiddo.. and you didn't know what to do next... you realised you'd been corrected.. and now you babbling about being scared... it looks like you're scared of actual research....kiddo... "Those things about modified videos and the outer ring popped out right the next days after the attack, they are basic stuff a" So basic that you can't actually back up anything you claim huh? If it was basic then you might be able to... but it seems you can't.... kiddo.. " see no point in smal talks with someone who has no time resesarch the basics" Considering your posts so far... that's YOU...kiddo. " m not here to compensate ur lazy ass and fed " LOL... it looks like you realise you're getting schooled here and are trying to flee... but.... you don't want it to look like you're fleeing...so you offer silly excuses like that while you're running for the hills... You got called out.. panicked and now you're running away... Run along kiddo... come back when you've done more that 5 minutes on this topic....
    1
  389.  @poli2730  "u also thought there was just one camera in front of the pentagon gate, obviously u also made an error." No I didn't think that. There were 2 that caught evidence of the impact. You seem rather confused... about many things. "U really stick about these proves about what i said and im working on it, but then I d like to have something about the two founded boxes." Is english your second language ? "nah... im just annoied to feed people." You're annoyed that you talk bullshit and people catch you out on it... "still here" I roasted you.. and called told you exactly what you were doing... now your ego won't let you go...
    1
  390.  @poli2730  Yes I know all about the stupid conspiracy videos on youtube... Did you actually fall for those? lol.... what arguments were convincing?
    1
  391.  @poli2730  "u can find about the outher ring " Even if this story were true... it's not surprising or suspicious at all. If 2 monuments had just been hit... and there was some sort of planned attack happening... then telling someone not to stay on the outer sections of the pentagon is hardly suspicious at all. It would be a very likely next target.
    1
  392.  @poli2730  "apparenty u dont even want to blieve the actual person that tells u in front of a camera" Huh? 1. I do believe him. 2. I haven't actually seen him say this on camera.... show me the footage ... so I can see the context. You've seen the footage right? 3. Do you believe him? He says a plane hit the pentagon.... Do you believe him? " he has been said: this is all COORDINATED" It was coordinated.... "eally? accoplish the most difficult manover (said by any pilot)" lol any pilot... no.. a couple of nutcases at the pilots for truth say that...but only fools fall for their nonsense. "supposed to be highly protected with a plane that shouldnt even be able to fly these low quotes?" It was protected against people breaking in... not planes from the sky... "Man u really stick to the fiction im sorry" Says the gullible conspiracy nut.
    1
  393.  @poli2730  " thats the part about the modified video in details" Yes I've seen this before... his claims are nonsense... He makes the claim that the second camera must show the entire body of the plane...but that's not necessarily true at all. We don't know the frequencty of the frames.. we don't know if the cameras were perfectly aligned. In fact we can see more from the camera that is further back...which fits the images... "btw explain to me why did the fbi went all around the pentagon dite and took all video of the cameras to keep em secret" Oh god....that's should be obvious as standard procedure... "They ve absolutely nothing to hide..." They released the images they had... so what are they hiding?!
    1
  394.  @poli2730  " They were perfectly aligned" Prove it. "but ur closed mind doesnt let " No...I'm just not gullible enough to believe whatever conspiracy theorists claim....like you are. "No its not standard procedures, the tapes are owned by the privates" Of course it is...when there is a crime ...the authorities get tapes from security cameras.... you should have gotten a hint from every modern cop show. Your denial of this is an indication of how self deluded you are. Can you prove they were alinged? When I look at the two views... it only makes sense that one would show more than the other. "the fbi cant simply take em like the own them" Actually they can. "nd they also MUST be released after they analized. " Tapes from nearby services stations have been. " The point is: if they have nothing to hide why dont they simply show em all??" They already have. only the gate cameras caught anything. You have no point. "Okey kiddo u re just troll to waste other people time" Translation: I'm not falling for your idiotic conspiracy bullshit... "Where are all the others tapes of the 100 cameras around? Some can be found on youtube... the contents of the tapes were itemised at the Missouri trial. "And i m still waitning for the link of these boxes boomer"" 1. What link? I haven't seen you ask for a link. What are you asking for?! The data from the pentagon FDR was released... do you want me to find it for you? 2. Boomer? Is that what kids are using for insults now? Kids are such pussies nowadays.... .. boomer....haha... pathetic. You didn't answer my question about YOUR WITNESS.... Do you believe him? He says a plane hit the pentagon.... Do you believe him? Which is it? It would be rather embarrassing for you to use him as an expert witness then at the same time call him a liar.... I'm waiting.
    1
  395.  @poli2730  "no it s not my job" You can't back up your claims. Therefore your claims can be dismissed. "Like, prove all the cameras tapes has been released, u cant" I didn't say that specifically. I said the contents were itemised that that was released...and that service station footage has been released. I can prove these things. I'm not evading like you are. "If they released all there should be at least one video showing what was going on, i" They have released the only frames that caught anything. "i guess it was a regular ghost plane that flyght" A ghost plane that over 100 people saw? yep...makes sense. "The link about the 2 founded boxes... im waiting" Here is are story about the pentagon black box. https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92510&page=1 Is that enough to show you'''re wrong? " I showed what i was saying was true now its ur turn." You've yet to show anything. " Link something about it, if not i ll still believe they found no black boxes." No amount of evidence will convince a die hard conspiracy nut. "I do trust him he was inside and he claimed to be warned to" You dodged the question entirely. You didn't answer my question about YOUR WITNESS.... Do you believe him? He says a plane hit the pentagon.... Do you believe him? Which is it? It would be rather embarrassing for you to use him as an expert witness then at the same time call him a liar.... You're squirming. I'm waiting. "Sorry i think u ve been confusing u got me wrong" The only person here confused is you. "U didn t answerd me about the countdown of the police instead." I did answer. There was no count down. You posted a link to a video where there was NO COUNTDOWN. I have answered. Was it somewhere else in the video? It wasn't in the section you referenced. There were police saying the building was going to collapse. This is hardly a surprise. Once again... your implication that the police department were involved just makes your implausible, nonsensical theory ...even more implausible. "watch it this time it wont eat u i promise)" Little jokes like this aren't helping you. You don't seem to have researched this topic beyond watching a video or two. All your arguments fall apart. You evade everything. Your jokes aren't helping you.
    1
  396.  @poli2730  "so ur idea to spread a info is to ask everyone to get a degree to underdstand cameras settings and boolean interpolation?" Here's how it works princess. You made a claim. You back it up. Stop offering me these pitiful excuses. "So i cannot trust those 3000 engineers and architects, who claimed the tower have been destroied and demostrated with calculous cause i cant understand those calculous and math..." Ah there it is... that desperate appeal to authority... it's only a matter of time before they reach for that. The ae911 guys are a joke... hardly any structural engineers... hardly anyone with high rise experience....why can't they get their work published like those scientists who support the official story?. if you read the comments they made when signing up its clear than many have done NO research on the topic at all...internet lists have little credibility thats facebook.. After all these years... that they can only get such a small number of the millions of architects and engineers around the world... is embarrassing. Here are peer reviewed papers written by engineers.. http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm They performed analysis that passed actual peer review. All support the official story... You don't trust them though do you? Analyses were done by many organisations such as MIT, Purdue, Exponent Failure Analysis, Weidlinger Associates and others... All agreed. All support the official story. You don't trust them though do you? The ASCE openly supports the official story. Over 100 000 engineers in that group. You don't trust them though do you? So don't even try to appeal to authority because it will backfire. "Quite the opposite instead. They released the video WITHOUT the actual frames catching the plane" Look again....You can see a blur that fits the plane.... "Do u really belive there are only two cameras pointing on one of the five faces of the pentagon?" How many cameras do you point at a wall!? monitor
    1
  397.  @poli2730  "u seem to avoid the actual question about this guy topic asking other shit for proves and if i believe" You''re lying. I have already responded to that. That the pentagon was a likely target is hardly a surprise at all. Being told to stay away from the outer walls is hardly a surprise. "Answer do not avoid it." I have answered. You are avoiding my response. "The argument that it was really probable considering the already two attaks is really stupid" How is it stupid? There had been two attacks on landmarks..it was clearly a coordinated plan....that the pentagon could be targeted is logical. For you to call this stupid shows how kooky you are. you aren't interested in reality..evidence....reason... "How did he know the plane would have done such a monuver hitting the from one side" He never said anything about a maneuver...you're full of shit. "(thing thousend times easier for the hijacker which was declared to not being able to fly" He was able to fly... he had a commercial pilots licence... The flight instructor who flew with him thought he did it.... the claims of being a poor pilot came from when Mercal Bernard wouldn't let him rent a cessna... What does Bernard say? See below. "Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said" " Explain it or just be pathetic and call him a LIAR" 1. I have explained it. 2. YOU are the one disagreeing with him.... not me. A bit of a problem for you eh? "I posted a video saying "the building is about to BLOW up" " You said there was a countdown. You can't back this up. You claim a witness said it... I think I know the witness you're talking about...and he changed his story on that. What is your witnesses name? People saying that it was going to blow was hardly a surprise as it was noted creaking and leaning...and expected to collapse long before it did. So..once again... you're clutching at straws and clinging to a tale where the police and the fire department are supposedly involved...even though their friends and colleagues died that day. This isn't just implausible... it's idiotic.
    1
  398.  @poli2730  ”Who decide that?” It’s the facts. I’ve looked at the list. If you can prove me wrong go ahead. Oh that’s right you can’t prove anything and prefer to offer pitiful excuses. ”. Prove it” Look at the list. Show me who has experience building high rise. You’re asking me to prove a negative because your can’t ever prove anything. ”Thanks for a useless not working link...” Oh I have plenty of links…but I posted the shortest one…lets see if these get through. https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/peer-reviewedpapersaboutthewtcimpacts,fi http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=75&MMN_position=207:207 ”So the answer at ur lame and out of context question is: at least ONE” You spell ‘your’ as ‘ur’….. ?! Are you 10 years old? Just a little special? Your response there was a mess. I made a point about how many cameras you point at a plane old wall…. You admit 2…you admit at least 1…. We have 2… they caught the impact… You have no argument. ”This shows all ur capabilities to reason, its so funny.” Just a little hint kid… your arguments are falling apart… you appear to be as gullible as a flat earther… trying to pad out your terrible responses with quips like that isn’t compensating for your failures. Spend more time on your arguments and less time trying to dress them up with schoolyard comments like that. ”U really think was that probable to hit it from the side?” He obviously thought so…. You’re clutching at straws here… it’s hardly surprising that at least 1 member of the military personnel made a guess about a likely attack on the pentagon… AND suggested that it would hit the most outer ring…. This is entirely plausible…anticipating attacks like that is what they do for a living… ”he answer is yes u re just a waste of time...” It may seem that way to you because I’m not a gullible flat earther like you are. You think the military… fire department… police department… everyone was involves…. This is retarded… ”Why there was just a hole?” There wasn’t. ”Why were the wings were supposed to hit there still glass not even damaged...” I’ve already responded to this stupidity. The wings hit the walls next to the impact hole… the walls there were knocked in… some glass nearby was intact because it had been upgraded with blast resistant glass. You don’t seem capable of computing this. ”Ur response is bullshit and dont consider the fact that the man who wared knew the attack was an inside job.” Pathetic. Simply pathetic. I have responded to this over and over showing you that you are clutching at straws…like all conspiracy clowns like to do. ”That s what i m asking, but u really want to avoid the reality” The irony of it all…. Because I don’t fall for the absurd conspiracy… like a gullible sheep… I must be avoiding reality… ”There has been a man who confirmed was just an inside job and not a random attack from people coming from caves.” No one has confirmed that…. You’re just a gullible fool who believes whatever the internet says. ”This guy said we are next, stay away from the outher ring and u just want me to believe it was probable” The pentagon being attacked when US locations are attacked… probable? Fuck yes. You’re as thick as they come if you can’t understand this. ”. U really guillable...” Says the guy who thinks the fire department and police were involved…even though their friends and colleagues were killed …. Yeah they just keep quiet about it…. the internet said so… Idiot., ”sure thing, donkey flys dont they?” Do responses like this work for you on the playground? Stop. You’re embarrassing yourself. ”Continue to pretend to not understand,” LOL.. I called you out on your bullshit claim… and this is your response… This is that moment when you realise you’re arguing with a child … who can’t speak English…. ”U dont really know how difficult is to fly with such a big plane and aim to a wall hight 15m with a 14m object” You don’t know if that’s where he was even aiming… The pentagon was one of the largest buildings in the world by office space…he hit one part of it… you’re assuming that’s where he wanted to hit. This is like going up to a wall with an arrow on it and drawing a bulls eye around it. You don’t even realise how foolish you sound. ”U didn’t” I did but you lack the intellect or courage to respond. ”Never, u just started to confusing things to not get into the topic” Bahahahah… oh you’re confused I’m sure… it doesn’t take a lot to confuse you. I’ll try keep this simple because you’re thicker than two planks… The witness you reference …doesn’t support the conspiracy ..and thinks that a plane hit the pentagon… I gave you a link that shows him talking about this. DO YOU AGREE WITH HIM? Do you agree with YOUR OWN WITNESS?! You have dodged this many times now Don’t you get embarrassed looking like such a snivelling coward?! ”Alway pushing on what i may have said..” Yeah don’t ya just hate it when people notice what you actually say? ”If u had watch the link i showed u u would know his name was Kevin MacPadden.” That’s him! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lhwCM_dicc His testimony is an utter joke… (now you have ambulance staff involved…yeah right)… lordy you are gullible. ”But u dont care about proves that go against u, dont u?” I care about facts… I’m not stupid enough to believe whatever the internet says… you clearly are sport. ”Really? Prove it. Anyway why should him change what he said?” See his changing story in the video dumbass…. You twits will cling to the dumbest stories. ”Collapse not blowing up” They said it was going to blow….Perhaps they thought it was going to blow due to gas explosions…there were fuel tanks in WTC7…. Regardless of the language they used..it’s consistent with the official story… they thought it would collapse and got far way…your video only confirms this. If you’re again going to try the story that the police ..the military…the EMTs…the fire department were all involved…. And no one says anything…even though their colleagues died…then you’re just going to make yourself loom more stupid than you already have…. ”ts difficult to state who was really involved,” Blah blah this is you trying to squirm around how completely retarded your theory is. By your theory… thousands must have been involved… and/or have first hand knowledge… of the conspiracy… all stay quiet.… no deathbed confessions… no change of heart…nothing… It’s just stupid. This is the escape of reality that flat earthers and chem trail nuts cling to. ”The New York Firemen realized there was something strang” No. The FDNY does not support the conspiracy. So…once again.. every single one of your arguments falls apart… You have…nothing… just a deep desire to believe in internet conspiracies…and a clear preference to stay ignorant..... oh and a coward.. I almost forgot that.. you've dodged a question so many times that you can only be a coward.
    1
  399.  @poli2730  ”U stated something u have to prove it” When you’re asking people to prove negatives it’s usually a bad sign… Look at the list of people who have signed…hardly any of them have any high rise experience… Look at the list. All I need to do is point to the list …to prove it. If you think you can prove me wrong… go ahead. ” and explain how having few experience means automatically be wrong.” Automatically be wrong? I never said those words. When you’re resorting to straw men arguments…. It’s usually a bad sign… ” For real u dont want to discuss u just want to fight and polluting arguments..” Translation into adult speak: I point out how bad your arguments are and you don’t like it. ” I said, those two cameras were for the gate purposes SOOOOO this concludes they have no camera recording the wall” ?? Those cameras picked up the wall being hit…. What are you talking about? ” if not there would be a tapes of the accident taken by the camera with the purpose to control the face of the building. T” This is just gibberish. Try again and this time try to make sense. ” Here he is, the same usual coward move from someone who cannot discuss, shaming the opponents” Blah blah…. I am discussing… and I’m showing how poor your arguments are. Quit whining about it… you sound pathetic. ” tv said anyone who has theory against the governmant believe the earth FlaTh.” I never made any such claim…You talk so much bullshit…. ..but the point remains ….you have a lot on common with them. They think it’s a bit government conspiracy involving NASA and all the other space agencies… You think it’s a big government conspiracy involving the police, the fire departments, the military, even the EMTs…oh and it goes on and on… Only a fool would entertain such nonsense. It was on the internet so I guess it must be true! “ its not really, this is just made up from u to make ur unstable theory work” It’s your theory… not mine…. I haven’t made the theory up. Your comments are so weak. ” If its obvious to be the next target u just leave the building, for sure u dont say "lets stay in the insider part cause they will hit from the side".” You should try thinking some time… .it won’t hurt you. It may not have been obvious to everyone that it was going to be next… it may have been a guess by one person… out of the thousands…and it was remembered because he got it right. So the pentagon was NOT cleared… so that would show they DIDN’T know about it… right? You’re not even thinking about your dumbass theories. ” . U believe in unicorns.” From the nutcase conspiracy theorist….. lol…. ” they do it for living and they let all the USA with almost no fighting planes!” They didn’t leave them with no fighting planes… But again you’re presenting contradictory arguments… When they appeared to be caught off guard… it’s a conspiracy.. When they appeared to not be caught off guard…it’s a conspiracy… This shows that logic has no place in your thinking. You have a deep blind faith in something and are just looking for ways to validate it. ” I start to think u re the unicorn....” Your arguments are idiotic… If you’re trying to use humour to make them look less pitiful…. I assure you it isn’t working. ” Who said that? Not me for sure, they just have orders from above,” Do you read the contradictory bullshit you spout?! You referenced claims of the fire fighters..police… military and even EMTs being involved or knowing about the conspiracy… Their friends and colleagues died that day. To say that they would keep qwuiet about this …it’s nonsense. …simply implausible. Even someone as deluded as you starts to feel it’s a bit unlikeky… So how do you try to backtrack? You mumble this excuse “they just have orders from above,” That doesn’t get you out of the problem you twit. It doesn’t change anything. It still means that they were all involved…or knew about it….thousands of people… and they are all fine with it. THIS IS SIMPLY RIDICULOUS Saying “they had their orders” doesn’t stop it being ridiculous…. Not one little bit. ” 10000 times better than believng the tv proven hundred times to say bullshits” Statements like this just show how ignorant you are…it’s not about believing the tv…it’s about the evidence…. . the evidence doesn’t come from the TV. You’re spouting these simplistic lines that are in page 1 of the conspiracy theorist handbook. ” aid by who thinks planes disappear underground and cover themself till 25m deep were the black box was found” It didn’t disappear… it went into the ground… you know… physics… what am I saying you never had an education of course you don’t know. ” u dont chose the hardest way risking to miss the target” I have already addressed this. You obviously didn’t understand. You don’t know that he was trying to do that… for all you know he was trying to hit somewhere else… he hit somewhere… and you’re assuming that’s what he wanted to him…hence the bulls eye analogy…which you didn’t get. ” but after they collapsed 3 building with 2 plane that was the day of the miracles..” Actually all the WTC buildings (1234567) collapsed or partially collapsed that day…and it’s fairly well understood why… …you set the bar pretty low for miracles… ” OH! exactly how the man inside predicted.” What?! Now you’re talking about building collapses? Can you actually try to make an intelligent argument? Have you ever tried to do that? ” U tell me he do not believe in the conspiracy... What u think genius?” You’re answering questions with questions… You’re squirming and tap dancing. ” Obviosly this has nothing to do with what he first said,” It has everything to do with 9/11…and whether a plane hit the pentagon… So you weren’t even man enough to answer… but expecting you to show some integrity would be too much. You don’t believe him. YOUR OWN WITNESS…WHO WAS THERE…disagrees with you. YOUR OWN WITNESS debunks you. ” So its all a bullshit cause he changed a grain of what he had said? Y Oh please you’re embarrassing yourself…(further)…. In the initial story he really had no details… he had a vibe… and thought he heard something sounding like a pulsing noise over a radio…in the second story he claims the person FROM THE RED CROSS (!!!!) speaks clearly about blowing things up… then claims he heard the countdown…then claims the explosions…. There are no key details in the first version…and by the second he’s added so much more in. That you buy this story and even defend him shows how gullible you are. ” What about the video i sent u? What about the rescue team claiming the heard explosions?” There were explosions that day… planes hitting buildings… jet fuel exploding… buildings collapsing… lots of exploding noises. A reasonable person would realise this. The conspiracy theorist…”oh look he said explosions!!! It’s a conspiracy!!!!” <shakes head> ” Why didnt u answer about all the things FBI tried to cover like avery piece of the supposed plane that hitted the pentagon right after the accident?” What are you talking about? What did they cover up? ” Why didnt they allowed nobody to ivesigate,” They didn’t allow civilians off the street to walk over the crash sites… to investigate… that would be expected. How is it that you can’t understand things like this? Are you a child? You certainly seem rather naive.
    1
  400.  @poli2730  "Im stupid" Are you? At no point has "you're stupid" been an argument I have responded with. You are lying "I believe the earth is flat" At no point have I used that as an argument against you. In fact I have never claims you think the earth is flat. You are lying "I just look things up on enternet" At no point have I said that "look things up" is an argument. You are lying However, there are times when you do need to research... you know... check reality? "everyone of EA911 is just a moron" At no point have I used that as an argument. You are lying "all the witnesses are liars" At no point have I said any such thing. You are lying. In fact I am the one who referenced over 100 people seeing a plane hit the pentagon. *Do you agree with them? * Oh you must be accusing them of lying.... yep...all 100... "like the hundreds who heards the bombs exploding" I have addressed this. A lot of people heard exploding noises. This is no surprise and has nothing to do with foolish conspiracies. "the countdown" Well and truly addressed...that was one guy ...who claimed the RED CROSS were in on it... and changed his story over time... .. embellishing it.. If that was shown in a court of law ..with the changing testimony... he would lose all credibility. You need to learn about critical thinking. "and most of all the bunch of guys inside the building that actually testimoned to see exploding walls on the lower floors" Guys who felt the collapse of one of the towers... "Fbi had nothing to hide so its normal to delete every little data asked by the public" Deleted every little data? What a stupid thing to say. ...because the FBI didn't allow citizens to wander around the crash sites you think it means they deleted all data or some such nonsense.... You're incredibly dense. Also... note how much you have to lie.. when you try to support your conspiracy fantasy. This is because 1. It's nonsense. 2. You're not very good at debating.
    1
  401.  @poli2730  "pentagon has just two cameras not even on the building just on the gate" You are lying They had many cameras... about 80... but they don't point many cameras at a blank section of wall. "a man who wasnt able to fly hitted a target 15m with a 14m object" Already addressed. He was able to fly. He had a commercial pilots license. He trained in the US specifically for this mission for months. You are lying As for hitting that target... that pentagon was one of the largest buildings in the world... your dimensions there are wrong. You are lying "the man who predictect when, where and how they would have been hit was so sure about his statment" What? All he said was that they would be next... and to stay away from the outer wall.... it was one of the largest buildings in the world...that's a large outer wall... So to call this 'when, where and how' is simply a lie. You are lying "And later, the other guy, totally casually state that there s no inside job, what a surprise" It's not a surprise at all. Because that guy knows it makes sense AND he was there and saw what the plane did. "This is how u want to confuse things and polluting argumentes" No. I'm showing you how illogical your arguments are. "U really a child" Getting a little worked up huh? "HE knew about the attack" He knew that the towers had been attacked and that the pentagon was a likely target. "HE should have leave not the others" Either the military knew or they didn't. If they knew... then they would have abandoned the pentagon. It appears that they didn't. If you're going to claim that some knew... you're back to the same implausible claims about the fire fighters lettiung their friends die. It's simply stupid. "HE could have just leave without the entire building being cleared" ..and let his friends and colleagues die? ..and never say anything?.... just like the police, army, FBI, FDNY, EMTs, Red Cross... etc... it just gets more and more ridiculous. "u speak about physisc and u belive a plane crashing into the the ground can dig and reach 25m deep" That's right... that's physics. "hard full object like a wall? It simply smash and squeeze becaming a flat tortilla" Flat tortilla? <shakes head> ... (this guy isn't very sharp).. No. You're thinking of a cartoon... no a plane doesn't turn into a pancake you twit. "it doesnt go anywhere" Oh god how can you be this dense.... I'll try keep it simple for the moron... That plane did not penetrate the wall... it broke into little pieces... soil is not the same as thick concrete... Here is a test for you dumbass... punch the ground as hard as you can.... then punch a concrete wall as hard as you can. Is it the same? Does that help what you have for a brain compute it? "at the pentagon right after the accident fbi picked with bare hands most of the rests of the plane because yes, just normal procedures" According to you... it would be normal procedure to let citizens just wander around the crash site... this was a military instillation attacked..a terrorist attack...and you think the public should haven able to wander in and pick at the bodies .... AND you think it's weird that they weren't.... What can anyone say to set someone as stupid as you straight? You're too far gone into fantasy land.
    1
  402.  @poli2730  " obviusly switched things at ur favor" Facts and honesty switch things in my favor. " Im talking about the plane in Shanksville that has been supposed to travel 25m deep underground " A lot of it did... some of it didn't.... "If u think an empty aluminium (even iron) object crushing to the fullness of the ground can simply travel into it, " These planes weighed OVER 100 TONS.....it was estimated to be traveling over 500MPH.... .over 900km/h... A an object weighing over 100 tons...hitting the ground traveling 900 km/h....and you're confused about how it could have dug into the earth.... ", we are done on this topic.." Perhaps we are as you aren't interested in reality.... "So its normal to rush and hurry to pick up stuff with bare hands by men who isnt their job and not let the usual authority doing their work... okey" What are you talking about?
    1
  403.  @poli2730  You're not even trying now.
    1
  404.  @poli2730  "Why should i argue with someone thinking its normal a state agency hide things from the public" This is another stupid distortion of the situation. If you think they would just let the public walk around a restricted military instillation you are a fool. If you think they would just let the public walk around a restricted military instillation picking at the wreckage and the bodies you are a bigger fool. Even in the case of flight 93... you are simply clueless if you think they would let people just come up and pick at the remains of the plane and people... Your position is one based on ignorance.
    1
  405.  @poli2730  I've already addressed the WTC7 collapse. "Im also talking about all the destroied data" Intelligence agencies destroy sensitive data all the time. This again is hardly a surprise. I've contracted to the government. mining data and then destroying it isn't unusual at all, particularly if its flagged as sensitive or contains information about members of the public. Intelligence agencies hide most of what they do from the public. If you didn't realise this then you are naive.
    1
  406.  @poli2730  "U are talking about random data far away from the context," No. I'm talking about sensitive data that government organisations mine for. "u just want to ridicuole and mislead what actually happend." I'm interested in facts and reality. You are not. You're angry at me because I raise problems with your conspiracy fantasy. "Pathetic i u always generalize " What a stupid statement. I do not always generalise. You're babbling. The point here is that you're claiming it's all very suspicious when it really isnt' "the 9/11 commission report didint report missed to investigate on WTC7 a" You're probably confusing the NIST report with the commission report. WTC7 was of little interest because no one died there and it wasn't a target. As I have said, WTC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all collapsed or partially collapsed. 3 4 5 6 7 all didn't get a lot of attention for the same reasons. "Bush and Cheney witnessed in private, off the records, not under oath and behind closed doors" and? "in the investigations of 9/11 testimonial tapes were taken by CIA torturing 92 witnesses and then all the tapes were all destroied without anyone seeing em " Do you mean witnesses or suspects? While that's bad...and the US do some terrible things... that doesn't help with your 9/11 claims. "DIA destroied 2,5 TB of data about Able Danger" Already addressed. You're repeating yourself to make your arguments seem like they have more going for them. It's a desperate gish gallop. "SCC destroied all the data about insider trading" What data? Do you mean the SEC? The insider trading was thoroughly investigated and nothing odd found. It actually wouldn't surprise me if there was foreknowledge as the Bin Laden family were wealthy and connected... of course this has nothing to do with the US. "NIST secreted the data about the WTC7 simulation b" Already addressed. You're repeating yourself. " FBI itself said all the investigations must be kept secret from public " Their reports are released to the public..... but it is standard for intelligence organisations to hide their investigations from the public while in progress. You don't seem to understand things like this and your ignorance here makes you more gullible to believe in spooky mysteries. "marines didnt recorded the mission when they "accidentally" killed BinLaden" Clutching at straws here... this is a separate topic to the 9/11 events. "Yep! Nothing ot hide, all regular, nothing seems strange" Each of these claims is pathetically weak if you look at them one at a time. ..and you probably realise this which is why you go for a gish gallop approach of putting them together. " U re just a random moron who would like to show his pathetic skills to ignore all the facts" What facts? You don't seem to have anything. You some half baked claims about how suspicious everything is... but you're totally ignorant about them at the same time.... I'm skimming your post now because you're just crying and ranting like a baby. Some people really fall apart when you ruin their arguments with facts. "I like u have to repeat urself" How ironic. " now u re cryin like a baby " Also, quite ironic. You're projecting your actions here. So your arguments fell to pieces... you got all angry about it... you had a cry...and got really mad at me. Perhaps if you spent some more energy on your arguments and less energy kicking and screaming you would do better in these types of debates. So you lost... you cried... you tried your best...are you done?
    1
  407.  @theTavis01  "That's why NIST is guilty of fraud for skipping these STANDARD tests, as clearly outlined in the NPFA921" You're conflating different things. NIST were not on side to test claims of molten steel. The NPFA921 recommendations are there to see if a fire is suspicious, intentional.... we know this one was intentional. There was no point testing for an accelerant.... we know there was one...jet fuel. " You can try to misconstrue FEMA's findings all you want," You are the one trying to do so. ....not me. "like a bitch" hah... the irony. You're quite little butthurt bitter little whiner aren't you? " I already quoted FEMA stating that the one surviving piece of steel from WTC7 was LIQUEFIED" No. It was minor erosion. The whole piece wasn't liquid. If you actually bothered to read the report you would see that they assumed that the addition of sulfur and temps around 1000C were responsible for that. "the rest of the building had already been criminally disposed of)" Utter nonsense. Criminal? You sound like a total nutcase. ". Not only did NIST completely ignore this piece of steel, not only did NIST completely ignore the call for further research, but they did their ENTIRE Building 7 report without looking at a single piece of physical evidence!" Oh god you have no clue at all. NIST did not ignore it. It's addressed in their repirt. They address the other pieces that had signs of erosion in their report from the towers and, as I said, they were almost certainly affected after the collapses. They had looked at the samples before they did their report on WTC7. You made so many basic errors. Do you care? Most conspiracy theorists don't. " Their ONLY evidence to back their ridiculous claims is a convoluted chain of computer simulations, which they used to claim to have demonstrated a brand new engineering phenomenon, which TO THIS DAY has NEVER been demonstrated empirically." Steel framed buildings collapsing due to fire is not unique.... no mysterious.... "But when a research team at the University of Alaska did their own computer simulation" Riddled with errors..... https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-uaf-study-shows-wtc7-could-not-have-collapsed-from-fire.9056/ Deal with it. "would not continue to glow brightly as it descended through the cool morning air. " The steel stopped glowing brightly the instant is descended as well. " That is NOT in the RJ Lee report. " Actually it is. You can use bold. You can use italics...you can use upper case.... you can stomp your feet and shake your fist but it doesn't change how wrong you are. "The characteristics of the dust are a result of the collapse of the WTC Towers and the subsequent fires at the WTC site which collectively were unique events that produced unique dust.:" That is from the R J Lee report on the towers dust. They did at least two by the way. "Should I start quoting all the unpublished opinions of Steven Jones?????" What would be the point of quoting a moron? " large quantity of steel was melted into tiny liquid droplets DURING collapse due to very high temperatures" I don't recall those words...but lets say that they did say that.... it doesn't support your claims of magical bombs.... It doesn't fix all the problems of theorising explosives ...when there are no explosives on the videos... It doesn't fix all the problems of theorising fast burning incendiaries when fires burn for a long time - a contradictory argument. ... "he actual RJ Lee report was NOT concerned with determining the cause of collapse, they did NOT consider the use of explosives" You're trying to deflect from the facts that refute you. You're using a reference that doesn''t agree with you on any level. "he highest temperatures estimated by the fraudulent team at nist CANNOT account for this physical evidence." You've not presented any physical evidence that can't be accounted for....and even the people you reference don't agree with you. I suggest you read the reports that you're referencing.
    1
  408.  @theTavis01  "There are several videos of it continuing to glow in the daylight as it fell, and not a single video of the glow fading out." Of course if fucking fades. It cools as it falls. It doesn't glow forever. You can see it fading as it falls in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2pGBEUx9SE This video is also interesting because it shows the perimeter columns bowing inwards more and more until the collapse initiates. Bombs don't do that... gradually weakening metal does that. "BULLSHIT! " You can cry and squeal like a child but it's not going to compensate for your arguments falling apart. "forcibly ejecting debris from specific locations " Nope. They aren't explosions. They don't move like an explosion.... the debris moves about the speed of the falling building...there is no exploding noise...AND they happen as the building is collapsing. You cause collapses with explosives....not the other way around. So that fails completely. So if you think there are videos where we can hear explosives going off at the towers.... post them then. Go on. "NIST's highest temperature estimates CANNOT account for the physical evidence documented by the RJ Lee Group." Except that they can....and R J Lee even say this. "tiny droplets of molten steel:" ...and as R J Lee know...there are various explanations for this which aren't suspicious. Friction, melting point depression, eutectic, the clean up, the construction even. R J Lee make it clear that what is seen in the dust is EXPECTED. "Tell me Mark, at what temperature does lead vaporize?" Let me continue your education. https://www.thisoldhouse.com/home-safety/21014874/what-you-need-to-know-about-lead "Heat has long been used to soften old paint so it can be easily scraped off. The problem is that lead starts to vaporize when heated over 752 degrees F, and you can end up breathing in the poisonous fumes." There ya go. " Is this temperature above or below NIST's maximum estimates? By how much?" Well below. "This is true REGARDLESS of HOW the buildings collapsed, which again they were NOT concerned with in their study. " Irrelevant. They make it clear that they think the conspiracy is wrong. https://s941.photobucket.com/user/snow__crash/media/rjlee.jpg.html You're trying to reference someone while at the same time they debunk you...and you refuse to accept what they say lol... "The people who studied HOW the buildings collapsed, NIST, were not able to account for this physical evidence" It's entirely consistent with their own analysis. So no...it doesn't invalidate it at all. ""metabunk" LMAO!!!! Only a pathetic duhbunker forum supports your lies!! LOLOLOL. If you can cite metabunk, I'm gonna cite the loosechange forums!! LMAO!!!" hah you sound so desperate....you're scrambling and trying to cover it up with lols like a child. Point out where he is wrong....go on. Give me something better than nervous, forced laughter.
    1
  409.  @theTavis01  "So you really believe that RJ Lee would describe 750F as EXTREME??" They weren't referring specifically to 750F... You're trying to reference people who disagree with you.... so you're stuck trying to distort or cherry pick their words. " The truth is actually that the evidence documented in the report required the lead to be heated past its boiling point, which is 3180F " I've already corrected you on this error. Read again. "Heat has long been used to soften old paint so it can be easily scraped off. The problem is that lead starts to vaporize when heated over 752 degrees F, and you can end up breathing in the poisonous fumes." ", I am referencing the SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH but you are referencing the unpublished," lol..no. We are referencing the same people. The problem is that they debunk you. You can't seem to deal with this. "ou've exposed your pathetic bias, by latching onto HERESA" It only cracks me up that you're ranting like a crazy person because all your arguments have been refuted. It wasn't even difficult either. "he actual science research is very clear that it happened DURING the collapse, NOT before or after." You're trying to refer to research that debunks you.... lol... this is just hilarious...It doesn't say that at all. There are various sources for iron rich microspheres...the problem is that you're ignorant about such things and gullible enough to believe what conspiracy clowns tell you... "Expected" You don't even know how to comprehend English" hah...once again your ignorance trips you up. I am quoting directly from their report. "Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are: Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics. Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents. High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials." That's from their report. Nothing wrong with my english. " They did NOT in any way predict the presence of these spheres, like you liars try to claim." They expected to find them there. Debunked....like all your other half baked claims. You've been challenged to produce a video of the towers where I can hear explosives going off. You've failed to do so. Noted. I guess there were no explosives then.
    1
  410.  @theTavis01  "Yes, AFTER they studied the dust and completed their signature, " You don't seem to understand what the word means. expected adjective regarded as likely; anticipated. That means 'before'...not 'after'. "they expected to find the signature when looking at the dust." Your inability to understand english aside.... it means that they were not surprised to see them.... it was not suspicious...it was consistent with their findings and the official story. Your own reference debunked you. " Ok moron, then quote the PUBLISHED RESEARCH "debunking" me" This is hilarious. You reference a report. The report contradicts you. You are too stupid to realise. It's explained to you like you're a moron. Then you don't know what to do....so you imply that the report YOU REFERENCED is merely "baseless" opinion. To say that you;re a buffoon on shaky ground would be charitable. "The research team was NOT concerned with determining the cause of collapse." Your attempted diversion fails. They were concerned with the dust. They were concerned with the properties of the dust. They explain the reason for the properties of the dust. ..and it's consistent with the official story. It's not a matter of their explanation for collapse.....They reported on the dust. You've dug yourself into a hole by referencing a report that debunks you. ..and now you're ranting and crying ...blurting out terrible excuses and diversions. "You literally quoted the report saying the iron microspheres " lol you keep twisting yourself in knots....Their R J Lee report says that. You're now calling them "the actual scientific research" when you just spent half your post denying that they were... You're trying to use their expert opinion as evidence. You just spent half your post denying that their opinion matters.. hahahaha lordy you are dense. "once again the BOILING point of lead is 3180F" Nowhere does it say lead boiled in the words you quoted. It mentions lead and evaporation. This has already been addressed.....It mentions other substances boiling. It does not say what you claim it does. I love how you try to quote mine....leaving out the very next line "The presence of these particles, confirmed using conventional forensic and statistical methodology, in conjunction with one another, identifies the source as the WTC Event."... "which is referring to slowly released gases from lead paint in a house. It has nothing to do with what RJ Lee" It's the same element...following the same process.... It shows that lead can vaporise well below what you claim. R J Lee know this. You don't like it. Too bad. Cry your eyes out. Stamp your feet and swear...... no one cares.
    1
  411. "Want to explain how the passport that was INSIDE the plane that CRASHED INTO a building that then COLLAPSED was found a few blocks away?" Passenger items were found at every crash site. That was one of them. It was found on the sidewalk before any of the collapses. " or the fact that the FBI confiscated all the video footage of the "plane" that hit the pentagon except for one video that doesnt show the plane?" Actually there is a blur in it that matches a plane. " or how the plain conveniently hit the part of the building that was looking into TRILLIONS of "misplaced" dollars by the military?" Complete fantasy. This goes back to an audit that was finished shortly before 9/11... some funding was unnacounted for. within 6 months of 9/11 most of it was reconciled... nothing to do with the pentagon at all. People actually think the best way to hide government spending is to smash a plane into the office.... ..sigh... no... there is paper work..approvals... backups... etc.. The story has nothing to do with the pentagon. "And where was the wreckage from the 4th plane? " https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page1 Go to all three pages.
    1
  412.  @BrianSEPT11  More spam from the coward.. If you have a point ...or at least an original thought...then post it...
    1
  413. "The entire buildings including Bldg No. 7 which was not hit at all, were brought down to dust." It was a little more than dust https://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/pics/029.jpg "and the passports of the hijackers were intact !" A single passport... and it was not in any of the collapses.... Passenger items were found at every crash site. " Top on the US List of Terrorists were allowed to board a plane " None of them were top 10 most wanted. Bin Laden was...he wasn't there.
    1
  414.  Paul Revere  "Judging by Shanksville and the Pentagon their were no planes" No planes? ...at the pentagon... Passenger DNA matched with families. Passenger personal effects identified by families. The FDR. Image from the security footage with a shape that fits a large plane. Light poles knocked down on the way into the impact. Plane wreckage photographed. over 100 witnesses who saw a plane hit the pentagon.... "No bodies ever recovered of the Passengers" Parts of bodies were recovered... and matched with dna from the families.
    1
  415.  @roynorman3650  The evidence that they did is overwhelming. See the list above.... For the WTC we have the second impact filmed from dozens of angles. If that won't convince you then you aren't thinking straight.
    1
  416.  @roynorman3650  "ook at the footage, the spilt belly, pod attatched under the plane." The pod claim? This was addressed over 15 years ago. I'm surprised that hear that one again. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5654/debunking-911-myths-planes/ What split belly? " There are many other reasons that suggest drones were used." What reasons? What evidence?
    1
  417.  @roynorman3650  "cell calls that could not have been placed at the altitudes." Nearly all the calls were from the airfones... not cell phones. " Pilots for 9/11 truth give reasons that it was impossible" Pilots for truth are morons. They are like a flat earth society. "If that's the case, the drone theory would be more plausible." That logic doesn't quite work. It appears you have no evidence whatsoever that it was a drone.
    1
  418.  @roynorman3650  " so are you an official story believer" I don't know if I believe every aspect of the official story... but all the most common claims of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are wrong.
    1
  419.  @roynorman3650  "To many holes in the official story to be true." What do you think are a couple of the biggest ones?
    1
  420.  @roynorman3650  " What is your ideas about what happened? Are you set firm on a theory?" I've looked at all the claims from conspiracy theorists and everything I have seen so far is bullshit. Planes did crash into the towers, pentagon and the dirt in shanksville.
    1
  421.  @roynorman3650  Hijacking planes and smashing them into things is hardly a complex or impossible plan. The conspiracy theory that involves pulling off the most incredible illusions to fake it all it crazy. "I believe planes were used, most likely drones, but either way, they were remotely guided to the targets." But do you have any evidence to support that?
    1
  422.  @roynorman3650  What are a couple of the important questions you think are left to answer?
    1
  423.  @roynorman3650  It's fairly well understood why the towers collapsed the way they did. There is less information about WTC7 but still no reason to suspect anything suspicious.
    1
  424.  @roynorman3650  He didn't admit that at all. That's the type of claim that may seem odd unless you actually look at it closer. Here is the exact quote. "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." In that context... "pull it" cannot mean "blow up the building". The context refutes the claim. He was talking to a fire fighter. You don't decided to load up a building with demolitions on the spot... it takes weeks.... he even says that it was the FDNY who made the decision... so if "pull" means "blow up the building" ...you're saying that the fire department decided to do it... and that is ridiculous.
    1
  425.  @roynorman3650  "The insurance policy he took out a few weeks before it happened?" Insurance against terrorism was not uncommon... remember that the WTC was the target of a terrorist attack only a few years earlier... AND it was insured against terrorism then. Wouldn't it make sense to have that included? " The fact that his son and daughter, oh and Larry didn't show up that morning." They were late.... http://11lucky.blogspot.com/ Perhaps michael jackson was involved as well? Being the kids of a rich property mogul...who only showed up for some meetings, it's not that surprising that they arrived late. ". It fell at free fall, which breaks the law of physics." Not quite... first we don't know the accuracy of the free fall... there is a concept of false precision... it was filmed from hundreds if metres away with cameras that were not set up for that kind of analysis. It was virtual free fall.... but it wasn't even free fall for the whole collapse... it was a moment of free fall towards the later stages after the entire collapse had already been going. This isn't so surprising. ...you've got a dropping building with buckling columns...the center of the building is gone... the outer columns can't handle that load... they buckle... connections break away... it isn't free fall.. unless you start dividing up the collapse to find one moment of virtual free fall... but none of this fits a demolition... why only free fall towards the end? ...why no evidence of a demolition at all? It can be explained, to a point, without any conspiracies. It seems like a good argument if you don't research it or overthink it.
    1
  426.  @roynorman3650  _"so all these pilots, ones who work in demolition, architects, flight attendants, etc, don't know what they are talking about? _ List all the demolition companies that claim the WTC buildings were demolished. List all the pilot and airline associations that claim 9/11 was conspiracy. You said "all these".... but you won't be able to come up with anything for either. The best you will be able to do is the pilots for truth who are no morons and no better than the flat earth society. You're trying an appeal to authority but when you actually look at it... there is very little support for the conspiracy and the main reason for that is ...it's bullshit.
    1
  427.  @roynorman3650  "What evidence is there to support the official story?" There is mountains of evidence from many sources. You're going to have to be specific about what evidence you are referring to. "You say conspiracy, the official story is a conspiracy. " Sure but when I talk about the conspiracy it should be clear what I am referring to.
    1
  428.  @roynorman3650  "there are so many reasons to question the official story," What do you think a couple of the better ones are?
    1
  429.  @roynorman3650  We have video footage of the towers from many angles. There is no evidence at all that they are demolitions.
    1
  430.  @roynorman3650  "how come everything was so pulverized?" Thousands of tons of concrete and steel smashing down... these were collapses that started at the top... of buildings that were among the tallest in the world at the time...
    1
  431.  @roynorman3650  Aircraft weighing over 100 tons...traveling hundreds of mph... smashed through some steel columns in the towers yes....
    1
  432.  @roynorman3650  No that's only according to a couple of nutcases at the pilots for truth..... they don't seem to understand the difference between a max speed and the VMO which is the maximum recommended speed.
    1
  433.  @roynorman3650  We have the impacts on video. We can just look at them.
    1
  434.  @roynorman3650  George W was an idiot. I wouldn't read too much from what he did. If it was all a staged attack don't you think they would have staged his response? Sure they should have moved him quicker I agree but if it appeared at the time that major (large) landmarks were being attacked, then his school wouldn't have been a likely target.
    1
  435.  @roynorman3650  That claim comes from a BBC article about mistaken identity. It wasn't claiming that the actual hijackers were alive..it was reporting that early attempts to identify the hijackers were wrong .. some of the people they thought were hijackers were actually still alive... the CIA cleared this up within days.. If they were actually alive it would have been so easy to expose the conspiracy... but it wasn't the case at all.
    1
  436. You're missing something... the money he was given (for 1 attack only) went to rebuilding the replacement buildings... which have cost a lot more than what he was given. The guy was a property mogul before 9/11..... if you're going to reduce the 9/11 attacks down to a mere insurance scam then you're probably a blind sheep.
    1
  437. What's to debunk? Those guys don't have any evidence.
    1
  438. "What are you talking about there were dozen of cameras facing the exact impact point when" Nope. They itemised all the outdoor cameras at the pentagon and only 1 (2 next to each other) were pointed at stretch of wall. "hen the fact about the engine go to the documentary “Loose Change” and you’ll see it there, you know the one that YouTube and google removed from there sites" Why are you lying? Just searched and it is available on youtube. "Ok they found two of the four black boxes but they refused to let anyone listen to them or view the data" They released the data... you're making things up. "nd, it’s funny how you conveniently didnt bother to answer the passport question " What is there to answer? It was ejected in the collision or subsequent explosion. "Oh and yes, don’t forget about building seven you know the building that the 9/11 committee DIDNT bother to even mention in there book. " You're confusing the 9/11 commission and the 9/11 report. The commission report was to determine the events about the terrorist attack.... not report on all the collateral damage in buildings. "Even if all of these buildings were built with Legos they would of never fell in eleven seconds" You're basing this on what? You clearly don't have an engineering background... or even know much about this subject. "lot more of these questions I can ask you " Ah yes I remember your previous declaration that no one can answer your questions even though it was extremely easy to do so. You're the typical level 1 conspiracy theorist... you watched a documentary, were sucked in and you think you have it all figured out... but with every post you show that you don't really know much about this at all. "Come on brother quit dancing " Oh there is some dancing going on... but not from me... was this even a response to my last post? Of course not... you couldn't really respond to it.
    1
  439.  @darlenehowell2274  You're as nutty as squirrel poo.
    1
  440. "So u said that budding 7 wasnt made of steel but then said building 7" He said Grenfell Tower wasn't a steel framed building..... is that what you are talking about? He wasn't referring to WTC7.....
    1
  441. Ah the gish gallop approach... mention as many bad arguments as you can in one go... that way the terrible claims might look a little more convincing. I'm pretty sure I've responded to this post before... you just spam this everywhere right?
    1
  442.  @BrianSEPT11  "o according to you, this video is the gish gallop approach" Nope. This video is a clinical debunking of nine arguments.... it is a response to arguments... Your post is a long collection of tired old debunked claims.... "you just spam this everywhere right?" That makes no sense at all. "Watch the video and you'll see my points" Lets go through a couple of those points then shall we? "hijacker Hanjour couldn't rent a Cessna and could never have flown the alleged acrobatic maneuvers in a 757. Why would he fly acrobatic maneuvers to hit the section Pentagon that was just reinforced for missile attacks and had records of the $2.3 TRILLION of missing money" Wow. So much nonsense in one sentence. This is as good a place as any to start. 1. The guy who refused to let him rent the cessna said this. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," Also That was some time before 9/11....he trained for more time after that. The flight instructor who flew with him for a couple of months felt extreme guilt because they were sure he did it... His landings were poor apparently - not a problem on 9/11. 2. No acrobatic maneuvers were required. 3. There was no 1 single section being reinforced for missile attacks... the whole building had blast resistant windows...the whole building had some resistance against missile attacks.. how does this make sense anyway? What different would it make ? why would you have to hit that section? Were they trying to not do damage? ..you know..like in new york...? .with the fourth plane? .. It's such a stupid statement. It's false..and it makes no sense. 4. Missing trillions.... why do conspiracy sheep fall for such stupid claims.... Here is the real story.....Some time before 9/11 an audit was done and they weren't able to account for all the funds..This was due to records not being available, from different systems, aging systems etc. By six months after 9/11 most of it had been reconciled. End of story. Nothing to do with 9/11. It's absurd to think you can make 2.3 trillion disappear by blowing up one office. That's not how government finances work... ..and that was one claim... lets look at a couple of other gems... "Edward Current has no credibility" Translation: He destroys the conspiracy and you hate him for it. "BBC and many other stations report the collapse of BUILDING 7 before it collapsed" No just the BBC....let me guess....the national media organisation from the UK were also in on the conspiracy... yeah right....that's so dumb...why would the BBC be involved? "QUOTE MINING? SO CREDIBLE FIREFIGHTERS, MEDICS, POLICE, MEDIA WITH VIDEO AND PLENTY OF DOCUMENTED WITNESSES IS QUOTE MINING. " This shows that you don't understand how quote mining works.... the are credible witnesses...but you need to actually look at what they are saying not cherry picking words to fit your fantasy. quote mining is just desperate dishonesty but 9/11 truthers rely on it so much because they don't have evidence. Let's leave it at that for the moment....
    1
  443.  @BrianSEPT11  Oh Brian you're really going to have to do a lot better than that. "My reply is a clinical debunking " No you made a bunch of (stupid, old, debunked) claims.... I picked a couple. Waiting for your response.......
    1
  444.  @BrianSEPT11  Your inability to defend your claims makes me think you don't really know anything about this subject. "This video made a bunch of " blah blah...your attempt to establish this was to make a bunch of claims...it looks to me that some of your claims were just the ones debunked in the video... but either way...I chose one or refuted it...and you have no response at all. Not good Brian...
    1
  445.  @BrianSEPT11  That makes no sense at all. You're resorting to parroting my words back to me?. That's what kids do when they lose an argument.... lol...pathetic.
    1
  446.  @BrianSEPT11  "Everything you say can easily apply to you " You've had the opportunity to prove that. You can't though it seems. So your statement is false. "Are we arguing?" I picked a claim or two and it was so easy to refute... You don't have the background to argue the topic it seems.
    1
  447.  @BrianSEPT11  Do you think playing dumb and avoiding everything s a particularly effective approach?
    1
  448.  @BrianSEPT11  You don't actually know what to do when someone refutes those copy paste claims do you?
    1
  449.  @BrianSEPT11  "The claims stand unrefuted, " No Brian that assertion fails. I refuted a couple of your claims. You seem to be too afraid to address my post. Avoiding refutations to claim they aren't there looks pathetic I'll repost. Below. "hijacker Hanjour couldn't rent a Cessna and could never have flown the alleged acrobatic maneuvers in a 757. Why would he fly acrobatic maneuvers to hit the section Pentagon that was just reinforced for missile attacks and had records of the $2.3 TRILLION of missing money" Wow. So much nonsense in one sentence. This is as good a place as any to start. 1. The guy who refused to let him rent the cessna said this. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," Also That was some time before 9/11....he trained for more time after that. The flight instructor who flew with him for a couple of months felt extreme guilt because they were sure he did it... His landings were poor apparently - not a problem on 9/11. 2. No acrobatic maneuvers were required. 3. There was no 1 single section being reinforced for missile attacks... the whole building had blast resistant windows...the whole building had some resistance against missile attacks.. how does this make sense anyway? What different would it make ? why would you have to hit that section? Were they trying to not do damage? ..you know..like in new york...? .with the fourth plane? .. It's such a stupid statement. It's false..and it makes no sense. 4. Missing trillions.... why do conspiracy sheep fall for such stupid claims.... Here is the real story.....Some time before 9/11 an audit was done and they weren't able to account for all the funds..This was due to records not being available, from different systems, aging systems etc. By six months after 9/11 most of it had been reconciled. End of story. Nothing to do with 9/11. It's absurd to think you can make 2.3 trillion disappear by blowing up one office. That's not how government finances work... ..and that was one claim... lets look at a couple of other gems... "Edward Current has no credibility" Translation: He destroys the conspiracy and you hate him for it. "BBC and many other stations report the collapse of BUILDING 7 before it collapsed" No just the BBC....let me guess....the national media organisation from the UK were also in on the conspiracy... yeah right....that's so dumb...why would the BBC be involved? "QUOTE MINING? SO CREDIBLE FIREFIGHTERS, MEDICS, POLICE, MEDIA WITH VIDEO AND PLENTY OF DOCUMENTED WITNESSES IS QUOTE MINING. " This shows that you don't understand how quote mining works.... the are credible witnesses...but you need to actually look at what they are saying not cherry picking words to fit your fantasy. quote mining is just desperate dishonesty but 9/11 truthers rely on it so much because they don't have evidence.
    1
  450.  @BrianSEPT11  "Truthers need to show is reasonable suspicion which they can do in spades" People wanting to believe in conspiracies isn't evidence. "They don't have to prove a damn thing" haha...transalation: They can't prove anything. Such pathetic excuses...
    1
  451.  @BrianSEPT11  "Few believe, this video's perspective or your perspective" you tell yourself that. 9/11 truthers are a joke like flat earthers... "I read it and it doesn't refute anything" hah... where is it wrong? Oh that's right you can't refute what I said. Pathetic Brian. Just pathetic All you can do is copy paste claims. when they are refuted you are helpless.... you cling to weak denials. You just stammer out feeble denials... You're a joke.
    1
  452.  @BrianSEPT11  "Your totally outnumbered " lol how fucking deluded are you? You''re a running joke, like people who think Aliens are abducting us. They used to tell me that disclosure is coming ...any day now!
    1
  453.  @BrianSEPT11  ...and again you divert from the embarrassment by spamming links.
    1
  454.  @BrianSEPT11  Still no evidence... get back to me when you have something more than whining...
    1
  455.  @BrianSEPT11  So you're just repeating my comments back to me? ...like a 10 year old? God you're pathetic.
    1
  456.  @BrianSEPT11  "Just trying to spread the truth" ...you mean you're a troll spamming your conspiracy preaching... you can't back up what you're spamming.... you're a joke.
    1
  457.  @BrianSEPT11  "I'M A TROLL" Congratulations on the first factual comment you've posted. Isn't honesty a better road?
    1
  458.  @BrianSEPT11  "but have established reasonable doubt." Your doubt is worthless. Evidence matters. Get back to me when you have something troll.
    1
  459. ​ @BrianSEPT11  "R J LEE has no evidence" What are you blathering about now? ... their report contains evidence...its used as evidence... you're a mess. "Were stuck with massive overwhelming obvious reasonable doubt" Al you have is your ignorance and desire to believe in conspiracy mysteries... " R J LEE adds to the reasonable doubt " You don't make sense. They refute the conspiracy. The expected to find the microspheres.... no mystery. You have nothing.
    1
  460.  @BrianSEPT11  Why are you even trying to argue this topic when it's rather obvious that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You don't even make an argument... you lack the education to do so.
    1
  461.  @BrianSEPT11  Repeating comments like a child. Pathetic. Just pathetic.
    1
  462.  @BrianSEPT11  Go play with your toys child. Get back to me when you've grown up.
    1
  463. "jet fuel does not melt steel " Anyone saying this shows they don't understand the basics about what happened.
    1
  464.  @daktarioskarvannederhosen2568  "without explaining WHY you believe making such a statement demonstrates lack of knowledge" 1. The buildings collapsed due to weakened steel not melted steel. 2. Even when considering the weakened steel it was not the jet fuel that caused the high temps, it was the combustible material in the buildings. " (i.e. begging the question, engaging in circular reasoning)." I have done neither of those things.
    1
  465.  @VinceG18  Err no. Nearly all of the calls were from airfones. It's well documented.
    1
  466. "And Larry Silverstein would of made $ 5 billion Dollars off the towers." No ..after expensive legal battles and renting an empty site for years he was awards with several billion for the rebuilding ... and it was less than what it cost to build the replacement. "The steel wasn't in a blast furnace " Agreed..... however steel is down to half its strength at 600C. " There wasn't any sound of jet engines in the phone calls. " Prove it. " Building # 7 fires were in spot and one beam started it. " Fires burnt uncontrolled across many floors. "Fires wouldn't of destroy 1400 car 800 yards away look at the aireo photo." Nor did they destroy cars that far away... some cars were moved out of the way to let emergency vehicles in though... and were moved away from the WTC.
    1
  467. You mean the Plasco Building? That's such a pathetic response.. every time there is another example that proves what happened to WTC7 wasn't so mysterious the conspiracy theorists are a bit stuck... so they just declare that example is also a CD...
    1
  468.  @mandmoraify  ....and?
    1
  469.  @mandmoraify  Actually... no.. you have still yet to make a point... ..I'm waiting... will you try or will you keep crying like a baby?
    1
  470.  @mandmoraify  Ah yes Peter Michael Ketcham.. "an iPhone app developer from Wisconsin, has a masters degree in mathematics and worked as a mathematical data visualization programmer at NIST from 1997 to 2011. He had no involvement in the 9/11 investigation (or any other investigation), and has no background in structural engineering or physics" His opinion on this is irrelevant... Next time don't just read the headlines read the whole story you moron.
    1
  471.  @mandmoraify  Yeah man I'm like a government agent! Some people will believe such stupid things.. If you note the quotes I used it will give you an indication that I was copy pasting his bio. So your attempt to reference that guy backfired. You looked a little stupid. You cried 'shill'...that made it worse. Quit while you're behind.
    1
  472.  @mandmoraify  "I call it how I see it," If you made an attempt to fucking educate yourself you might see things better. " your probably a shill o" Conspiracy theorist gets a public smackdown and cries shill.... it happens all the time.. " your days concealing, altering the truth, and presenting disinfo as factual " Feel free to show where I have done that. go ahead. You won't be able to of course... you're simply full of shit.
    1
  473.  @alfie8472  What explosions? I see a building collapsing. I see dust and debris being forces out by the collapse... Where can you hear explosions going off? The ae911 guys try to present themselves as experts yet they say so many stupid things ...
    1
  474. ​ @alfie8472  you are looking at dust and debris being forced out a building that is collapsing... It makes no noise like an explosion... it doesn't eject like an explosive...and it's happening after the building is already collapsing... that's now how demolitions work... (I can't believe I need to explain this) the explosives make the building collapse.. not the other way around. Want to try again?
    1
  475.  @BrianSEPT11  Your videos only confirm that what happened to the WTC buildings wasn't so strange. Good work.
    1
  476.  @BrianSEPT11  of what happening?
    1
  477.  @alfie8472  "Why don't you explain how 110 story buildings collapsed to 8 story rubble piles when they hit the ground. " Oh you don't know about gravity? You see many kids learn about gravity at high school. When you go to school you will learn about it as well. ". What happened to everything inside the buildings," Smashing pulverising..grinding... Just watch a video of the collapse and stop acting like everything is really confusing.
    1
  478. Joseph Stalin where did you run to? No not crazy... a 9/11 truther had that as his user name.
    1
  479.  @ivanfairbanks6563  Yeah I wouldn't trust a person who has Joseph Stalin as a username.
    1
  480. " Passport arrivals, flight school attendance, and fuzzy cockpit audio recordings is documented proof of anything " The hijackers were seen at the airports... recorded at the airports.. .they were described by passengers who phoned their faimilies... the dna of two brothers was confirmed in the pentagon crash... there is a lot of evidence that it was them. "and somehow the ID cards of the hijackers survived a jet crash to be found laying on the ground amid the rubble" No it was found on the sidewalk not the rubble... passenger items were found at all the crash sites. " I refer you to Operation Northwoods as well as the BBC report posted Sunday, 23 September, 2001" Tell me.. what do you think Northwoods proves...
    1
  481. You don't understand what quote mining is do you? do I need to explain it to you like you're a child?
    1
  482.  @BrianSEPT11  sigh... I can't believe I need to do this. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining You're taking testimony of people who were just describing the noises they heard and making it sound like they were describing demolition explosives. USually you only need to read/listen to the testimony in full to see they are just describing events like one of the buildings collapsing. It's a desperate and dishonest tactic. After all these years, desperation and dishonesty is all the conspiracy theorists have.
    1
  483.  @BrianSEPT11  " is taking quotes out of the intended meaning and the intended meaning of explosions is explosives as described in the witness's testimony" You're still not getting it. Either you're very stupid or you just don't want to get it. Much of the testimony presented about explosives is people just describing one of the collapses... we have the collapses on video and there are no explosions.... therefore we KNOW they are not describing explosives... This proves that you are resorting to quote mining. It also proves that you are WRONG and that people say "explosion" for noises that are NOT explosives. "When you say explosion doesn't mean explosives, you are the one taking it out of context" That makes no sense at all. So to summarise your post.... you still don't understand what quote mining is. You're wrong about the explosives. You're wrong about people using the word "explosion". You then finished with a nonsensical statement. Not good.
    1
  484.  @BrianSEPT11  ?? How can you be this dense? All you ever seem to do is repeat my posts back to me like a 10 year old. You could be a bot... I explained why it is quote mining... you just say that I'm quote mining without actually addressing my post or defending your actions... I'm just going to repost this because you never addressed it. " is taking quotes out of the intended meaning and the intended meaning of explosions is explosives as described in the witness's testimony" You're still not getting it. Much of the testimony presented about explosives is people just describing one of the collapses... we have the collapses on video and there are no explosions.... therefore we KNOW they are not describing explosives... This proves that you are resorting to quote mining. It also proves that you are WRONG and that people say "explosion" for noises that are NOT explosives. Each response shows you don't actually understand what quote mining is...
    1
  485.  @BrianSEPT11  "Copy and paste is a great tool. " It's not a substitute for a brain. ", I haven't even got started yet" You haven't really done anything yet. You don't seem to know anything or have any evidence.... you're a cowardly troll.
    1
  486.  @BrianSEPT11  "You haven't explained anything, " Oh I have. you're just too thick to understand. " I have explained to you these quotes are credible " ..and with that statement you're showing that you STILL don't understand how quote mining works... It's not a matter of the person or the quote being credible.. it's the dishonest cherry picking of words without the context top misrepresent what is being described. I could probably explain it to you ten different ways and your're so fucking stupid you'd never get it. "How about molten metal," Molten metal is not suspicious at all. You're so ignorant that you don't know this. "Iron microspheres" The iron rich miscrospheres were also not suspicious... the R J Lee group EXPECTED to find them... "Steel and iron are different" lol.. duh... steel is mostly iron. "It just never ends" Your ignorance and stupidity never ends no...
    1
  487.  @BrianSEPT11  "you have taken these quotes out of context" Oh lordy you're a dumbass. You don't understand quote mining... and all you can do is repeat back to me what I say to you... When you're caught out doing something wrong ...your response is to just blurt out "you are!!" What a bumbling fool.
    1
  488.  @BrianSEPT11  "The R J LEE group never says they expect to find them " Wrong. "Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be expected to be present in WTC Dust. "_ "The R J LEE group explains they are caused by high temperatures" They say "The characteristics of the dust are a result of the collapse of the WTC Towers and the subsequent fires at the WTC site which collectively were unique events that produced unique dust." "The R J LEE group never give specific temperatures" They don't but see above. "The R J LEE group never explains the temperatures required to melt structural steel" That's already well known. "The R J LEE group never explains how the temperature to melt structural steel can be achieved" See above. http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/snow__crash/media/bWVkaWFJZDo0NzYxOTMzNw==/?ref= You have no clue. R J Lee actually refute the conspiracy... but conspiracy theorists carefully select quotes from their reports and never mention this.... you know...quote mining..
    1
  489.  @BrianSEPT11  As usual your ignorance here is the problem. There are several explanations for the microspheres that have nothing to do with magical conspiracies...
    1
  490.  @BrianSEPT11  "I'm a cowardly, conspiracy theorist troll with no evidence to establish REASONABLE DOUBT" Finally...something factual.
    1
  491.  @BrianSEPT11  "There is no explanation by The R J LEE group" Is there something wrong with you? _""The characteristics of the dust are a result of the collapse of the WTC Towers and the subsequent fires at the WTC site which collectively were unique events that produced unique dust." "_ http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/snow__crash/media/bWVkaWFJZDo0NzYxOTMzNw==/?ref= They provide explanation. _"how the temperature to melt structural steel can be achieved NOTHING Reasonable doubt, again "_ This is all just babbling because you were shown to be completely wrong... AGAIN.
    1
  492.  @BrianSEPT11  You may think that, but that's only because you're an ignoramus.
    1
  493.  @BrianSEPT11  The rambling of an uneducated troll.... to dense to defend their conspiracy fantasy.
    1
  494.  @BrianSEPT11  "I have reasonable doubt" Your "reasonable doubt" doesn't count for shit.
    1
  495.  @BrianSEPT11  "but when other people have reasonable doubt," Nope... lots of other people think the earth is 6000 years old.... lots of people think the earth is flat. What idiots think doesn't matter. Evidence matters. Let me know when you've got some bitch.
    1
  496.  @BrianSEPT11  "When people all over this world have doubt, it's more valid." An appeal to numbers. Pathetic. "When credible proffesional experts in every aspect of 9/11 have doubts" The scientific community doesn't support the idiotic things you say. "There is evidence in front of the GRAND JURY" Sure sure... we'll see. All you've got is hope I guess.... "There is evidence, lots of evidence, " zzzzz sure sure... that's why all you can do is squeal about your "reasonable doubt" ...you post a lot but never come up with any substance....
    1
  497.  @BrianSEPT11  Yes yes you've tried this list...you don't have evidence so you try a gish gallop spam. Remember when I picked some of your claims and refuted them? You had no response....dumbstruck...helpless..you don't have a clue... All you have is debunked copy paste spam....troll.
    1
  498.  @BrianSEPT11  Who cares about your doubt... and your hope... that's isn't worth squat. "There is evidence" Nothing that stands up to scrutiny... Get back to me when you have something that isn't laughable ...
    1
  499.  @BrianSEPT11  ...religious fanatic preaching..
    1
  500.  @BrianSEPT11  ...oh god... you dodged it... I reposted it ...you dodged it. ..just as you dodged being caught out quote mining. I can repost it again... but we both know you lack the education, intellect and courage to defend your claims...
    1
  501.  @BrianSEPT11  Yep that's what I did alright. You couldn't respond to my post. You couldn't refute what I said. So you just evaded it....like a sniveling fucking coward...
    1
  502.  @BrianSEPT11  We're talking about this statement. If you're using those people to imply that there were explosives then you are quote mining. "so credible firefighters, medics, police, media with video and plenty of documented witnesses is quote mining " As you quote mining... I don't remember you posting a quote yourself... you haven't done anything yourself... you haven't had an original thought yourself.
    1
  503.  @BrianSEPT11  "So if many witnesses refer to the collapse as a controlled demolition like Dan Rather on the news, it is not quote mining" Actually yeah... it is.. .it is if you carefully select their words out to misrepresent that they were just trying to describe the collapses as best they could...BUT they don't actually think it was a CD. "I can use hundreds of quotes where they use the word explosion, boom , blast, " Yeah that's quote mining... how fucking stupid must you be that you can't understand the concept? "What can make an explosion?" Planes hitting buildings... jet fuel exploding.. buildings collapsing...
    1
  504.  @BrianSEPT11  "and you can read minds to know what they say" No fool I actually look at the testimony in full and not the quote mining. That's the point "Hundreds of quotes is not taking anything out of context. " Yes it is. Taking lots of quotes out of context doesn't stop it being taken out of context. "You are taking it out of context. " That's nonsensical. You're just projecting what you're doing. That's an unintelligent and childish response. " There were EXPLOSIONS after the plane hit and before the collapse" Show me the video of the towers with explosions going off before the collapse. it's time for you to back up something up There are plenty of videos of the towers.... It should be easy for you. In the next post. Don't give me pathetic excuses. Don't give me testimony of describing those other events I mentioned. Video where we can hear the explosives going off.... before the collapse you said. Go.
    1
  505. "What is this video?" .... really? What are you confused about? " Not a truther but am definitely not persuaded by anything in this video" Ok...what does he get wrong? What argument is lacking?
    1
  506. "they should make the planes out of passports" A terrible argument.
    1