Pleasurepays

50 hopeless morons, afraid of their own shadows and plagued by paranoia and delusions

TheSenator

I still think the terrorist didn't have the skills to pull 9/11 off without sometype of inside help.

__________________
ISeekGirls.com since 2005

sortie

Alright, but why does it only take 5 minutes for a illiterate Iraqi kid to set up a road side bomb that blows a Abrams Tank to shit when it has more steal than a supporting column of the WTC?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=76354bc911
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=781_1184195368
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=53d_1189201751

__________________

TheSenator

Maybe they had a sphincter cell working at the FAA.

__________________
ISeekGirls.com since 2005

Pleasurepays

your comparing the "controlled demolition" of two of the largest buildings in the world, in downtown Manhatten to some moron walking up and dropping off an explosive on the side of the road?

thats your new "argument"

AND... a tank has more "steal" than one of the support columns in the wtc?

sortie

That's a cheap shot though because I always laugh at Homie.

__________________

sortie

Yeah, a tank is harder to destroy than a steal column in a sky scraper.
Yeah, I stand by that remark.

Maybe a controled demolition would normally take longer to set up because, err...,uhhhh....hmmmm....because they want to make sure they don't kill anyone.

DUH!!!!

__________________

Spunky

Still send shivers down my spine..

__________________

Pleasurepays

hmm... so you object to the argument of how long it would take to get set up to demo the buildings by pointing out that it takes 5 minutes to take out a tank with a roadside bomb when compared to setting up the demo of a building which you imply is stronger than one of the main support collumns of one of the largest buildings in the world... and assumes that based on that, it should far more difficult to destroy the tank. (why any idiot would think placing a 100 pound bomb by the road compares to the demolition of TWO massive skyscrapers is beyond me)

then you later reply saying "of course it takes a long time to set up a controlled demolition of a building" which then negates the silly 5 minute tank argument.


dude... seriously....
you're cracking me up!

sortie

Silverstien had control of the WTC for seven weeks not 5 minutes.
Go figure.

Also figure the demo crew milking the clock to set this shit up at $35 an hour versus terrorist or the CIA trying to do it in a hurry.


Actually, I don't think the government planted any bombs. I'm just saying that somebody could have and the buildings fell way too easily.
I mean, what a great stroke of luck for the terroist on the two planes.

__________________

Dirty Dane

There are no conspiracy. There are no humanmade global warming. Elvis is dead. Get over it!

Xplicit

LOL whats that little mindgame from? elementry school? "You mad at me because you know i'm right."

Yeah... because it couldn't be that i've delt with dozens of idiots like you and you're like a broken record spitting the governments explination over and over without any logical reason to believe a government that is ON THE RECORD WANTING TO ATTACK ITS OWN CITIZENS IN THE PAST.

My theory for you and all the others living in imagination land - someone you don't like was the first person to mention 9/11 truth to you, so in the face of all logic, scientific findings from credited architechs & engineers, and ex-CIA agents and military officers you'll reach at ANYTHING to go against the facts that are right in your face.

I don't believe you even have a clue of the psyhological reasons you're able to dismiss such information and believe a far-fetched story coming directly from the people who would benefit from pulling off 9/11.

So if you're not stupid, or gullable, its for the reason I stated above. Otherwise, you're simply an idiot.

Pleasurepays

ooooh.. here we go... like other conspiracy nuts, you have to shift gears deflect attention away from the towers to building 7, which is a completely different issue.

lets get back on track... the "controllled demolition" of the two towers.

"controlled demolition" does not mean "a bomb"... it means a massively complicated series of controlled explosions designed to insure the building implodes in on itself and fully collapses, rather than falling over.

ok.... lets, for the sake of argument, assume for a moment that your not terminally insane.

"planted a bomb" - what does that mean?

you saw the place where the buildings collapsed.

i hope to god, for the future of this planet, we can agree that the buildings collapsed where the damage was... you know, the big holes made by the large commercial airliners that ripped through the building and detonated 1000's of pounds of aviation fuel.

are you suggesting that each building had a bomb planted exactly near the points of impact to cause them to collapse in exactly those places?

or are you suggesting that the buildings were struck and some very loyal bush followers hiked up to the top and planted explosives in the last minutes of their lives, being killed in the collapse?

i'm just not following the reasoning here (although that wrongly assumes that "reason" plays any role in this discussion).

Xplicit

Quick - dodge those facts!!!

2 buildings hit by planes, 3 fall, but yeah - no biggie!

Good job!

Pleasurepays

also, why is there no sign or evidence of this massive secondary explosion that brought the towers down?

its not like explosions serious enough to destroy two buildings aren't going to be seen and heard by more than a few random people. why aren't they documented? 1000s of videos and photos of the towers getting hit and no videos or photos of these huge explosions?

weird.

Xplicit

Oops correction with link on previous post.

URL for CIA Agents & Military Officers questioning 9/11 is http://www.PatriotsQuestion911.org

Of corse though, ignore all that because here on GFY we're lucky enough to have someone with more credientials then Architechs, Engineers, CIA Agents, Military Officers, etc - Pleasurepays the porno webmaster!

Its always smarter to believe that the government that planned to attack us before is being honest, and everyone else is lying, yep, thats pure logic!

Unbelievable.

Pleasurepays

facts?

let me help you before you hurt yourself actually trying to think. i agree that wtc 7 was demo'ed.


are you happy?


now back to the actual discussion which has NOTHING to do with building 7... the alleged "controlled demolition" of the twin towers.

Xplicit

More from the misinformed idiot.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=a3IwFH3RMvo there you go.

Xplicit

hahahahaha so you believe the government is covering up WTC7 controlled demolition but is TELLING THE TRUTH about the 2 main towers?

Thats a first!

Ok bro you're so fucking WACKED OUT I officially give up on you.

Done with this thread, you're just a werido.

Pleasurepays

i don't care about 1000's of random links you dumb jackass... the conversation was about something specific... not a 1000 like minded idiots questioning the obvious or thinking they are clever that because in a moment of total chaos, there were able to find endless inconsistencies in eye-witness accounts, statements etc.

Pleasurepays

huh? i was addressing specific arguments. not arguing that "the government" is always telling the truth about anything.

i'm a weirdo? you haven't said anything yet that made sense... just posted links to others that have done your thinking for you.

beemk

the sky is falling, the sky is falling!

__________________
I host with Vacares

Pleasurepays

are you serious?

"its obvious there was no controlled demolition with the twin towers" + "building 7 was probably brought down intentionally" = "i believe everything the government says"

are you even 18?

i think you should log off before you get in trouble for being on an adult site with mature content.

sortie

Listen mush mouth, you are going to make my whiskey start takling now!

The plane hit the building and should have destroyed those top floors.
But, those floors should not have been able to crush the rest of the building when they collapsed. The top floors should have fallen to the ground and left the rest of the building standing.

Now, I will give up that thougt if you are willing to admit that the WTC must have been the most fucked up sky scraper design in history.
Because that's the only way to really explain why it fell like a fucking hose of cards.

Do you admit that? Huh? Was the WTC the most flawed, stupid sky scraper design in all of history?????

__________________

dropped9

You're a fucking idiot.

When I saw the plane hit the towers I knew it was a plane and not a bomb.

When my father in law, (who is a fire chief and was on scene), called me up and told us that the 3rd building was about to collapse, I knew it was not a bomb.

Grow up and accept the fact that two planes hit two buildings that eventually came down.

dropped9

No but it was designed in a way that the outside skeleton was it's support structure and when the planes hit the building that structure was destroyed.

When dozens of floors worth of metal, concrete, and iron come falling down, it does create a domino afftect thus the towers collapsing.

You conspiracy idiots need to get a life.

Pleasurepays

well... the whisky isn't making you smarter or more rational.

"should have destroyed those top floors"
- why? the planes didn't hit the top floors.

"the top floors should have fellen to the ground and left the rest of the building standing"
- really? 1000's of tons of building should have just broke off and fell off to the side? thats a brilliant analysis, backed up by solid structural engineering and physics. nothing i can say to refute that.

sortie

All of that shit fell 1/4 mile down and on top of buildings 4, 5 and 6 and their structures held up.

Your nick says it all, headless.

Here is WTC building six being demolished by a crew after the twin towers fell 1/4 mile on top of it. Notice the entire steal frame is still standing.

__________________

Pleasurepays

edit... .started to post... but felt myself getting dumber as i tried to talk to you.

sortie

Translation: "After reviewing the actual evidence I felt stupid."

__________________

bronco67

that's a pretty smart argument you're putting up there...who told you it was an illiterate Iraqi kid that made or planted those bombs? The tanks are not destroyed, BTW, just breached enough to kill the guys inside...and where is this information that tells you the steel ratios between varying military vehicle hull thicknesses, and columns of the WTC?

Apples and oranges. You guys will just reach for ANYTHING you can grab. If you don't see the difference between 12 million square feet of building vs an APC or tank, then you need to go back and do some more research. this is the dumbest argument I've seen yet, and feel less intelligent for having participated in it.

cya

Pleasurepays

translation: "i'm a moron. i have an agenda and like other idiots like me, i enjoy posing questions under the guise of looking for an anwer... when in fact, i made up my mind long ago and am actually trying to convince others. I won't listen to reason or lack any capicity whatsoever to be somewhat objective and this idiot pleasurepays has lost interest in talking to me, because he knows i have nothing new to say and can only parrot others, post links to other sites etc and he has just about finished the site he is working on and haas plans this evening... so he's too busy to engage in a verbal sparring match with an unarmed moron"

sortie

I'm sober now so you seem much dumber than last night.

__________________

dropped9

Hey asshole... Not all of the wtc debrie fell on those buildings. You really cant be this stupid can you?

sortie

Don't you have an appointment with cheapgallerydesigns?



PS: Enough of the WTC fell on the lower buildings to destroy everything else on and in them except the steal frames.

__________________

bronco67

Why are we arguing with an idiot who can't even spell the steel properly?