You break it down nicely. Unfortunately, it seems some are just here to name call and argue, with their minds wrapped tightly around a self-gratifying superiority complex, that your words were missed the first time.

Anybody who believes the buildings came down from controlled explosions is just being silly.

However, anyone who believes there were no planes, it just plain stupid.

You are plain stupid.

One time I farted an entire plum.......



























I was plum surprised.....

Do you really think the buildings were designed to take out half of lower manhattan in such event or to collapse on their own footprint?

I didn't know buildings were designed to collapse. :error

No, the structures were actually designed to absorb an impact from a plane and still stand, much like the Empire State Building when a plane crashed into it in 1945.

There's no sense arguing with the whack-a-doodles. It's all been said, you can't change their minds. In the minds (and I use that word lightly) of Pornfan and his kind, the whole World's a giant Illumaniti conspiracy that they're among the few bright enough to have snooped out. It makes them feel special and gives them something to do.

i'm glad they can't find tenants, it serves them right. i bet they never looked that far ahead when they picked them as targets. i can't wait to find out how they convince tenants to rent space in the new super structure.

they'll probably do something stupid like mount surface-to-air missles on the roof to shoot down potential threats. :thumbsup

remember when they said they were going to build a monument in memory of the victims! whatever happened to that plan?

So you agree that building 7 was " pre-wired " ...????

The illusionist ....

You talk like if these type of ' false-flag operations " never happened .... Is your tinfoil hat that good ????

Look, I agree there are things we don't know, may never know about that day. Did the US goverment know about, organize, turn a blind eye to or in any other way participate? We can't say for sure. Maybe one day it will come out.

What I'm talking about are the retards telling us about holographic planes, cruise missiles, illumanati, controlled demolitions and various other nonsense.

that's strange i found that the sense of superiority comes generally from those who never miss an opportunity to let everybody know that they do not believe in any conspiracy by insulting those who do.... Siding with the majority gives them the impression that they are right, sane and smart. That's the impression I get..

I'd like to know tho, who believes here that there has never been, say within the last 100 years, any known, admitted or declassified conspiracy of significance?

kuwait was caught redhanded side drilling into iraq's oil wells. as a result iraq was going to kick some ass but the US stepped in to protect them.

congress would have never approved an attack iraq without a good reason like "they have weapons of mass destruction". so where are the WOMD? they couldn't find them so they staged the 9/11 attack. it's a joke to hear clueless people ask when they are going to pull the troops out of iraq! when are they going to pull them out? hmmm, lets see...when are we going to pull our troops out of asia or out of europe?

ask japan if the US government is capable of outrageous acts of terror and using weapons of mass destruction.

the news has us believe that iraq hates us because of our way of life and our freedoms. that they are jealous of us. they hate us because we fuck over any country that has something we need. we're not the police of the world, we're the bullies of the world.

just look at the shit that's going on in africa! how many troops are there fighting for their freedom?

why can't the governmet just man up and say "hey america, here's the deal. iraq has a shit load of oil and we need to control it or they can strangle our economy and put us back in the dark ages. so we need to go over there and set up camp to protect our interest in their oil...you dig?"

You realize with comments like this one you look extremely fucking stupid right?

Exactly how should it have collapsed then? Please explain mr expert.

Minor damage?

Dude, get the fuck out of this thread you fucking moron and come back when you have a clue. Jesus, you people are insane. You just make shit up so you can scream and yell conspiracy. You're so fucking pathetic.

Minor damage...unbelievable.

I can't believe you take the time to continue with this guy. The above quote was enough for me to realize he's delusional and there's no point in argueing with him any further.

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/penttbomb.htm

Why are you so goddamn stupid and ignorant? I often wonder why conspiracy nuts have to be so fucking stupid.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I was waiting for you. You are actually funny as fuck. We know by now you're simply crazy so i can't blame you anymore. I will just laugh :1orglaugh

That's funny. I muse be delusional then. I saw with my own eyes on Dutch tv how they let a person fly a simulator and let him crash into the Pentagon. He never flew before (those Arabs had training) and he crashed into the Pentagon on the first try.

You fucking imbecile.

100 delusional morons.

minor damage to WTC 7 jackass! the buildings were built to withstand a direct plane strike but WTC 7 had "minor" damage compared to it's structure but yet it crumbled like a deck of cards. how could such minimal damage to WTC 7 cause it to just collapse like a text book demo job. before you open your big trap, watch a demo job, then watch WTC 7 coming down and tell me what the difference is.

and, if these buildings did collapse from an aircraft hit then why wasn't the engineering firm sued? they were designed for it!

Where do you get your info exactly you stupid fuck? Let me guess from lunatic conspiracy sites? Please gives us some facts about minror damage. In the meantime i'll post this:

In its progress report, NIST released a video and still-photo analysis of 7 World Trade Center before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, NIST's interim report on 7 World Trade Center displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The report also highlights a 10-story gash in the center of the south façade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.[3][40] A unique aspect of the design of 7 World Trade Center was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 sq ft (186 m²) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns severely compromised the structure's integrity.[41] Consistent with this theory, news footage shows cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[3] In video of the collapse, taken from the north by CBS News and other news media, the first visible sign of collapse is movement in the east penthouse 8.2 seconds before the north wall began to collapse, which took at least another 7 seconds.[3][42]

ya, the arabs got training on how to fly a 757...sure they did! people go to training facilities all the time who just want to fly a 757, not take-off or land...just fly.

it would have been more believable if they said the hijackers used MS Flight Simulator to get their training.

I'm not wasting anymore time on your delusions and stupidity. Your crap would've been interesting in 2002 before we had all the info and facts but right now it's pathetic and it makes you look like a goddamn fucking moron.

hmmm, so they can orchestrate a complex operation like 9/11 but they have no idea how to pencil whip a report? wow, now that would be quite a feat! if NIST said it's true, it must be true! btw, who owns NIST? here's one clue: www.nist.gov

hey, don't get pissed off because you're wrong...alot of people bought the story. you just happen to be one of them.

Can I ask just two very simple questions, think about them before you answer and please do answer.

1. If the government wanted to take out the buildings for whatever reason. Why go through such an elaborate set of events when everyone knows to keep things simple. People are saying explosives, etc. Would it not of been easier and a whole lot more simple if the government used some suicide bombers and a few vehicle bombs to do this act? Then they could still lay the same blame, have less chances of things going wrong, have to rely on fewer people, and of course could use explosives.

2. Lets just say the government was behind it in some way, fashion, whatever. Perhaps they had prior evidence and did not react in time, do not care. Now what? What do you think people should do or could do?

1) because there's too much security for another ground attack on the towers. and, i doubt anyone would believe a vehicle bomb could take the buildings down. even though the buildings were designed to withstand a direct hit from an airliner people still believe the "pancake" theory. i think the attack had to be very visual and horrific images needed to be burned into the minds of the american people. the government even staged an attack on one of their own buildings as a smoke screen.

2) i'm not sure what you mean by "Now what? What do you think people should do or could do?"

how can you say the "buildings were built to withstand a direct hit by an airliner"

thats not true. planes this large didn't even exist when the building was designed and built.

do you have one tiny piece of proof that the buildings were "built to withstand a direct impact" of a fully loaded 757 traveling at 500 knots?

i'll get my tin foil hat

The loser is clueless...
He just finds some random retarded quotes on conspiracy sites and uses that as evidence from that point on.
Any real facts are fake because they are official. And anyone official is ofcourse part of the conspiracy. We should feel sorry for him really. You must have a really fucking shitty life if you're into that stuff. So far anything he mentioned in this thread has been debunked over and over again about 5 years ago already. Sad.

Come on now, we all know the government planned 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, and then immediately used that amazing foresight and planning to plant the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to justify it. Oh wait...

bla bla bla .... bla bla bla ... more bla bla bla .... :1orglaugh

http://riseuprochester.files.wordpre...comparison.gif

waiting for more bla bla bla .... :1orglaugh

Why does the debunkers insist on not doing the research themselves... and when they do, it is generally done within 5 or 10 minutes, focusing on single element of "proof", that may or may not be accurate, that someone brought up to them.. instead of looking at the big piture?

Here's what Manager, WTC construction & Project manager has to say about the Buildings:

http://tr.truveo.com/WTC-Towers-Desi...ed/id/36349228

The official story is fire brought down the buildings.... not the impact of the plane...

They do not need research .... They just need to repeat over and over the same fitting scenarios .... till it goes from fiction to FACTS !!!!

Nothing new ...

you fucking morons. NO ONE has ever said the towers were built to "withstand" a direct impact from a jetliner. not the original architects.. no one. It was always a consideration that it could happen... but no one ever said "hey man... this building is jet proof" which is exactly what you are saying.

CNN interview with the architects....
----------
AARON SWIRSKY, ARCHITECT: I was working with Minoru Yamasaki, who is the architect of the building. But I was one of the workers with him. We were a team of 14 architects, and I was one of the members of the team.

HARRIS: As a member of the team, and having such insight to how this building was constructed, could you believe that a plane could bring these buildings down?

SWIRSKY: No, as a matter of fact, one of the rationales of the structure of the building was that it would be built as a pipe. And that proved itself to work during the explosion of 1993, when a hole was brought into the building, and it survived. But somehow, nobody could foresee anything like (Tuesday's incident).

Also, at that time, the planes were not like these types of planes that we have now. I think the biggest plane was a 100-passenger plane, something like that, and the fuel capacity of those planes was not like they are today.

I love how they identified a few of the so called hijackers by finding their pass ports in the rubble of the buildings. The passport survives the plane hitting the building and the fire ball, flys out his pocket then it survives the building blown to dust and lands perfectly a few blocks away from ground zero without mark on it..lol. I mean you have to be a real brain dead fuck like Dirt Fag to believe this shit.

Oh no, not this bullshit again.

"published a scientific article"...
- 'The Open Chemical Physics Journal' is not peer-reviewed. Get the facts straight...

The danish chemist is a truly conspiracy nutcase. Trust me... He believes there were no planes in Pentagon or Shanksville... and of course no motives for Al-Qaida to attack US. :1orglaugh

Sometimes its better to let it go, than continue to deny logic and facts. Ask questions, yes.. but know how to control your own bizarre thoughts. Otherwise you will see ghosts and Gods everywhere. Science? Not..

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Robert Medairos (Eyewitness) Didn't See Any Airplane Parts At The Pentagon
https://youtube.com/watch?v=efyBgOhHfcU