World trade centre collapse, 9/11 conspiracy

Status
Not open for further replies.
find another thing to do instead of incessantly wasting other people's time.

Great response to the grade school math with the blocks. ROFL

It is all MY fault that you spend time responding to posts that you apparently cannot understand.
 
Explain using simple English what you think happened and offer evidence.
That's not generally something conspiracy theorists can do. They just don't do math, or logic, or evidence. Their strategy is generally:

1) Post a link to a two hour video.
2) If anyone questions it, reply "Just watch the video! It's all there!"
3) If people persist, choose a datum that is hard to find and use that as "proof" that there is a coverup. "Why are they hiding what the temperature was in subbasement 3 of WTC1 40 seconds before the collapse? WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO COVER UP?"

And repeat.
 
That's not generally something conspiracy theorists can do.
Even entry-level conspiracists tend to have an idea of what they think is being conspired.

psihacklolpwn1 doesn't even seem to have that. By any measure, he doesn't even rise to the level of conspiracy theorist; merely conspiracy troll.
 
psihacklolpwn1 doesn't even seem to have that. By any measure, he doesn't even rise to the level of conspiracy theorist; merely conspiracy troll.
Good point. Trolls don't try to convince anyone of their thesis; they just want to cause trouble on forums.
 
Nonsense. I endorse all the essentials presented in that Wikispooks article. No 'flouncing' from me. Start with the very first section fingering 'lucky' Larry Silverstein as way too 'lucky' by far. He obviously had prior knowledge, and high-level direction and assistance/facilitation from fellow tribal insiders. It's utterly appalling he and kin enormously profited financially and got away scot-free while thousands (later - millions in ME) of innocents died terrible deaths.

Go ahead Dave C - super shill. Make your best case Larry's multiple cases of extraordinary 'luck' (timely purchases, miraculous absence on the day) was just rolling 'good fortune'. Nothing special.
Since you claim I'm the crazy conspiracy theorist with no real evidence - explain why Larry's luck was 'really just normal' - in objective-not-cheap-rhetorical DETAIL!
The explanation is already sitting there for your perusal. Read the previously-linked snopes article on this particular conspiracy rubbish.
 
The explanation is already sitting there for your perusal. Read the previously-linked snopes article on this particular conspiracy rubbish.
Is this your way of engineering a life ban? Drawing me into resuming discussion of an aspect of 9-11 that thanks to both your's and bell's anti-true-free-speech threats/warnings, I'm FORBIDDEN to talk about! All I can and will 'safely' say is the Snopes article is imo very narrow in its focus and very weak even there.

The other pro Official Conspiracy Theory posters here have been given ample material establishing the true smoking gun re physical evidence of massive incendiary usage to weaken the WTC towers prior to collapse. With just one entirely implausible conjecture offered as counterargument. I'm fed up with your and their tactics.

Leaving you all with link to a brief article (nice pictures - worth a thousand words in themselves) to just maybe think honestly about:
https://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

And no, gypsum board in the rubble can't possibly explain the sulfur erosion FEMA investigators discovered. They were obviously constrained to leave it categorized as 'an on-going mystery'.

Over and OUT.
 
Is this your way of engineering a life ban?
It's your way of engineering a life ban, is it not?
All I can and will 'safely' say is the Snopes article is imo very narrow in its focus and very weak even there.
You would say that, of course, because it's all join-the-dots when you're a conspiracy theorist. Everything has to be connected to the conspiracy - somehow. If it doesn't seem to connect at first, you can always find a way to shoehorn it in.
The other pro Official Conspiracy Theory posters here...
There are "official" conspiracy theory posters here? Who appointed them?

Or do you mean there's an Official Conspiracy Theory? What made it official? Who made it official? Whose offices are you deferring to, specifically?
... have been given ample material establishing the true smoking gun re physical evidence of massive incendiary usage to weaken the WTC towers prior to collapse.
You mean like crashing some large jets laden with fuel into buildings? That does tend to weaken them.
Over and OUT.
Flounce again? Are you for real this time, or will you be back again, only to flounce yourself out yet again?
 
Explanation from the article: "It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings."

Maybe just honestly think about that for a few minutes.
I have spent more than a few minutes doing so, whereas you once again home in to cherry pick anything seemingly bolstering the Official Story.
No doubt being keenly aware of the politically charged climate, it was out of the question for the FEMA personnel involved to even suggest the possibility of sulfur containing thermate incendiary cutters as screeming obvious explanation.

Their report would never have seen the light of day.Hence that purely hand-wavy speculation.
But note even that itself implied at minimum sustained very high temperatures. Something your 'spot welding' of chaotically tumbling steel girders nonsense could never provide.
Or you can provide a link to at least one credible analysis backing such a bizarre hypothesis?

I will take a raft of eyewitness testimony to the presence of massive quantities of flowing and pooled molten steel, persisting in places for weeks after 9-11-2001:
https://off-guardian.org/2016/10/01...-no-evidence-of-high-temps-in-the-wtc-rubble/
 
It's your way of engineering a life ban, is it not?
How so? YOU revived that topic. Irresponsibly - given YOU had issued several stern warnings to drop it! Such a hypocrite.
You would say that, of course, because it's all join-the-dots when you're a conspiracy theorist. Everything has to be connected to the conspiracy - somehow. If it doesn't seem to connect at first, you can always find a way to shoehorn it in.
Says you.
There are "official" conspiracy theory posters here? Who appointed them?

Or do you mean there's an Official Conspiracy Theory? What made it official? Who made it official? Whose offices are you deferring to, specifically?
Don't play dumb yet again.
You mean like crashing some large jets laden with fuel into buildings? That does tend to weaken them.
And that jet fuel - what was left of it following the massive fireballs upon impact - somehow explains all the molten steel found for weeks after?! Still playing real dumb.
Flounce again? Are you for real this time, or will you be back again, only to flounce yourself out yet again?
Ha ha ha ha. James R has picked up the latest derogatory buzz word doing the rounds here. Well done!
 
It's completely ridiculous that conspiracy theorists are still trotting out the same tired arguments 20 years on from the events, especially as those arguments were all addressed and debunked at the time.

Talk about being stuck in a fantasist's time warp. Don't you guys have anything better to do? There are plenty of new vaccine conspiracies you could promote, for instance. At least that's sort of new(ish). What about 5G causing Covid, or something?

(Actually, I appreciate that you actually don't have anything better to do. When conspiracy theories are your life, you believe in all of them, and I guess that's how you spend a lot of your time. JFK this week. UFOs next week. Injecting bleach to cure Covid the week after. Opus Dei and the Templars the week after that. Big Pharma. The Illuminati. The mind just skips from one to the next. As it gets tired of one, it moves to the next for a while, knowing that the other one will still be there to revist 2 or 5 or 20 or 60 years on. This is your life.)
 
It's completely ridiculous that conspiracy theorists are still trotting out the same tired arguments 20 years on from the events, especially as those arguments were all addressed and debunked at the time.

Talk about being stuck in a fantasist's time warp. Don't you guys have anything better to do? There are plenty of new vaccine conspiracies you could promote, for instance. At least that's sort of new(ish). What about 5G causing Covid, or something?

(Actually, I appreciate that you actually don't have anything better to do. When conspiracy theories are your life, you believe in all of them, and I guess that's how you spend a lot of your time. JFK this week. UFOs next week. Injecting bleach to cure Covid the week after. Opus Dei and the Templars the week after that. Big Pharma. The Illuminati. The mind just skips from one to the next. As it gets tired of one, it moves to the next for a while, knowing that the other one will still be there to revist 2 or 5 or 20 or 60 years on. This is your life.)
You presume too much. And your accusations are baseless and basically just provocative dung droppings.
 
It's completely ridiculous that conspiracy theorists are still trotting out the same tired arguments 20 years on from the events, especially as those arguments were all addressed and debunked at the time.
I know, it is so odd. It is clear to me that Q-reeus is a reasonably intelligent fellow and yet here he is supporting this silly conspiracy crap. It boggles my mind...
 
Explain using simple English what you think happened and offer evidence.

Figuring out what could and could not happen versus BELIEVING what happened are very different things.

Accurate data on initial conditions is mandatory.

I am not interested in BELIEVING ANYTHING!

BELIEF is for MORONS!
 
I will take a raft of eyewitness testimony to the presence of massive quantities of flowing and pooled molten steel, persisting in places for weeks after 9-11-2001:
https://off-guardian.org/2016/10/01...-no-evidence-of-high-temps-in-the-wtc-rubble/
Nothing there proves it was molten steel rather than molten aluminum. There were plenty of people who said they saw weakened and bent steel, which is exactly what you would expect after a 1000C fire. There were plenty of rivers of molten metal; also exactly what you would expect, since aluminum melts at 600C. The eyewitness accounts confirm that they saw molten metal. Zero of those accounts prove it was molten iron.

Thank you for yet another bit of evidence that the towers collapsed due to the damage caused by the impact and the resulting fire.
 
Figuring out what could and could not happen versus BELIEVING what happened are very different things.
Accurate data on initial conditions is mandatory.
I am not interested in BELIEVING ANYTHING!
BELIEF is for MORONS!
It is not going unnoticed that you're continuing to evade the issue.

Explain using simple English what you think happened and offer evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top