I told you this would be next - Al Qaeda Calls for Attacks Inside the US

Status
Not open for further replies.
blackascoal said:
You can go play in the street and dodge cars if action is what you're looking for.

I have no interests in your girlish emotions .. demonstrate that collapsing buildings fall straight down.

Demonstrate that collapsing mass does not seek the path of least resistance and topple over.

Tell me how it is that your tax dollars now support the very element that you believe was behind 9/11.

Do things like that .. something useful .. save your emotions for your wife.

Not a singe one of you swallowers can do any of that.
Click to expand...

Aw, the moron got his panties in a wad for posting such incredible stupidity.

Have some cheese with that effeminate whine you ass hat. God, how anyone can be this stupid these days defies gravity.
 
blackascoal said:
windsor4.jpg


windsor7.jpg


windsor6.jpg
Click to expand...

wow... you showed photos... got a link and a story?
 
blackascoal said:

I'm not really interested in going through all the evidence again. If you don't know what a controlled demolition looks like, so be it.

If you think America supporting the same terrorist organization that was supposedly behind 9/11 is normal .. so be it.

I remain abosultely stunned by how weak we Americans truly are.
Click to expand...

Yo, shit for brains, the collapse began at the point of impact in both towers, not at the base you incredibly naive buffoon.

All you have to do is watch the video; but alas, what do morons and ignoramuses care about facts. Next you will be claiming it was an inside job by Bush or the Jews.

Idiots are so predictable; never argue with an idiot.
 
blackascoal said:

I'm not really interested in going through all the evidence again. If you don't know what a controlled demolition looks like, so be it.

If you think America supporting the same terrorist organization that was supposedly behind 9/11 is normal .. so be it.

I remain abosultely stunned by how weak we Americans truly are.
Click to expand...

The evidence has been gone over and over and over again by experts. Experts with no political axe to grind. A video clip of firemen discussing how it looked is not evidence, its' eyewitness observation. It neither confirms nor denies the conspiracy theory you put forth. I provided a link to commentary on actual evidential theory as well as painstakingly thorough explanations, on how, and why, the Tower's could and did collapse.

I can understand skepticism- but the Truthers conspiracies regarding the collapse of the Towers, have been carefully taken to task, and found wanting.

We do stupidly support AQ. But that has only been recently thanks to Obama's foreign policy (recently as in post 9/11) And I don't believe he supports them directly, but indirectly, due to his inept approach to the ME.
 
There are conspiracy theories for just about everything; but I don't think anyone really comprehends how many people would have to be involved to pull off the kind of conspiracy many believe re: 9/11.

It would be literally impossible in the instant media age to even plan something like that, much less pull it off. Not improbable - impossible.

People in the field have looked at 9/11; you can't compare the heat generated by the jet fuel to an ordinary building fire.
 
Thing1 said:
There are conspiracy theories for just about everything; but I don't think anyone really comprehends how many people would have to be involved to pull off the kind of conspiracy many believe re: 9/11.

It would be literally impossible in the instant media age to even plan something like that, much less pull it off. Not improbable - impossible.

People in the field have looked at 9/11; you can't compare the heat generated by the jet fuel to an ordinary building fire.
Click to expand...

not to mention the South tower was hit second, but fell first... just coincidentally I am sure, it was also hit about 10-15 floors below where the North tower was hit. Can't imagine the extra weight of the 10-15 floors would make the South fall sooner after impact. Nah... physics doesn't work like that.
 
Superfreak said:
wow... you showed photos... got a link and a story?
Click to expand...

Sure I do ..

spain_fire22a.jpg


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

It burned INTENSELY .. FAR more intensely that ANYTHING burning on 9/11 .. and it burned for 26 hours .. AND, after the fire the building remained standing .. even the crane on top of the building remained intact.

Fire does not cause buildings to collapse .. never has in the history of buildings, fire, of Man.
 
The Bankers Trust was constructed differently, with a web column design. The interior columns were not pushed out to the perimeter.
 
It should be noted that I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I don't have to .. I don't care. :0) I really do not.

I'm simply marveling at the incredible gullibility of some people.

Even when they throw AL QAEDA in your face .. you remain dumb as a rock. :0) I find that shit absolutely amazing.

Why don't I give a fuck what you think? Because the fairy-tale of 9/11 is falling apart. Today, you almost have to be an American to believe that bullshit.
 
I think the 9/11 attacks were done by Saudi supported al queda trained, (thus through unintended consequences the US government), suicide bombers. I don't think the US government through its agencies actively participated in those attacks. Basically the attacks results were likely a stroke of luck in the sense the buildings collapsed, a bit of bad luck was the timing as in they happened too early for the casualties that would have happened if committed an hour later.

So while not in agreement with this part of BAC's argument, I'm coming around to most of his thinking regarding the connections between MIC, banking, governments, etc.
 
Last edited:
blackascoal said:
Sure I do ..

spain_fire22a.jpg


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

It burned INTENSELY .. FAR more intensely that ANYTHING burning on 9/11 .. and it burned for 26 hours .. AND, after the fire the building remained standing .. even the crane on top of the building remained intact.

Fire does not cause buildings to collapse .. never has in the history of buildings, fire, of Man.
Click to expand...


So again you resort to being intellectually dishonest?

So no plane hit that building? The support structures were not damaged by a plane striking the building 20-40 floors down?

Ok... so they are not the same... at ALL.

Tell us... why is it that the South tower was hit about 15 minutes after the North tower and yet if fell about 30 minutes before the North?
 
A jet fuel fire burns hotter than a standard building fire. My father was an architect and I had many discussions with him about the way a fire would cause the WTC collapse, he was convensed that the heat of the jet fuel after a period of time caused the support structure to melt resulting in the start of the collapse then the weight of the collapsed portion brought down the remainder of the buildings.

This is why you hear the terrorists on the airplane radio shouting, "aim for the neck of the building". Had they crashed much higher, the weight of the upper floors would not have brought down the entire building AND portions of the fire would have more easily vented into the open air above the buildings.
 
Superfreak said:
So again you resort to being intellectually dishonest?

So no plane hit that building? The support structures were not damaged by a plane striking the building 20-40 floors down?

Ok... so they are not the same... at ALL.

Tell us... why is it that the South tower was hit about 15 minutes after the North tower and yet if fell about 30 minutes before the North?
Click to expand...

No plane hit WTC7 and there were surrounding buildings that sustained much more damage than WTC7 which has relatively small fires .. AND AND AND .. had you ever taken a physics class you would understand the concept of a universal asymmetrical collapse and understand that it cannot happen from localized damage.

AND AND AND .. WTC7 after its implosion sitting in its own footprints exactly as an imploded building would ..

WTC-7_after_230806wtc2a.jpg


I know, I'm making all this up.
 
Jarod said:
A jet fuel fire burns hotter than a standard building fire. My father was an architect and I had many discussions with him about the way a fire would cause the WTC collapse, he was convensed that the heat of the jet fuel after a period of time caused the support structure to melt resulting in the start of the collapse then the weight of the collapsed portion brought down the remainder of the buildings.

This is why you hear the terrorists on the airplane radio shouting, "aim for the neck of the building". Had they crashed much higher, the weight of the upper floors would not have brought down the entire building AND portions of the fire would have more easily vented into the open air above the buildings.
Click to expand...

WRONG .. SERIOUSLY WRONG.

Jet fuel is essential kerosene
 
blackascoal said:
No plane hit WTC7 and there were surrounding buildings that sustained much more damage than WTC7 which has relatively small fires .. AND AND AND .. had you ever taken a physics class you would understand the concept of a universal asymmetrical collapse and understand that it cannot happen from localized damage.

AND AND AND .. WTC7 after its implosion sitting in its own footprints exactly as an imploded building would ..

I know, I'm making all this up.
Click to expand...

Again, had YOU ever taken a physics class, you would know how absurdly wrong you are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top