World trade centre collapse, 9/11 conspiracy

[David C]

Carefully omitting any reference to my #564. Well done.

I don't think you know what a forum flounce is do you!? You posted a flounce comment then returned. You denied flouncing. What has a a post showing you returning have to do with you flouncing?

And further accolades for soundly debunking the entirety of my go-to Wikispooks article re 9-11. NOT.

You are 20 years too late to the party. Not a scrap of evidence, just conspiracy guff.

The biggest 9/11 conspiracy theories debunked | Sky HISTORY TV Channel
9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked by Engineering Experts (greekreporter.com)
9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunking | World Trade Center Myths (popularmechanics.com)

The entire absence of any effort to do so speaks volumes. Checkmate.

You mean like your flaccid reply "I don't know" to a major claim?

The building was burning everywhere, out of control, the fire crews reported this, the footage shows this. How the hell does demolition material survive that? Then we have the breathtakingly obvious - what was the actual point of bringing down the building when it was pretty much going to be a burnt out husk anyway - with almost 100% guaranteed need for it to be demolished anyway?

Detailed answer please, preferably one that doesn't involve splattering paper all over Manhattan. Please don't embarrass yourself by talking about confidential documents needing destroying (the fire - duh) or some idiotic nonsense about insurance claims (building was burnt out anyway).

 

[Q-reeus]

I don't think you know what a forum flounce is do you!? You posted a flounce comment then returned. You denied flouncing. What has a a post showing you returning have to do with you flouncing?



You are 20 years too late to the party. Not a scrap of evidence, just conspiracy guff.

The biggest 9/11 conspiracy theories debunked | Sky HISTORY TV Channel
9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked by Engineering Experts (greekreporter.com)
9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunking | World Trade Center Myths (popularmechanics.com)



You mean like your flaccid reply "I don't know" to a major claim?

The building was burning everywhere, out of control, the fire crews reported this, the footage shows this. How the hell does demolition material survive that? Then we have the breathtakingly obvious - what was the actual point of bringing down the building when it was pretty much going to be a burnt out husk anyway - with almost 100% guaranteed need for it to be demolished anyway?

Detailed answer please, preferably one that doesn't involve splattering paper all over Manhattan. Please don't embarrass yourself by talking about confidential documents needing destroying (the fire - duh) or some idiotic nonsense about insurance claims (building was burnt out anyway).

Battle of claims vs counterclaims. Fine. The decisive issue completely undermining all three articles you posted links to, is covered in the following ~ 6 minute vid:

Further material destroying that Popular Mechanics 'debunking' hit-piece you linked to last, claim-by-claim, is found here:
https://isgp-studies.com/911-popular-mechanics-debunking-911-myths-on-wtc-and-pentagon

Unfortunately I am now strictly prohibited from referring to the many other facets of 9-11 fingering the culprits responsible beyond all reasonable doubt. You know why so don't bring such issues up.

 

[psikeyhackr]

The building was burning everywhere, out of control, the fire crews reported this, the footage shows this. How the hell does demolition material survive that?

Chief Orio Palmer says from an upper floor of the badly damaged south tower at the World Trade Center. Just two hose lines to attack two isolated pockets of fire. "We should be able to knock it down with two lines," he tells the firefighters of Ladder Co. 15 who were following him up the stairs of the doomed tower. Lt. Joseph G. Leavey is heard responding: "Orio, we're on 78 but we're in the B stairway. Trapped in here. We got to put some fire out to get to you."
The time was 9:56 a.m.

https://aus.religion.narkive.com/QC472g93/the-1975-and-2001-world-trade-center-tower-fires

https://michaelruark.blog/2015/09/1...ould-be-able-to-knock-it-down-with-two-lines/

https://www.google.com/url?q=https:...s-of-firefighters-some-on-the-78th-floor.html

How did fire fighters climb to the 78 floor if "the building was burning everywhere"?

I am supposed to put up with ridiculous exaggerations but get called a TROLL for pointing out data in the NCSTAR1 report like the 20 to 25 degrees tilt and data missing from the NIST report like no center of gravity for the tilted top and no total for the concrete

 

[billvon]

An atheist Christian then.

I'm not an atheist.

Because you say so huh?

No. Anyone who wants to read your posts can see it for themselves.

Rubbish. To repeat, Wikispooks "9-11 - Israel Did It!"

Again, I don't think you understand it at all, since you cannot reproduce even one of their claims here.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Q-reeus]

I'm not an atheist.

Then what of this you wrote in #577:
"Sure. I consider myself a Christian because I was raised that way and I believe in the teachings of Christ. (See the Sermon on the Mount for an example.) I don't buy most of the rest of the hoopla that the various churches have constructed over the years - heaven, hell, Popes, indulgences, supernatural beings etc."

The first part reads to me as "I follow the Christian moral code, but don't believe in salvation through faith in Jesus's 'perfected work at the cross'". IE he was a good man but not 'the only begotten Son of God'. And wasn't raised on the 3rd day etc.
Thus denying what the vast bulk of 'traditional' Christian teaching requires as an absolute minimum before being entitled to call yourself a Christian.

That last red highlighted is at odds with most peoples idea of God as a supernatural being by definition.

Again, I don't think you understand it at all, since you cannot reproduce even one of their claims here.

Prove me wrong.

Huh? You still don't get it? Or more likely a repetitive tactic of avoidance.
All the carefully referenced material needed to thoroughly demolish the Official Conspiracy Theory, has been in effect handed to you on a silver platter.
SO READ IT - AND TRY YOUR BEST TO DISCREDIT ANY OF IT! (but note my last line)

Instead you in effect make the absurd charge I don't understand it because I don't reproduce that same material here!
Which would be an incredibly poor way to use what the the best of internet provides.
How would you know I wasn't putting my own spin on it? BY READING IT DIRECT FOR YOURSELF! DUH.

Why not just admit you have at least cursively read the articles/vids I have linked to, and can't spot any errors of any significance.
But are committed to the Official Line. Which is the only thing that makes sense of your repetitive stalling tactic.
Ditto for Dave C.

Given the recent stern scoldings from mods over alleged 'anti....' beliefs/claims/references to, I suggest sensibly dealing with, by actually reading/viewing FOR YOURSELF, just that linked to in #582 as starter.

 

[billvon]

The first part reads to me . . . .

Translation - "I didn't like what you wrote so I made up my own interpretation of it." That's fine; do whatever floats your boat. You are still wrong.

"before being entitled to call yourself a Christian." The idea that I would consider your input on my beliefs is hilarious!

Prove me wrong.

Huh?

So you can't do it. You can't even explain ONE thing you took away from that article. Not even one; all you can do is say "hey I have no ideas of my own, read what someone else said!" You are a sad little sheep.

 

[Q-reeus]

Translation - "I didn't like what you wrote so I made up my own interpretation of it." That's fine; do whatever floats your boat. You are still wrong.

"before being entitled to call yourself a Christian." The idea that I would consider your input on my beliefs is hilarious!

A characteristic avoidance tactic. But as it's really off topic, let's just drop it now.

So you can't do it. You can't even explain ONE thing you took away from that article. Not even one; all you can do is say "hey I have no ideas of my own, read what someone else said!" You are a sad little sheep.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. I'm done wasting time with yet another chronic liar and defamer.

 

[David C]

Battle of claims vs counterclaims. Fine. The decisive issue completely undermining all three articles you posted links to, is covered in the following ~ 6 minute vid:

Nah. I preferred it when you said you were going, did you google forum flounce?

Further material destroying that Popular Mechanics 'debunking' hit-piece you linked to last, claim-by-claim, is found here:

I'm not going to play this 20 year old pile of do-dos game. You lost, move on. Find a better hobby, one that doesn't involve raking up crappy conspiracy guff.

Unfortunately I am now strictly prohibited from referring to the many other facets of 9-11 fingering the culprits responsible beyond all reasonable doubt. You know why so don't bring such issues up.

I bet the authorities are breathing much easier now, what with you stopped from your devastating exposé. Haha!

I'm done wasting time with yet another chronic liar and defamer.

Hurrah another flounce!

 

[Q-reeus]

Nah.

Sums up your attitude perfectly. A 6 minute vid thoroughly wrecking your cherished Officially Approved Conspiracy Theory is too much effort.
Or too hard to convincingly deal with, given you probably did look but best strategy was not to admit to that.

I preferred it when you said you were going...

Tempted to say 'for sure'. But I sense a sadistic streak in Dave C that prefers empty arguing just for the buzz it seems to create.
Anyway that post signals there's no point wasting further time with you either.

 

[David C]

Sums up your attitude perfectly.

No, it doesn't. My attitude is "yawn, not this shit again"!

A 6 minute vid thoroughly wrecking your cherished Officially Approved Conspiracy Theory is too much effort.

But it doesn't and I can't be arsed to explain to you why, since you are incapable of any logic or reasoning. Molten, shhmolten!

9/11 MOLTEN STEEL DEBUNKED | 9/11 DISINFO DEBUNKED (wordpress.com)

Or too hard to convincingly deal with, given you probably did look but best strategy was not to admit to that.

Nah.

Tempted to say 'for sure'. But I sense a sadistic streak in Dave C that prefers empty arguing just for the buzz it seems to create.

We have already established that you your opinions are crap, your suggestions are crap, your posts are crap, your advice is crap and now we see that your senses are also crap. Royal flush.

Anyway that post signals there's no point wasting further time with you either.

Flouncy flounce. Go and do something creative, this was dead 20 years ago.

 

[billvon]

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. I'm done wasting time with yet another chronic liar and defamer.

You can't do it. You can't post and defend one single claim, because you don't even understand your own position. All you can do is say "look at what someone else wrote!" - and follow along with all the other troofers.

You're a sad little sheep.

 

[exchemist]

A characteristic avoidance tactic. But as it's really off topic, let's just drop it now.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. I'm done wasting time with yet another chronic liar and defamer.

Yet, for someone who is done with "chronic liars and defenders", you seem strangely unable to leave this (idiotic) subject alone........

 

[Q-reeus]

So much derision, backed by not even an attempt at a single actual refutation. Have to hand it to the PR professionalism of MSM, aka (very effective) brainwashing.

 

[billvon]

So much derision, backed by not a single actual refutation.

There's nothing to refute. You have said nothing beyond "see what the other sheep wrote!"

 

[Q-reeus]

There's nothing to refute. You have said nothing beyond "see what the other sheep wrote!"

Just the first link in #582. Six minutes. And none of you anti-twoofers could be bothered. Or were too fearful to face demolition of your long held beliefs. Sad indeed.

PS, I have edited my last post a bit to emphasize the situation even more starkly. Cowards.

 

[billvon]

Just the first link in #582.

"Oh why won't you look at what the other sheep wrote and answer THEM?"

Because they're not here. You are. Put up or admit you're just another clueless sheep.

 

[Q-reeus]

"Oh why won't you look at what the other sheep wrote and answer THEM?"

Doubly wrong. You only had to watch and listen to first-hand testimony. No need to even have reading skills for that one.
And what's with that fool bit about 'answering THEM'?
I never implied anywhere having to somehow hunt those eye-witnesses down, 20 years after the events and early aftermath, and 'answer' them.
That's your disingenuous spin. The record of their reliable testimony back then is digitally preserved and easily accessed, still.
Despite rampant ramped-up censorship, with MANY now dead links to excellent material.
Thanks to First Amendment hating special interest coercers intent on crushing anything that exposes and embarrasses them.

Because they're not here. You are. Put up or admit you're just another clueless sheep.

Pathetic bating, insulting repetition. Occasionally peppered with the 'f' word. From a professing 'Christian' who claims to follow the sermon on the mount. Not really.

 

[billvon]

Pathetic bating, insulting repetition. Occasionally peppered with the 'f' word. From a professing 'Christian' who claims to follow the sermon on the mount. Not really.

Pages of flounce and not one single factual claim.

You'd make an excellent FOX News reporter. Perhaps they are hiring?

 

[Q-reeus]

Pages of flounce and not one single factual claim....

As if I needed to. 'Rivers' of flowing molten steel, reported by numbers of firemen on the job. Pools of molten steel uncovered weeks after 9-11. Fused together and otherwise partially melted/sufur-eroded steel girders recovered. And so on.
So now go and spend a whole 6 minutes watching and listening to confirm that - you lazy/fearful shits.
And assuming you don't actually mind clicking on links and reading of those and similar accounts:
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence.../442-witnesses-of-molten-metal-at-ground-zero

And now it's up to you dodging shills to attempt to rationalize that clear evidence for massive incendiary i.e. thermite/thermate weakening prior to explosive cutter chargers coup de grace to all three WTC towers.

As you are committed to reject that scenario - PROVIDE A BELIEVABLE ALTERNATE EXPLANATION FOR JUST THE LONG-LIVED MOLTEN IRON/STEEL POOLS BENEATH ALL THREE TOWERS!

Of course none of you scoffers/shills can do so. Magic is excluded btw. Just continue with derision, scoffing, and senseless, empty 'counter-challenges'. Simples.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Are ther clear pitchers of the molten steel.???