Political Crossfire Forums

[NAB]

homerjay_s wrote: NAB wrote: homerjay_s wrote: NAB wrote: homerjay_s wrote: Reverend_HellH0und wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: flamboyant wrote: I wonder if the conspiracy loons ever get an inkling of just how delusional their claims are and how much they're the laughing stock of the forum?

You guys are the laughing stock of the whole world. :roll: Weak up!

How did WT7 collapse????

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9184329400593634920&q=label%3Azionism

Wait! thsi guy knows how that happened. :wink:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNEoiOP76QQ&mode=related&search=





Try asking someone who was there. It is obvious to us.

Okay, assuming you were there, how exactly did Building 7 collapse?

Along that line of questioning, do you not also find it coincidental that the guy that owned building 7 had just signed a new 99 year lease on the towers and took out an insurance policy that paid him billions after the towers collapsed?

How about the fact the Marvin Bush, son of former president George HW Bush and brother of current president George W Bush, was a principle in the security company that handled security for both the towers and building 7?

Then there's the dubious lack of evidence to support the theory of a plane even hitting the pentagon. There was no plane debris at the site. The flight path to hit the building where they did would have required a highly advanced high degree turn that is highly doubtful that an inexperience pilot such as Hani Hanjour would have been able to make, particularly since the instructor where he practiced some flight training said that he had trouble handling a Cesna. Oh right, then there was the FBI confiscating surveillance video within minutes of the attack from private businesses that had shots of the impact, as of yet still un released in full.

Not to mention the fact that it is physically impossible for buildings to completely desintegrate to the point of a free fall collapse upon their own footpring simply by being hit by a plane, or in building 7's case, not being hit by anything at all.

Same talking points ad infinitum. Go over to the AT forum, because most of your points have been covered at some point. Whether you agree with them or not is up to you.

The same talking points that get completely ignored by those that claim the conspiracy theories are all baseless. These points are relevant to the thread and the subsequent posts here in.

This issue is not going to go away.

The cons were in an uproar and feinding for a hunt when they thought for a second the Clintons were involved in a scandal that was a local Arkansas issue, yet they love to twist and evade and duck and cover when it comes to all the evidence that suggests 9/11 was an inside job, or at the least that the official story is complete bull s**t. You're not going to banish this subject to a theories forum, I didn't post anything that was a theory, I posted facts and asked people to explain them fitting into the official story, which is also just a conspiracy theory, by the way. The official story of the 9/11 commission is not absolute, it is theoretical and not one person has been charged according to their position. The only difference is who they claim to be the conspirators.

No, READ what I said. Those same points have been covered in the AT forum. As in go look around and read the some of the counter-arguments to the CT. If you don't agree with them that's your prerogative. This stuff keeps getting put into continual re-set/start from scratch mode, and I'm pointing out that they've been talked about at length in the other forum. Fair enough?

No, you READ what I said. I was responding to Reverend Houndy's post that Miss Schiffer should ask someone that was there. And so I did.

I have posted these and many other inconsistencies on this forum many times, and those that refuse to see the inconsistencies also refuse to address the facts of them at all...preferring to request a thread be moved or to merely brush it off as a conspiracy theory, which for some reason has become a way to invalidate just about anything.

Alrighty then. I didn't ask for it to get moved, nor was I trying to do so, because I really could care less either way. I was merely commenting that the points you mentioned have been discussed at length in that forum.

[sLiPpY]

Isn't it a little early in the election season, for al GOPda to be airing a new commercial?

[lilwolf]

Rhoades wrote: Osama is CIA


Bull S***, you bumped you little head somewhere and it has affected your sense of reasoning... :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Claudia Schiffer]

William Amos wrote: Yeah I guess in some peoples world 2 over 100 story buildings falling next to another building wouldnt cause damage to it enough to cause it to fall.

So if a tree falls in a conspiracy theorists forrests does it make a sound ? I mean other than whining.

Remember the Oklahoma booming? Remember how damaged it was? Did if fell? Did it?

[Claudia Schiffer]

sLiPpY wrote: Isn't it a little early in the election season, for al GOPda to be airing a new commercial?

:lol: :lol: :lol: It's never too early i guess.

[William Amos]

Boy do I lovethe conspiracists scampering around with excuses and accusations when the truth comes out.

Please state more of your "Theories" it only gives more rope to hang with.

[homerjay_s]

William Amos wrote: Yeah I guess in some peoples world 2 over 100 story buildings falling next to another building wouldnt cause damage to it enough to cause it to fall.

So if a tree falls in a conspiracy theorists forrests does it make a sound ? I mean other than whining.

You are correct William, it is not possible for buildings falling next to a building to make it collapse. Unless, potentially if they fell over sideways into said building, and it was in disrepair already. But this theory does not support the complete disintegration and collapse of building 7.

On a side note, how do explain the disintegration of the two towers from getting hit by a plane.

[William Amos]

Claudia Schiffer wrote: William Amos wrote: Yeah I guess in some peoples world 2 over 100 story buildings falling next to another building wouldnt cause damage to it enough to cause it to fall.

So if a tree falls in a conspiracy theorists forrests does it make a sound ? I mean other than whining.

Remember the Oklahoma booming? Remember how damaged it was? Did if fell? Did it?

one truck bomb didnt take down the WTC either wanna know why ?

Because a blast on the outside of a building is not the same as two 747 weighing over 19 tons loaded with thousands of gallons of fuel.

At best McVeigh had probably around 500 pounds of explosives. That is about 1/80th the size of the crashed planes and it wasnt INSIDE the building

Please study physics more

[Claudia Schiffer]

William Amos wrote: Boy do I lovethe conspiracists scampering around with excuses and accusations when the truth comes out.

Please state more of your "Theories" it only gives more rope to hang with.

You're calling names because you have no argument. :roll:

I'm asking again: Remember the Oklahoma booming? Remember how damaged it was? Did if fell? Did it?

[homerjay_s]

William Amos wrote: Boy do I lovethe conspiracists scampering around with excuses and accusations when the truth comes out.

Please state more of your "Theories" it only gives more rope to hang with.

What truth? You haven't presented anything to dispute the controlled demolition theory, which is 100% supported by factual evidence.

The buildings collapses are consistent with a controlled demolition, the PNAC cabal had prior motive, the connections required to get into the building to set it up, and the influence over NORAD to initiate a virtual stand down of our national air defense in order to stage the planes hitting the towers without the standard protocol of intervention.

[William Amos]

homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: Yeah I guess in some peoples world 2 over 100 story buildings falling next to another building wouldnt cause damage to it enough to cause it to fall.

So if a tree falls in a conspiracy theorists forrests does it make a sound ? I mean other than whining.

You are correct William, it is not possible for buildings falling next to a building to make it collapse. Unless, potentially if they fell over sideways into said building, and it was in disrepair already. But this theory does not support the complete disintegration and collapse of building 7.

On a side note, how do explain the disintegration of the two towers from getting hit by a plane.

tell me Homer have you ever seen a fire in one building spread to another ?

or are you basing your whole theory on CONTROLLED demolitions that allow buildings to fall a certain way ?

You want to assume from the gitgo that the planes never existed and had no bearing on what happened. Your entire premises is a controlled demolition of buildings and the planes are irrelevant

Nice try but largely fictional

[William Amos]

Claudia Schiffer wrote: William Amos wrote: Boy do I lovethe conspiracists scampering around with excuses and accusations when the truth comes out.

Please state more of your "Theories" it only gives more rope to hang with.

You're calling names because you have no argument. :roll:

I'm asking again: Remember the Oklahoma booming? Remember how damaged it was? Did if fell? Did it?

I answered you. Try using facts to answer me

[Claudia Schiffer]

William Amos wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: William Amos wrote: Yeah I guess in some peoples world 2 over 100 story buildings falling next to another building wouldnt cause damage to it enough to cause it to fall.

So if a tree falls in a conspiracy theorists forrests does it make a sound ? I mean other than whining.

Remember the Oklahoma booming? Remember how damaged it was? Did if fell? Did it?

one truck bomb didnt take down the WTC either wanna know why ?

Because a blast on the outside of a building is not the same as two 747 weighing over 19 tons loaded with thousands of gallons of fuel.

At best McVeigh had probably around 500 pounds of explosives. That is about 1/80th the size of the crashed planes and it wasnt INSIDE the building

Please study physics more

I'm talking about WT7! Don't change the subject. WT7 had only a few scratch compare to the Oklahoma booming which had almost 1/2 of it blown off. :wink: ..And it didn't collapse. :shock: :lol:

[William Amos]

Claudia Schiffer wrote: William Amos wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: William Amos wrote: Yeah I guess in some peoples world 2 over 100 story buildings falling next to another building wouldnt cause damage to it enough to cause it to fall.

So if a tree falls in a conspiracy theorists forrests does it make a sound ? I mean other than whining.

Remember the Oklahoma booming? Remember how damaged it was? Did if fell? Did it?

one truck bomb didnt take down the WTC either wanna know why ?

Because a blast on the outside of a building is not the same as two 747 weighing over 19 tons loaded with thousands of gallons of fuel.

At best McVeigh had probably around 500 pounds of explosives. That is about 1/80th the size of the crashed planes and it wasnt INSIDE the building

Please study physics more

I'm talking about WT7! Don't change the subject. WT7 had only a few scratch compare to the Oklahoma booming which had almost 1/2 of it blown off. :wink: ..And it didn't collapse. :shock: :lol:

wow you realy dont get it do you ?

Did the oklahoma bombings have the equivalent of 2 100 + story buildings weighing in excess of probably 2,000 tons + (and that is a low ball guess here from me) falling next to it ?

What do you think those buildings weighed ?

[Patriot911]

homerjay_s wrote: Reverend_HellH0und wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: flamboyant wrote: I wonder if the conspiracy loons ever get an inkling of just how delusional their claims are and how much they're the laughing stock of the forum?

You guys are the laughing stock of the whole world. :roll: Weak up!

How did WT7 collapse????

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9184329400593634920&q=label%3Azionism

Wait! thsi guy knows how that happened. :wink:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNEoiOP76QQ&mode=related&search=

Try asking someone who was there. It is obvious to us.

Okay, assuming you were there, how exactly did Building 7 collapse?

Along that line of questioning, do you not also find it coincidental that the guy that owned building 7 had just signed a new 99 year lease on the towers and took out an insurance policy that paid him billions after the towers collapsed?

Maybe you should do some of that "research" stuff. Silverstein hasn't made billions or even millions. In fact he is PAYING millions a month just to keep his rights to the lease. The insurance money? It goes into the new WTC. See, thats the thing about insurance money on leased property. It goes into rebuilding the property, not into the leasee's pocket. Think the title holder of your leased car would like it if you wrecked the car and took all the insurance money for yourself? :lol:

homerjay_s wrote: How about the fact the Marvin Bush, son of former president George HW Bush and brother of current president George W Bush, was a principle in the security company that handled security for both the towers and building 7?
Marvin was on the board, not a principal. He was also only on the committee for auditing and compensation. He had nothing to do with security. Also, Securacom did not have the security contracts for the WTC on 9/11. ALSO, Marvin Bush was no longer associated with Securatec as of 2000.
homerjay_s wrote: Then there's the dubious lack of evidence to support the theory of a plane even hitting the pentagon. There was no plane debris at the site. The flight path to hit the building where they did would have required a highly advanced high degree turn that is highly doubtful that an inexperience pilot such as Hani Hanjour would have been able to make, particularly since the instructor where he practiced some flight training said that he had trouble handling a Cesna. Oh right, then there was the FBI confiscating surveillance video within minutes of the attack from private businesses that had shots of the impact, as of yet still un released in full.

So many misconceptions in such a short paragraph. How about the hundreds of witnesses that saw a jet airliner pass directly overhead moments before it struck? How about the tons of pictures of plane debris even though you claim there was none? The flight path was remarked on by Air Traffic Controllers because (and this is the part that is left out of the quote) "it is unsafe to fly a 757 that way". They say nothing of the skill involved.

Tell me. If you saw the videos that the FBI confiscated, wouldn't you be dubious of those as well? The FBI released the second surveilance tape and true to form not a single CT even BLINKED before denouncing it as fake or inconclusive.

homerjay_s wrote: Not to mention the fact that it is physically impossible for buildings to completely desintegrate to the point of a free fall collapse upon their own footpring simply by being hit by a plane, or in building 7's case, not being hit by anything at all.

Wow. Did you even watch the collapses? Read any of the testimony from the firemen who were there? Read the reports?

First, the buildings did not "completely disintigrate". Don't know where you got that one. I seem to recall seeing HUGE piles of rubble that had to be removed.

Second, there was no freefall collapse. You can clearly see that from the videos where you see literally hundreds of tons of material being pushed over the side of WTC 1 and 2 as they collapsed. If the buildings fell at freefall speed they would have indeed fell within their footprint which they obviously did NOT do.

"Simply being hit by a plane". :rofl: First, you ignore the fires. Second, the towers were hit by a nearly 300 TON airliner at speeds close to 500 miles per hour. Tell me.... was the plane simply suppose to bounce off the building and cause no damage? How much damage do you think a 300 ton object going 500 miles an hour does? :roll:

And as for your statements that WTC 7 wasn't hit by anything, go read the firefighter testimony. They talk about a 20 story high hole going across the middle third of the south face. They talk about structural damage so bad that you could visibly see the building leaning and a 3 story bulge one one corner.

Remember your little statement about WTC 1 and 2 falling in their own footprint? Well, they didn't. They damaged numerous buildings including several that were damaged so bad that they had to be demolished afterwards.

[Claudia Schiffer]

Patriot911 wrote: homerjay_s wrote: Reverend_HellH0und wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: flamboyant wrote: I wonder if the conspiracy loons ever get an inkling of just how delusional their claims are and how much they're the laughing stock of the forum?

You guys are the laughing stock of the whole world. :roll: Weak up!

How did WT7 collapse????

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9184329400593634920&q=label%3Azionism

Wait! thsi guy knows how that happened. :wink:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNEoiOP76QQ&mode=related&search=

Try asking someone who was there. It is obvious to us.

Okay, assuming you were there, how exactly did Building 7 collapse?

Along that line of questioning, do you not also find it coincidental that the guy that owned building 7 had just signed a new 99 year lease on the towers and took out an insurance policy that paid him billions after the towers collapsed?

Maybe you should do some of that "research" stuff. Silverstein hasn't made billions or even millions. In fact he is PAYING millions a month just to keep his rights to the lease. The insurance money? It goes into the new WTC. See, thats the thing about insurance money on leased property. It goes into rebuilding the property, not into the leasee's pocket. Think the title holder of your leased car would like it if you wrecked the car and took all the insurance money for yourself? :lol:

homerjay_s wrote: How about the fact the Marvin Bush, son of former president George HW Bush and brother of current president George W Bush, was a principle in the security company that handled security for both the towers and building 7?
Marvin was on the board, not a principal. He was also only on the committee for auditing and compensation. He had nothing to do with security. Also, Securacom did not have the security contracts for the WTC on 9/11. ALSO, Marvin Bush was no longer associated with Securatec as of 2000.
homerjay_s wrote: Then there's the dubious lack of evidence to support the theory of a plane even hitting the pentagon. There was no plane debris at the site. The flight path to hit the building where they did would have required a highly advanced high degree turn that is highly doubtful that an inexperience pilot such as Hani Hanjour would have been able to make, particularly since the instructor where he practiced some flight training said that he had trouble handling a Cesna. Oh right, then there was the FBI confiscating surveillance video within minutes of the attack from private businesses that had shots of the impact, as of yet still un released in full.

So many misconceptions in such a short paragraph. How about the hundreds of witnesses that saw a jet airliner pass directly overhead moments before it struck? How about the tons of pictures of plane debris even though you claim there was none? The flight path was remarked on by Air Traffic Controllers because (and this is the part that is left out of the quote) "it is unsafe to fly a 757 that way". They say nothing of the skill involved.

Tell me. If you saw the videos that the FBI confiscated, wouldn't you be dubious of those as well? The FBI released the second surveilance tape and true to form not a single CT even BLINKED before denouncing it as fake or inconclusive.

homerjay_s wrote: Not to mention the fact that it is physically impossible for buildings to completely desintegrate to the point of a free fall collapse upon their own footpring simply by being hit by a plane, or in building 7's case, not being hit by anything at all.

Wow. Did you even watch the collapses? Read any of the testimony from the firemen who were there? Read the reports?

First, the buildings did not "completely disintigrate". Don't know where you got that one. I seem to recall seeing HUGE piles of rubble that had to be removed.

Second, there was no freefall collapse. You can clearly see that from the videos where you see literally hundreds of tons of material being pushed over the side of WTC 1 and 2 as they collapsed. If the buildings fell at freefall speed they would have indeed fell within their footprint which they obviously did NOT do.

"Simply being hit by a plane". :rofl: First, you ignore the fires. Second, the towers were hit by a nearly 300 TON airliner at speeds close to 500 miles per hour. Tell me.... was the plane simply suppose to bounce off the building and cause no damage? How much damage do you think a 300 ton object going 500 miles an hour does? :roll:

And as for your statements that WTC 7 wasn't hit by anything, go read the firefighter testimony. They talk about a 20 story high hole going across the middle third of the south face. They talk about structural damage so bad that you could visibly see the building leaning and a 3 story bulge one one corner.

Remember your little statement about WTC 1 and 2 falling in their own footprint? Well, they didn't. They damaged numerous buildings including several that were damaged so bad that they had to be demolished afterwards.

Special agent pPtriot to the rescue! :lol: :lol: Din't i tell you guys? :lol: He patriot what took you so long? :rotf: :rotf:

[Claudia Schiffer]

William Amos wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: William Amos wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: William Amos wrote: Yeah I guess in some peoples world 2 over 100 story buildings falling next to another building wouldnt cause damage to it enough to cause it to fall.

So if a tree falls in a conspiracy theorists forrests does it make a sound ? I mean other than whining.

Remember the Oklahoma booming? Remember how damaged it was? Did if fell? Did it?

one truck bomb didnt take down the WTC either wanna know why ?

Because a blast on the outside of a building is not the same as two 747 weighing over 19 tons loaded with thousands of gallons of fuel.

At best McVeigh had probably around 500 pounds of explosives. That is about 1/80th the size of the crashed planes and it wasnt INSIDE the building

Please study physics more

I'm talking about WT7! Don't change the subject. WT7 had only a few scratch compare to the Oklahoma booming which had almost 1/2 of it blown off. :wink: ..And it didn't collapse. :shock: :lol:

wow you realy dont get it do you ?

Did the oklahoma bombings have the equivalent of 2 100 + story buildings weighing in excess of probably 2,000 tons + (and that is a low ball guess here from me) falling next to it ?

What do you think those buildings weighed ?

This is a picture of the Oklahoma building, is it damaged enouth for you? Look in the midle of that page.

http://www.serendipity.li/more/ok_bomb.html[/img]

[Otacon]

Claudia Schiffer wrote: William Amos wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: William Amos wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: William Amos wrote: Yeah I guess in some peoples world 2 over 100 story buildings falling next to another building wouldnt cause damage to it enough to cause it to fall.

So if a tree falls in a conspiracy theorists forrests does it make a sound ? I mean other than whining.

Remember the Oklahoma booming? Remember how damaged it was? Did if fell? Did it?

one truck bomb didnt take down the WTC either wanna know why ?

Because a blast on the outside of a building is not the same as two 747 weighing over 19 tons loaded with thousands of gallons of fuel.

At best McVeigh had probably around 500 pounds of explosives. That is about 1/80th the size of the crashed planes and it wasnt INSIDE the building

Please study physics more

I'm talking about WT7! Don't change the subject. WT7 had only a few scratch compare to the Oklahoma booming which had almost 1/2 of it blown off. :wink: ..And it didn't collapse. :shock: :lol:

wow you realy dont get it do you ?

Did the oklahoma bombings have the equivalent of 2 100 + story buildings weighing in excess of probably 2,000 tons + (and that is a low ball guess here from me) falling next to it ?

What do you think those buildings weighed ?

This is a picture of the Oklahoma building, is it damaged enouth for you? Look in the midle of that page.

http://www.serendipity.li/more/ok_bomb.html[/img]

Ever heard of homemade bombs?

[Claudia Schiffer]

Otacon wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: William Amos wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: William Amos wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: William Amos wrote: Yeah I guess in some peoples world 2 over 100 story buildings falling next to another building wouldnt cause damage to it enough to cause it to fall.

So if a tree falls in a conspiracy theorists forrests does it make a sound ? I mean other than whining.

Remember the Oklahoma booming? Remember how damaged it was? Did if fell? Did it?

one truck bomb didnt take down the WTC either wanna know why ?

Because a blast on the outside of a building is not the same as two 747 weighing over 19 tons loaded with thousands of gallons of fuel.

At best McVeigh had probably around 500 pounds of explosives. That is about 1/80th the size of the crashed planes and it wasnt INSIDE the building

Please study physics more

I'm talking about WT7! Don't change the subject. WT7 had only a few scratch compare to the Oklahoma booming which had almost 1/2 of it blown off. :wink: ..And it didn't collapse. :shock: :lol:

wow you realy dont get it do you ?

Did the oklahoma bombings have the equivalent of 2 100 + story buildings weighing in excess of probably 2,000 tons + (and that is a low ball guess here from me) falling next to it ?

What do you think those buildings weighed ?

This is a picture of the Oklahoma building, is it damaged enouth for you? Look in the midle of that page.

http://www.serendipity.li/more/ok_bomb.html[/img]

Ever heard of homemade bombs?

:? :? :? Anyway, i got to get back to work. I'll try to post a link that works later.

[Otacon]

Claudia Schiffer wrote: Otacon wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: William Amos wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: William Amos wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: William Amos wrote: Yeah I guess in some peoples world 2 over 100 story buildings falling next to another building wouldnt cause damage to it enough to cause it to fall.

So if a tree falls in a conspiracy theorists forrests does it make a sound ? I mean other than whining.

Remember the Oklahoma booming? Remember how damaged it was? Did if fell? Did it?

one truck bomb didnt take down the WTC either wanna know why ?

Because a blast on the outside of a building is not the same as two 747 weighing over 19 tons loaded with thousands of gallons of fuel.

At best McVeigh had probably around 500 pounds of explosives. That is about 1/80th the size of the crashed planes and it wasnt INSIDE the building

Please study physics more

I'm talking about WT7! Don't change the subject. WT7 had only a few scratch compare to the Oklahoma booming which had almost 1/2 of it blown off. :wink: ..And it didn't collapse. :shock: :lol:

wow you realy dont get it do you ?

Did the oklahoma bombings have the equivalent of 2 100 + story buildings weighing in excess of probably 2,000 tons + (and that is a low ball guess here from me) falling next to it ?

What do you think those buildings weighed ?

This is a picture of the Oklahoma building, is it damaged enouth for you? Look in the midle of that page.

http://www.serendipity.li/more/ok_bomb.html[/img]

Ever heard of homemade bombs?

:? :? :? Anyway, i got to get back to work. I'll try to post a link that works later.

What, you don't have a real point so your going to come back later? :lol: