Reply With Quote
You still haven't told me what type of explosive can withstand an 800 degree fire and not cook off instantly.
Because if they were willing to kill 20,000+ people in the towers, they would have a lot of qualms about killing people in the "truth" movement.
Reading your posts is like being bukkakked with stupid.
You still haven't told me what type of explosive can withstand an 800 degree fire and not cook off instantly.
Cosgrove was above the point where the collapse began. Your point makes no sense. The rumble you hear on the tape is the explosion from below the point where the plane hit, that is just below the 80th floor.
That's a stupid insult to say that about our servicemen. NORAD was confused because 18 military exercises involving hijacked planes were going on at exactly the same time as the real hijackings.
You're right, the real hijacked planes were remote-contolled into the WTC.
Most of the reported explosions occurred long before the towers collapsed.
Next.
They are also willing to kill 600,000 people in the Middle East.
They haven't got me yet, that's why I use a fake name here.
They did not kill 20,000 people in the towers, they were only willing to kill about 3000. I have already explained this before.
Really?
Point them out in a picture.
Most of the explosives were below the points hit by the planes.
Most were also in the core. Some explosives may have gone off early upon the initial impact at the time we saw the giant fireball.
We have already gone over all the explosions int he WTC. First you argue there couldn't be any explosions, then you argue there had to be some. As a typical debunker, you argue in circles. The truth is not your object.
I doubt you are masking your IP address.
Not really. 3000 -- 20,000 -- 600,000 --what does that matter?They did not kill 20,000 people in the towers, they were only willing to kill about 3000. I have already explained this before.
This video shows it. If you care about the truth, you'll have to invest a little time.
Gordon Ross analyses the destruction of the World Trade Center
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0
minimization of causalties is a factor for consideration military operations, especially among the Western democracies.
It does matter.
9/11 was designed to have about the same number of causalties as the battle of Antietam and Pearl Harbor.
Hey Galileo, why wont you supply a source that proves explosions?
Is that a rhetorical question?
The Ultimate Con - 911
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=1
No, show me a picture. Invest the time to show me.
Not really. Once you're going to kill Americans, more is better.
Not really.9/11 was designed to have about the same number of causalties as the battle of Antietam and Pearl Harbor.
The theologian?
How can you support someone who believes in the supernatural?
He is.
So is Beno (or was).
The problem is, in Spurs unis, they both sucked . . .
Its about 10 minutes in, maybe 5. Shows a chart of the rows of core columns, then shows the core columns still standing after collapse.
you can also try to google:
wtc spire
Eh, Hedo only got a year. Beno had three.
A chart?
Made by the guy with the fake PhD you lied about?
Please.
WTC 7 was spooked!
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
do you doubt the technology of our trillion dollar military? You fool you. Perchance yoiv hard of Operations Northwoods, eh chap?
why is more than 3000 better?
Yeah, that plan was never put into action either.
Sorry, false flag makes no sense -- the neocons would have made Saddam directly responsible and not even bothered invading and occupying Afghanistan for years. They also would have already renewed their invasion plan of Iraq long before 9/11.
Proposing Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld planned and ordered 9/11 requires them to be competent enough to do so in less than eight months. It's simply impossible.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
