9/11, structural steel.

[SINNERSAVED]

8 hours ago, the_patriot2015 said:

You've only seen video by someone who likely is as cooky as others Dr wood sinner....but yes I believe one plane per tower took them down and a plane did hit a Pentagon because that's what the evidence says. No one has been able to present any strong evidence against such. Even your "construction" on the Pentagon. First off what evidence do you have that there was? I mean actual evidence that you can link to not some "vague" YouTube video you watched once upon a time? And even if there was, so what? Construction would not be unusual in a building of that size.

 

As for the size of the hole, anyone with a half licl of a brain can tell your wrong. The hole is more then large enough for a plane, especially considering how reinforced the structure was to withstand attacks. If anything what's surprising is how much damage the plane actually did. And let's not forget the hundreds of eyewitnesses, some of whom I've talked to myself.

 

If you want to continue believing there is a conspiracy that is your right. But don't expect me to take you seriously when you tell me something that obviously Happenned, that has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt happened, didn't happen. No matter how much you repeat a lie, I'm not going to believe it. Two planes hit the towers and one plane hit the Pentagon. Those are the facts. Unquestionable. Unarguable. Facts. The only thing in question is whether or not they took the the towers down. The evidence I provided doesn't prove that the planes took them down, but it does prove its possible. Which, eliminates the C/Ts strongest evidence that the buildings were taken down by explosives, and seeing as no one, including you, has presented any other real evidence, but are instead clinging to bad metallurgical knowledge and vague videos to support your case, then I call this debate over, as there really isn't one.

why did it take 11 years to release video footage of the pentagon building, 11 years, why would that be ?

and you say that its facts that ,what you were told and what was on video are cold hard facts, I don't think so , you are

siding with the main news, and how could they say that #7 building was also hit , when in real time they aired this and the building was still standing,off of the shoulder of the news caster ,on television, this is fact and it is on the video , and it was noted, so why did they get a script  that did not take place for a while,prior to  ? huh... so the news was out already . so may be if you agree I will start a topic , and we can talk about this even more and share CT stories, would that be okay ? I love CT stories, .if you say yes I will do it, patriot ?

[The_Patriot21]

The video footage has been out from shortly afterwards, its been on YouTube for years do a search.

Secondly, no one ever said building 7 was hit other then perhaps some early reports when no one at the time had any clue exactly what was going on or who was doing what. You can't put words in someone else's mouth and then call them wrong.

 

now, seriously-now you are literally making stuff up. No one in authority ever claimed wtc7 was hit by a plane. If you still think there's a conspiracy.... Perhaps you should find some actual evidence, because to date you haven't presented any. Problem is, if there is a conspiracy, no one will believe you since your throwing your credibility on the subject out the window. You can't change the facts. No matter what, you can't change them, even if they don't match your theory. If there is a conspiracy it Happenned in a drastically different way then you have suggested.

 

I suggest in the future, if you want people to take you seriously try molding your views based on the evidence, instead of trying to twist the evidence to match your opinion.

[SINNERSAVED]

13 hours ago, the_patriot2015 said:

The video footage has been out from shortly afterwards, its been on YouTube for years do a search.

Secondly, no one ever said building 7 was hit other then perhaps some early reports when no one at the time had any clue exactly what was going on or who was doing what. You can't put words in someone else's mouth and then call them wrong.

 

now, seriously-now you are literally making stuff up. No one in authority ever claimed wtc7 was hit by a plane. If you still think there's a conspiracy.... Perhaps you should find some actual evidence, because to date you haven't presented any. Problem is, if there is a conspiracy, no one will believe you since your throwing your credibility on the subject out the window. You can't change the facts. No matter what, you can't change them, even if they don't match your theory. If there is a conspiracy it Happenned in a drastically different way then you have suggested.

 

I suggest in the future, if you want people to take you seriously try molding your views based on the evidence, instead of trying to twist the evidence to match your opinion.

Patriot , I love to debate with you , I like you ,

but any way you are talking with no evidence  your self to prove one side, that you have seen on t.v and the news like everyone else, so you are not proving anything on your stance , so how do we even believe anything you say,

but here you go ? if you want to test what I know , ?and say how can any one take me serious  ?,I will say , my sources are like yours

 by videos and what the news is showing,   you have your  side , and I have mine !     , but,  we have a big difference here, you are set that what they are saying is truth and the real facts, when I can say its not, so lets check this out, to see if I am a wack job or not,

one plane in each building, each building then dissapears to the ground, you say plane fuel ,I say  not enough plane fuel in the world to do what happened,

you say they saw the planes, ,I say where are the parts of the planes that hit the building ?

you say that the building #7 was not hit by plane, I agree, ! but,  it came down as planned by detonation bomb blast operation with in the time frame of the twin towers being hit, so after the towers were hit , we have people still doing there job as planed under attack,by who knows who, and then they blow up the building anyway, this is ridiculous, please , no one would do this at a time like this , after the fact ,

you say what the news tells you , and you refuse to say it was not, but you cannot PROVE ME WRONG ,JUST BY SAYING WHAT I DID , SO I DONT NEED TO PROVE I AM RIGHT , BROTHER, DO YOU SEE IT NOW ?

I am in total disagreement,  of what you say, and what the news reported, and so , how would the news media have about building seven going down or destroyed , in script ,before it happened, if you can explain that away ,then I will follow you ,

but this alone places doubt, into this whole event, there is so much in this day that has questions that are not answered , and they found a passport of a terrorist, in great condition in the area of a complete disaster, to say it was this guy, and we need to go get them ,and get even with in the fastest time in the world , they were saying terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, ,I think you are sipping the wine of deception, here and propaganda, ,mine control , make something happen and say it enough times, isn't that like trying to brain wash someone?

but as for me sounding all crazy and who will take me serious  as you stated, because you really don't know me, ?, I don't need anyone to take me serious at all, I can just point at what I disagree  with, and let you determine , if it is possible, or not,

you cant prove it so, I am not concern to have to prove this to you,, but to point to places of disagreement  and observation from the same sources you are using..

I say banana, you say orange, ,    and life goes on,     blessings brother , lets do this again..

 

[The_Patriot21]

Sinner, I have presented evidence. And by evidence I mean actual evidence. There is eye witnesses to all 3 planes hitting the towers. There is video footage of one of the planes hitting the towers and the one that hit the Pentagon. The video I showed above, shows that it is indeed possible the heat from the jet fuel could have compromised the steal. I can provide the data that shows that the plane that hit the Pentagon was indeed capable of pulling the maneuver. All of it is irrefutable. 

 

Now, here's the thing. I enjoy a debate when people actually debate the evidence. Your not. Your evidence is a vague video which you have yet to even provide the name of. Your evidence is to deny the facts. I'm sorry, this isn't a debate. I provided you with actual facts-not what the media says but solid, irrefutable facts. The planes hit the towers. A plane hit the Pentagon. Those are solid irrefutable facts. And the more you deny them the less credible you become. It's like trying to tell someone gravity doesn't exist. Every bit of evidence you have provided are in direct contradiction of the facts. 

 

Now, until someone brings forth some evidence that doesn't contradict the facts, then this debate is over.

[SINNERSAVED]

10 hours ago, the_patriot2015 said:

Sinner, I have presented evidence. And by evidence I mean actual evidence. There is eye witnesses to all 3 planes hitting the towers. There is video footage of one of the planes hitting the towers and the one that hit the Pentagon. The video I showed above, shows that it is indeed possible the heat from the jet fuel could have compromised the steal. I can provide the data that shows that the plane that hit the Pentagon was indeed capable of pulling the maneuver. All of it is irrefutable. 

 

Now, here's the thing. I enjoy a debate when people actually debate the evidence. Your not. Your evidence is a vague video which you have yet to even provide the name of. Your evidence is to deny the facts. I'm sorry, this isn't a debate. I provided you with actual facts-not what the media says but solid, irrefutable facts. The planes hit the towers. A plane hit the Pentagon. Those are solid irrefutable facts. And the more you deny them the less credible you become. It's like trying to tell someone gravity doesn't exist. Every bit of evidence you have provided are in direct contradiction of the facts. 

 

Now, until someone brings forth some evidence that doesn't contradict the facts, then this debate is over.

Patriot, its  a debate and its not over, yet, and you knew I would bite,, so here we go,

you have witnesses that saw the planes , I do not doubt that, they saw what look to be planes, ? but you are going by the news delivered, you cannot answer about the building  #7 that was demo, by a demolition crew with in the  time frame after on the same day as planes and terrorist are attacking new York ? when the script that showed the so called planes  hit the buildings and reported that building  #7 was also involved , before it even went down, so how did they get a script of a building that did not go down , until after and then it was shown in real time, behind the news cast looking out the window , it was still standing, there,

we all saw it, and it is just as evident as your video ? so how can that be, do you have a justification to justify that also , I would love to hear it , and I think for you to say that the buildings came down like they did both of them from one plane in each at the top and the building is still falling with in it self, and not falling over from a impact , is really  not realistic, so just like gravity , those building would not come down to dust, both with the same results, and in the same identical fashion, I would think most people are going to question your side, and say , I may have something here, and what I have is more then what you have , just by discussion, 

patriot , come out to play buddy, this is getting good,? answer the building  #7 with a logical and accurate answer and we can continue to more and better things, because I love CT stuff, but it is all worth looking into , to prove it false , but until then , it is possible and a view that must be examined, yes...debate  continues......

[OakWood]

On 19/12/2015 at 4:22 PM, SINNERSAVED said:

if you  Patriot believe that one plane in each building is enough to bring down the towers down to the ground, and evaporate like it did , I am sorry but your ,source and your belief is flawed, for do you know how many floors are in each tower, but yet when the plans hit they hit up at the top but yet the building came down with in its self as you would see in a demo charged operation, second there was a third building  #7 that was charged to be demo the same very day with in the same time of this event and it went down , way after the news lady live was saying the third building has collapsed and you could see the building was still standing, but no plane hit that one, and yet they still pulled the charge to bring down the Building,

at the same time the pentagon was doing contruction to the part that was hit , but there was no plane for the hole to the building was way smaller then a plane could make , so I don't know what happen but this does not sound to good, ,my heart goes out to the families and my prayers , but what the after math after the dust settles is very disturbing to here even from the fire fighters said they heard charges in the floors going off like a actual demo event, so they are the best credible, witnesses and specialist on the scene at the time,

and if you follow the money , why did the guy that owned the towers increase his insurance for the biggest pay off in history ?

I cannot tell you what happen only what I have read and scene on video, but I cannot believe that one plane in each building would bring down the complete building to dust, even if it was carry tanker fuel. sorry I have to disagree with you.....

 

 

The demo-charged charged operation has already been discussed before. Because the buildings came down vertically many people believe that it was a preconceived and planned demolition.

But answer me this - just how should have the buildings come down? Sideways perhaps? And if so.... which way? In the opposite direction that the planes hit them? Or maybe in the direction the wind was blowing that day (even though skyscrapers are built to withstand strong winds)? Perhaps they should have spun round first and toppled in a spiral motion. Maybe they should have lifted upwards (against gravity) and flew into Outer Space before finally changing direction and coming toppling down to Earth.

They fell downwards vertically, just like a controlled demolition, because that is how they were structured. Even though there was no controlled demolition.

The aircraft fuel generated enough heat to cause internal collapse, the steel supports softened and buckled... and the buildings dropped straight down. They came straight down, one floor crashing on top of another because the laws of physics determined that they would. Conspiracy theorists always ignore these simple facts.

[MorningGlory]

Why is this thread not in the Conspiracy forum?  This old, tired, worn out, redundant and utterly stupid conspiracy has no place on a Christian site since it consists soley of rumor and lies.

[Omegaman 3.0]

9 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

Why is this thread not in the Conspiracy forum?  This old, tired, worn out, redundant and utterly stupid conspiracy has no place on a Christian site since it consists soley of rumor and lies.

Because it contains a video, and videos are only allowed in the video forum.

[MorningGlory]

Just now, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Because it contains a video, and videos are only allowed in the video forum.

Oh......I didn't know it contained a video since I didn't click on the link.  But at least I voiced a sincere opinion and, that being done, I'm off to another thread.  

[OakWood]

1 hour ago, simplejeff said:

No conspiracy.  Plain politics and business.

Look on youtube how many buildings fall sideways, EVEN WHEN PLANNED to fall straight down...

SHORT BUILDINGS even......

i.e. It takes quite a detailed and precise plan to get one to fall in its own footprint.... ...

BUSH GOVERNMENT: Let's destroy one of our own buildings and we can blame it on Muslim terrorists. We can fly missiles disguised as planes into the World Trade Center. Many will die, and then we'll have an excuse to invade some Third World pit with no oil and no money - let's say Afghanistan!

ADVISORS:  Okay that's fine. I can see it now, a plane stuck inside a skyscraper.

BUSH GOVERNMENT: Yes, but the skyscraper must fall down.... straight down, vertically.....

ADVISORS: But why must it fall down? Surely a burning plane is enough to kill many.

BUSH GOVERNMENT: No, the building must fall... it's more dramatic that way.

ADVISORS: But how? Even if we plant bombs inside, and the building falls down in a straight line just like in a controlled demolition, won't people suspect something? Wouldn't it be better if the buildings fall down sideways? After all, sometimes controlled demolitions don't work and demolished buildings fall down sideways.

BUSH:  No, our plan will work. Our controlled demolition will be so perfect that the building will fall straight down in a straight vertical line.

ADVISORS: But Mr. President sir, then people will know that it was a controlled demolition because it will be too good to be true. Then all the Leftists and haters of America will use this to discredit us.

BUSH:  I don't care.... let's do it anyway (cue evil laughter) WAAH, HA, HA.... WAAH, HA, HA, HA!!