• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

This is the thread that may very well change the way you look at 9/11 FOREVER!

I know...a dumb cave dweller with 19 of his close cave dwelling buddies...who somehow outsmarted the most advanced and powerful military in the world....and he didn't even have to use any weapons...this guy is GOOOOD.

Most of the hijackers were college educated.
Our military isn't the most powerful or advanced in the world.
Our mitliatry wasn't the one that was fooled. It was immigration that was, since they wre the ones allowing these men in and out of the country while they took flying lessons here.
 
I know...a dumb cave dweller with 19 of his close cave dwelling buddies...who somehow outsmarted the most advanced and powerful military in the world....and he didn't even have to use any weapons...this guy is GOOOOD.

Yep. Way better than you. You can't even come up with a coherent plan that would have had a chance of working. His did.

Oh, yeah, almost forgot!

What a macaroon!
 
I know...a dumb cave dweller with 19 of his close cave dwelling buddies...who somehow outsmarted the most advanced and powerful military in the world....and he didn't even have to use any weapons...this guy is GOOOOD.
so what part of the military did they beat to hijack a commercial airliner?

as a followup, when did osama start living in a cave?
 
I know...a dumb cave dweller with 19 of his close cave dwelling buddies...who somehow outsmarted the most advanced and powerful military in the world....and he didn't even have to use any weapons...this guy is GOOOOD.

Well they had primitive weapons, box cutters and the like but yes, you're catching on and hopefully giving up a preposterous belief in U.S. military efficiency.
 
State,

I don't know the exact odds for all those...but it's probably about 1million times more likely....than a 47 story steel structure building falling straight to the ground in 7 seconds (I don't care if the roof fell in - that's NOT a floor it's a roof...when all the floors start to go it takes less than 7 seconds) due to a few scattered fires...and some exterior damage (not structural damage on the inside of the building...you know...the PART that holds the building up) from falling debris? The damage was random...but the collapse was anything but random...WTC 7 collapsed symmetrically...you explain this one please.
 
28th,
At what point do you plan on introducing your never before seen evidence, so far all you have done is read from the CT script, played the same video clips and shown us the same pics pretty much every ctist uses.
 
9/11 is a crime..if this went to trial...what is the one thing you MUST have in order to convict someone? MOTIVE! Does the government have a motive here? Did they or could they have benefited from the events of 9/11 and if so, how?
Actually, proving motive is totally unnecessary in a trial conviction. The prosecution must show evidence the defendant(s) did the crime, but not motive. Of course, it is considered a good idea to suggest some sort of motive to the jury in order to get a conviction (juries are, of course, human, and want to understand the emotion behind the crime), but actually, no, motive is not "the one thing you must have in order to convict someone." Sorry, just hain't so.
 
28K... you've not presented anything that's even made us miss a beat. It's hilarious that you keep clutching at straw after straw...

Where's that thermite that can cut through vertical beams again?
 
I said Kitty-up, not Devito-up.
LoL. Thats funny!

cat_and_mouse.jpg

I caught a mouse!
 
State,

I don't know the exact odds for all those...but it's probably about 1million times more likely....than a 47 story steel structure building falling straight to the ground in 7 seconds (I don't care if the roof fell in - that's NOT a floor it's a roof...when all the floors start to go it takes less than 7 seconds) due to a few scattered fires...and some exterior damage (not structural damage on the inside of the building...you know...the PART that holds the building up) from falling debris? The damage was random...but the collapse was anything but random...WTC 7 collapsed symmetrically...you explain this one please.
Do you have any education at all, seriously. Did you go to high school? Did you learn anything from sources other then CT sites?
 
Personally, I like cats that can squeeze into cute items.
 

Attachments

  • honey_wheres_my_sunhat_1.jpg
    honey_wheres_my_sunhat_1.jpg
    98.6 KB · Views: 2
And, when...on the video we've all watched a 1000 times...did the buildings decide to throw a cinch around it's waist? 3-4 Don't you think those images are a bit over-the-top (embellished )and cartoon-like?
Gee...roughly a thousand posts ago, here, you were shown a video. In it, you could clearly see the inward bending, then buckling, of the walls you insist must be blown outward by explosives.

I know you don't tend to read the words, but I thought you had a certain fondness for the moving pictures. I had hoped you might have watched it.

It absolutely answers your request for a "cinch around it's[sic] waist".

So....

1) thermite silliness? dead end--wrong color residue, no mechanism to aim sideways, no evidence of any delivery system, no precedent for demolition of this sort, utterly and wholly debunked.

2) witnesses claiming explosives? dead end--they claimed explosions, not explosives, and later recanted.

3) "free fall" nonsense? dead end--video, photographic, and seismic evidence agree with theoretical/mathematical analyses. Not merely no requirement for explosives, but evidence is inconsistent with any explosive setup.

4) molten steel lunacy? dead end--even the eyewitness statements you list are incompatible with molten steel; the best you get is "red-hot". Other accounts are second-hand and/or hyperbole.

5) which floors had explosions? dead end--7, 8, 10, 13? Your account is based solely on a misinterpretation of an eyewitness account.

6) "no plane debris at pentagon"? dead end--a drive-by attempt to derail your own thread? But then, what hasn't been? Photo, video, eyewitness evidence shows astounding ignorance on your part.

7) "no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire..."? dead end--both factually wrong and logically incoherent.

8) tilting of top portion of tower? dead end--your analysis shows ignorance of inertia, as well as presupposing the demolition of underlying floors, which was supposed to be your conclusion.

9) "pull it"? dead end--remarkable, how someone can come in here so excited to have found the truth, when something as simple as this can show that he has done absolutely no research whatsoever.

10) "Bye"? dead end--at least two drama-queen exits, and you are still here.

I think all of these are from this thread, but I might have mistakenly included some from the other as well.

And now we can add the buckling of the walls rather than their exploding, as number 11. Anyone else, feel free to add; I make no claims that I got them all. I just wanted to keep a tally, as 28K has a habit of running from one claim to another.
 

What has "allegations of impropriety at the FBI" got to do with 911?

Yes, that's bad. That *is* the kind of things governments get up to, and it's very, very bad. Hell, the UK has a magazine called "Private Eye" which basically reports on political corruption once a fortnight, and has done for decades...

But it's not the same as them murdering 3,000 of their own citizens...
 

Back
Top Bottom