BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Top Ten Photos 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts Hate
- Thread starter BenBurch
- Start date
OK lets have some fun debating these photos.
First off do you have the sources for the phoots?
1. The wheel in that photo is used on other planes besides and 757. No official reports match wheel found to the plane.
2. Debris did hit building 7 but several other buildings as well. Funny though how building 7 was the only one to collapse due to debris and fire.
3. See above.
4 and 5. See above.
6. Not much of a plume for a fire and explosion that supposidly destroyed the plane and thorugh an engine core several hundred yards away.
7. Do we have a official report that matches the seatbelt to the plane?
8. Too bad firemen in the building reported only small fires.
9. Thermite could have been produced by the plane.
10. To bad the pieces still hit a lot faster thenb they should have.
You are going to debate your delusions? Good for you; next time bring facts.
LOL, you are so funny as you have no sources for any of your failed ideas. Just for the record, what are phoots?
OOPS FAILURE; this is the exact wheel from 77 and there is no way you can prove otherwise in this life or your delusional life.
Funny how fire destroys buildings. You got this one right.
Here is where physics would come in handy. 93 was destroyed by KE of the impact; if you had physics you could give us the KE of the impact but you deal with lies and hearsay and avoid math and physics. The smoke is just like other impacts and fires.
Not the engine core, a part of a fan from the engine. But with the KE in the impact almost anything could have been ejected at impact for hundreds of yards. Sorry you forgot to use physics when you formed your paranoid delusions on 911.
Smoke from 911 and other crashes with jet fuel.
LOL, you and your reports; now you will deny the DNA too so your disrespect matches your ignorance on aircraft accident investigation. Pure denial. Great.
Wow, more denial. Large office fires are now small fires as all you offer is cherry-picked tripe and lies; no sources. Good for you talk is cheap. What a great analyst you must be with pure lies and fantasy.
Right; good one.
Please show your physics on this one with sources. All you do is talk and spew junk science. You never source your tripe. Great analyst at the NSA prove again he is not an analyst.
If this is the best you can do as an anaylist we are proud to have you as an NSA agent working to eves drop and cherrypick for the USA. Bravo super-thermite-911Truth guy.
Last edited:
Panoply_Prefect
Graduate Poster
Just a short question here, and Im not sure if I'm correct or not, but wasn't WTC7 the only building apart from WTC1&2 that was a skycraper? Eg, had a smaller base than hight.
Without sources for the photos then they are not good evidence.
BABY STEPS, one at a time.
Show me the reports that this is the wheel from AA77.
Being a skyscraper does not just mean that it will collapse and other buildings will not.
1337m4n
Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 3,510
What do you mean "thenb"? Please provide calculations showing how fast they "should have" hit.
But not a full collapse like 1,2 and 7.
Panoply_Prefect
Graduate Poster
Actually it does mean that a non-scraper would collapse in a different manner. Which for instance happened to WTC6 (pic removed and linked, due to size)
But 1,2 and 7 were the only buildings to completly collapse.
Buidlings 1, 2 and 7 were the only steel skyscrapers to collapse from fire even though other steel skyscrapers have had longer lasting fires and as much or more structural damage.
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
Wrong. St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church and WTC 3 were also destroyed that day.
Did they collapse form the debris and fire and how long after the towers went down?
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
And most of these examples involved fires which were more accessible to fire fighting measures than in any one of the three towers. All of which had entirely different structural designs, and some of which were reinforced concrete which is a completely different ball game. Your poooiiint?
You mean to say that there are other examples of skyscrapers having been hit by large commercial jetliners, 80+ stories above street level rendering most standard fire protection mechanisms useless and were built in the same manner as these? You mean to say there are other structures which had a nearby collapse of an even larger building which not only struck it, but also rendered the water supply from the city mains useless for fire suppression? And ignited uncontrolled fires on multiple floors and acting on a similar structural frame?
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
Videos do a fair job also at putting kinks in the claims that the dust and debris was being blow UP and out from the towers
As an analyst at the NSA you can figure out the wheel is from 77. If you have evidence is it not from 77 then please present it. But your lies and talk are not evidence. They are just talk. You talk delusions and have never presented facts and evidence.
Never have you supported your lies with facts to make them reality.
Point is they were steel skyscrapers like buildings 1 and 2.
No jetliner hit buidling 7. And yes there has been jets hitting other buildings.
Last edited:
Pleas show me the report that states the wheel is from AA77.
Or it will prove that you are the one that has never supported his lies with facts.
Last edited: