1. Post #201
    supertribute's Avatar
    March 2012
    1,701 Posts
    this is a joke

    right
    It would appear so.

  2. Post #202
    Governor Goblin's Avatar
    December 2011
    2,782 Posts
    http://motherless.com/74FA2EE Warning, Site itself, is mostly adult content with nudity, etc

    Anyone seen this one? What.
    I always trust poorly made and over-dramatised videos posted on porn sites.

  3. Post #203
    Gold Member
    _jesterk's Avatar
    March 2012
    1,388 Posts
    I always trust poorly made and over-dramatised videos posted on porn sites.
    Were you not literally just banned for posting derailing responses?

  4. Post #204
    Governor Goblin's Avatar
    December 2011
    2,782 Posts
    Were you not literally just banned for posting derailing responses?
    no?

  5. Post #205
    CowInParachute is a virgin
    JethroTheCunt's Avatar
    August 2005
    1,460 Posts
    People who question the motives of the US government as to why they would allow an attack which has increased military spending, thus increasing profits for private companies should take a look at the current war on drugs - cannabis in particular.

    I realise these two situations seem very different, however on inspection could be considered similar.

    currently Cannabis is a schedule 1 drug, which means it has no medicinal benefits. millions is spent on private security, prisons, police and judicial systems to prosecute and detain people who have been caught with the drug. not only is that a lot of money, it is also a lot of american jobs.

    Recently drugs such as Marinol which use Cannabis as a base have been marketed and sold as medicine, with government approval. How can a drug which is classed as schedule 1 which has no medicinal benefits be approved for a pharmaceutical product fit for human consumption.

    Look at who gains from keeping Cannabis illegal; Alcohol and Tobacco industries don't have a main recreational drug in competition with their sales. The big pharma industry - holding a monopoly over the medicinal market, not to mention the fact it could be easily cultivated at home, would loose a substantial amount of money/consumers if a lot of the reports we are hearing about the benefits of cannabis are indeed true.

    So we have a relatively harmless substance, being prohibited under law, whose prohibition is actively generating profits for companies and industries who have large lobbies within the government; Tobacco, Alcohol, big pharma and the justice/prison industries.

    The government has no problem with lying or spreading misinformation in the interest of money and profits, bare in mind many of those in power previously have been affiliated with these companies or know those who are, or go on to join them.

    now substitute the war on Cannabis with 9/11 and the wars that followed, and the industries I mentioned with the private defence and arms contractors who gain a profit from increased military spending.

    Compare the people who died on 9/11 to the people who die every year in cartel and blackmarket violence as a result of the continued prohibition of this drug. by continuing the prohibition, they are creating a self-deprecating criminal underworld that does kill thousands of people, maybe not all of them in America, but certainly in neighbouring countries.

    I do not mean to cause offence with this, I just simply wanted to show that the Government has no qualms about lying to it's country and allow the deaths of innocent people to maintain profits and interests of certain industries.

    Links:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0526083353.htm - report on a study that found no link between lung cancer and Cannabis use

    http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....icleid=1104848 - study that concluded that exposure to cannabis smoke, even over the long-term, is not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function

    I recently wrote a paper at University about the effects of Cannabis on the mental health of users (I am a psychology student), I found a piece of research that showed that the use of Cannabis has gone up substantially in the last 30 years (something like 2000%) however the rate of diagnosis of mood disorders has remained unchanged. unfortunately I cannot find this piece of research in my notes right now but I will continue looking. point being that if Cannabis use did effect mental health we would see a dramatic increase in the number of diagnosis of these disorders (around 2000%?).

    Edited:

    tldr; war on terror a lot like war on drugs - the goal is to generate money for industries.

  6. Post #206
    President of the Westboro Baptist Church Fan Club
    Dennab
    February 2012
    2,084 Posts
    People who question the motives of the US government as to why they would allow an attack which has increased military spending, thus increasing profits for private companies should take a look at the current war on drugs - cannabis in particular.

    I realise these two situations seem very different, however on inspection could be considered similar.

    currently Cannabis is a schedule 1 drug, which means it has no medicinal benefits. millions is spent on private security, prisons, police and judicial systems to prosecute and detain people who have been caught with the drug. not only is that a lot of money, it is also a lot of american jobs.

    Recently drugs such as Marinol which use Cannabis as a base have been marketed and sold as medicine, with government approval. How can a drug which is classed as schedule 1 which has no medicinal benefits be approved for a pharmaceutical product fit for human consumption.

    Look at who gains from keeping Cannabis illegal; Alcohol and Tobacco industries don't have a main recreational drug in competition with their sales. The big pharma industry - holding a monopoly over the medicinal market, not to mention the fact it could be easily cultivated at home, would loose a substantial amount of money/consumers if a lot of the reports we are hearing about the benefits of cannabis are indeed true.

    So we have a relatively harmless substance, being prohibited under law, whose prohibition is actively generating profits for companies and industries who have large lobbies within the government; Tobacco, Alcohol, big pharma and the justice/prison industries.

    The government has no problem with lying or spreading misinformation in the interest of money and profits, bare in mind many of those in power previously have been affiliated with these companies or know those who are, or go on to join them.

    now substitute the war on Cannabis with 9/11 and the wars that followed, and the industries I mentioned with the private defence and arms contractors who gain a profit from increased military spending.

    Compare the people who died on 9/11 to the people who die every year in cartel and blackmarket violence as a result of the continued prohibition of this drug. by continuing the prohibition, they are creating a self-deprecating criminal underworld that does kill thousands of people, maybe not all of them in America, but certainly in neighbouring countries.

    I do not mean to cause offence with this, I just simply wanted to show that the Government has no qualms about lying to it's country and allow the deaths of innocent people to maintain profits and interests of certain industries.

    Links:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0526083353.htm - report on a study that found no link between lung cancer and Cannabis use

    http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....icleid=1104848 - study that concluded that exposure to cannabis smoke, even over the long-term, is not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function

    I recently wrote a paper at University about the effects of Cannabis on the mental health of users (I am a psychology student), I found a piece of research that showed that the use of Cannabis has gone up substantially in the last 30 years (something like 2000%) however the rate of diagnosis of mood disorders has remained unchanged. unfortunately I cannot find this piece of research in my notes right now but I will continue looking. point being that if Cannabis use did effect mental health we would see a dramatic increase in the number of diagnosis of these disorders (around 2000%?).

    Edited:

    tldr; war on terror a lot like war on drugs - the goal is to generate money for industries.
    So in order to create such a war, the U.S. government destroys two important buildings in the middle of New York and then invades a totally unrelated nation.

  7. Post #207
    CowInParachute is a virgin
    JethroTheCunt's Avatar
    August 2005
    1,460 Posts
    I don't want to get involved with the ins and outs of conspiracy theories, I am merely showing that the government lies to it's people at the cost of lives and with industries making a lot of money from these lies.

    Personally I am unsure in my opinions on what happened, I do however trust science


    This is a very informative video which uses the scientific approach and makes up for many of the holes in the official reports.

    I'm not saying it was the government, I'm not saying it wasn't terrorists, I'm saying that I don't believe the public has been told the whole truth.

  8. Post #208
    President of the Westboro Baptist Church Fan Club
    Dennab
    February 2012
    2,084 Posts
    I don't want to get involved with the ins and outs of conspiracy theories, I am merely showing that the government lies to it's people at the cost of lives and with industries making a lot of money from these lies.

    Personally I am unsure in my opinions on what happened, I do however trust science


    This is a very informative video which uses the scientific approach and makes up for many of the holes in the official reports.

    I'm not saying it was the government, I'm not saying it wasn't terrorists, I'm saying that I don't believe the public has been told the whole truth.
    Why do you believe the public has not been told the whole truth? Why mention that "the government lies to people" if it is irrelevant to the conspiracy theory being discussed? That's off topic.

  9. Post #209
    MAGIC MISSILE
    WizardKing's Avatar
    June 2012
    77 Posts
    Some Middle Eastern dudes decided to blow up the twin towers, when they were actually contracted by the US to make it look like a terrorist attack in order to spread terrorism propaganda. They blew up there own towers, to give themselves and the people a reason to go to invade Iraq. With the hope that they'd find the so called evil doers who blew up there precious towers. The main reason they did it was to get oil. Blah Blah Blah conspiracy theories later, USA #1.

  10. Post #210
    N-12_Aden's Avatar
    April 2011
    2,769 Posts
    Some Middle Eastern dudes decided to blow up the twin towers, when they were actually contracted by the US to make it look like a terrorist attack in order to spread terrorism propaganda. They blew up there own towers, to give themselves and the people a reason to go to invade Iraq. With the hope that they'd find the so called evil doers who blew up there precious towers. The main reason they did it was to get oil. Blah Blah Blah conspiracy theories later, USA #1.
    Oh here we bloody go again.

    Do you have a shred of proof or you just another one of the dumb saps that buy into insane theories without question? But yeah USA is the evil empire hahaha. Yes that is a fake laugh you jerk.

  11. Post #211
    Governor Goblin's Avatar
    December 2011
    2,782 Posts
    People who question the motives of the US government as to why they would allow an attack which has increased military spending, thus increasing profits for private companies should take a look at the current war on drugs - cannabis in particular.

    I realise these two situations seem very different, however on inspection could be considered similar.

    currently Cannabis is a schedule 1 drug, which means it has no medicinal benefits. millions is spent on private security, prisons, police and judicial systems to prosecute and detain people who have been caught with the drug. not only is that a lot of money, it is also a lot of american jobs.

    Recently drugs such as Marinol which use Cannabis as a base have been marketed and sold as medicine, with government approval. How can a drug which is classed as schedule 1 which has no medicinal benefits be approved for a pharmaceutical product fit for human consumption.

    Look at who gains from keeping Cannabis illegal; Alcohol and Tobacco industries don't have a main recreational drug in competition with their sales. The big pharma industry - holding a monopoly over the medicinal market, not to mention the fact it could be easily cultivated at home, would loose a substantial amount of money/consumers if a lot of the reports we are hearing about the benefits of cannabis are indeed true.

    So we have a relatively harmless substance, being prohibited under law, whose prohibition is actively generating profits for companies and industries who have large lobbies within the government; Tobacco, Alcohol, big pharma and the justice/prison industries.

    The government has no problem with lying or spreading misinformation in the interest of money and profits, bare in mind many of those in power previously have been affiliated with these companies or know those who are, or go on to join them.

    now substitute the war on Cannabis with 9/11 and the wars that followed, and the industries I mentioned with the private defence and arms contractors who gain a profit from increased military spending.

    Compare the people who died on 9/11 to the people who die every year in cartel and blackmarket violence as a result of the continued prohibition of this drug. by continuing the prohibition, they are creating a self-deprecating criminal underworld that does kill thousands of people, maybe not all of them in America, but certainly in neighbouring countries.

    I do not mean to cause offence with this, I just simply wanted to show that the Government has no qualms about lying to it's country and allow the deaths of innocent people to maintain profits and interests of certain industries.

    Links:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0526083353.htm - report on a study that found no link between lung cancer and Cannabis use

    http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....icleid=1104848 - study that concluded that exposure to cannabis smoke, even over the long-term, is not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function

    I recently wrote a paper at University about the effects of Cannabis on the mental health of users (I am a psychology student), I found a piece of research that showed that the use of Cannabis has gone up substantially in the last 30 years (something like 2000%) however the rate of diagnosis of mood disorders has remained unchanged. unfortunately I cannot find this piece of research in my notes right now but I will continue looking. point being that if Cannabis use did effect mental health we would see a dramatic increase in the number of diagnosis of these disorders (around 2000%?).

    Edited:

    tldr; war on terror a lot like war on drugs - the goal is to generate money for industries.
    Both of those are miles apart.

    Edited:

    I don't want to get involved with the ins and outs of conspiracy theories, I am merely showing that the government lies to it's people at the cost of lives and with industries making a lot of money from these lies.

    Personally I am unsure in my opinions on what happened, I do however trust science


    This is a very informative video which uses the scientific approach and makes up for many of the holes in the official reports.

    I'm not saying it was the government, I'm not saying it wasn't terrorists, I'm saying that I don't believe the public has been told the whole truth.
    Architects for 9/11 truth use their 'science' through viewing videos and shit, I doubt the legitimacy of that when actual scientists like popular mechanics actually test their theories and provide real facts for them

    There are absolutely no holes in any of the official reports. If there are, the government investigated and closed them.

    Edited:

    Oh here we bloody go again.

    Do you have a shred of proof or you just another one of the dumb saps that buy into insane theories without question? But yeah USA is the evil empire hahaha. Yes that is a fake laugh you jerk.
    They say missing sarcasm is the sign of brain damage.

  12. Post #212
    N-12_Aden's Avatar
    April 2011
    2,769 Posts
    I can't even tell sarcasm sometimes if its about topics like this. Because dumber things have been said seriously.

  13. Post #213
    Gold Member
    Sgt Doom's Avatar
    March 2005
    19,840 Posts
    AE911Truth has been shown multiple times (at least 5 years ago) to be a bunch of ignorant fuckwits not qualified to build a shed, let alone know anything about skyscraper construction. They pad out their signature list with people like "landscape architects" i.e. gardeners.

    For once could we have a 9/11 thread that doesn't exhume ancient conspiracy theorist "evidence"? Most of this stuff was debunked 5-6 years ago.

  14. Post #214
    Lord_Ragnarok's Avatar
    July 2009
    2,096 Posts
    If they did it to invade Iraq, they should've pinned it on Iraq, rather than Osama Bin Laden. That's where the whole conspiracy theory completely falls apart.

  15. Post #215
    Gold Member
    Disotrtion's Avatar
    February 2012
    2,382 Posts
    Let's pretend for the sake of argument that the U.S. gov did somehow stage 9/11 (it did not). Do you know how many countries would love to call the US gov out and cause major uproar back here? Russia is a prime example, if 9/11 was a conspiracy Russia would acquire incriminating intel and expose the US gov.
    It would be a major win for Russia, and a blow to US gov's legitimacy.
    But I doubt conspiracy theorist ever think logically like this.

  16. Post #216
    Not that bad of a seed
    asteroidrules's Avatar
    January 2011
    10,445 Posts
    I can't even tell sarcasm sometimes if its about topics like this. Because dumber things have been said seriously.
    When dealing with a subject like the 9/11 "truth" movement, use this rule of thumb: the more idiotic the statement is, the more likely the person speaking believes it.

  17. Post #217
    Dennab
    May 2012
    338 Posts
    Lets disregard the twin towers and take a look at WTC building 7. I will provide for you a clip of its collapse.
    Now I'm sorry to tell you this, but no building ever collapses this way due to fire damage. When a building collapses due to fire damage is topples the fuck over, not collapses in on itself. Prove me wrong by showing me a building collapsing in on itself due to fire damage. (hint: you cant)

    This argument is disregarding the mountain of other evidence including the huge spike in put orders made on businesses effected by 911 one day before.

  18. Post #218
    I ROLL THE NICKELS
    CodeMonkey3's Avatar
    October 2008
    17,853 Posts
    Lets disregard the twin towers and take a look at WTC building 7. I will provide for you a clip of its collapse.
    Now I'm sorry to tell you this, but no building ever collapses this way due to fire damage. When a building collapses due to fire damage is topples the fuck over, not collapses in on itself. Prove me wrong by showing me a building collapsing in on itself due to fire damage. (hint: you cant)

    This argument is disregarding the mountain of other evidence including the huge spike in put orders made on businesses effected by 911 one day before.
    Oh god it's this post again.

    For a second I thought I was reading the same dozen posts and the answers relating to them from the previous six pages.

    Maybe we should actually read the thread.

  19. Post #219
    Dennab
    May 2012
    338 Posts
    Oh god it's this post again.

    For a second I thought I was reading the same dozen posts and the answers relating to them from the previous six pages.

    Maybe we should actually read the thread.
    No building will ever fall that way due to fire damage.

    Edited:

    Quit kidding yourself. I know you want to believe what you've been told, I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but you've been lied to.

    No building ever collapses that way due to fire damage.

    Edited:

    Never in history and you will not be able to provide me with an similar incident because I am right. I know because I've already looked. Do you think we want to believe in this shit? We'd really like to believe that our pal the government is always looking out (we really would, i promise we tried) for us but man, the evidence is overwhelming.

  20. Post #220
    Craig Willmore's Avatar
    February 2011
    1,416 Posts
    When a building collapses due to fire damage is topples the fuck over, not collapses in on itself.
    [citation needed]

    "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom approximately 10 stories about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

    "...trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities. "

    "... a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7...the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. "

    "WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors along with the building's unusual construction were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse."
    Prove me wrong by showing me a building collapsing in on itself due to fire damage
    Sure will, just as soon as you show me another building that did not collapse after the exact same circumstances occurred. Should be fairly simple since you claim no similar building in history has collapsed in that manner do to fire.


    1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high

    2) Which takes up a whole city block

    3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design

    4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)

    5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage resulting in a 20 floor gash from debris.

    6) And weakened by fire that was not fought for over 6-7 hours

    7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.

  21. Post #221

  22. Post #222
    Not that bad of a seed
    asteroidrules's Avatar
    January 2011
    10,445 Posts
    And what does that have to do with this? He said you have no proof a building can't collapse the way WTC 7 did.

  23. Post #223
    OvB
    Facepunch resident scientist
    OvB's Avatar
    March 2007
    12,753 Posts
    No building will ever fall that way due to fire damage.
    You're right. No building has fallen from fire damage.


    Edited:

    But WTC 7 didn't fall because of fire damage, alone. It fell because a large part of it's unusual structural skeleton was scooped out by large debris, along with propane fueled fire. It probably would've collapsed without the fire, anyway.

  24. Post #224
    Dennab
    May 2012
    338 Posts
    It still imploded in on itself.

  25. Post #225
    Not that bad of a seed
    asteroidrules's Avatar
    January 2011
    10,445 Posts
    It still imploded in on itself.
    Again: what does that have to do with it? We've made it perfectly clear why what happened happened, and you just keep repeating that for no apparent reason. Can you come up with anything else or am I just talking to a bot?

  26. Post #226
    Dennab
    May 2012
    338 Posts
    Again: what does that have to do with it?
    Uncontrolled demolitions don't implode on themselves.

  27. Post #227
    OvB
    Facepunch resident scientist
    OvB's Avatar
    March 2007
    12,753 Posts
    It still imploded in on itself.
    The main structural columns gave out. Causing the whole building to fall in on itself. This isn't a cartoon. In real life buildings are not 100% solid static structures. If a structural beam falls then everything else falls with it. It's the same way the other WTC towers fell. You can even see in the videos of it collapsing that the middle of the building starts to fall first. This is because the columns that failed were in the middle of the building, and due to the fact that they were holding everything else up, the rest of the structure came down with it.

    If you still don't believe me, go to your house or apartment building and take an axe to the load-baring wall and tell me what happens.

  28. Post #228
    Not that bad of a seed
    asteroidrules's Avatar
    January 2011
    10,445 Posts
    Uncontrolled demolitions don't implode on themselves.
    Yes they do, they can, and they have. Just because controlled demolitions cause implosions doesn't mean that that's the only way to cause one.

  29. Post #229
    Dennab
    May 2012
    338 Posts
    If you still don't believe me, go to your house or apartment building and take an axe to the load-baring wall and tell me what happens.
    1/3rd of my house collapsed.

    Yes they do, they can, and they have.
    [Citation Needed]

  30. Post #230
    OvB
    Facepunch resident scientist
    OvB's Avatar
    March 2007
    12,753 Posts
    A good example would be this wooden stick thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...2eIoVDQ#t=105s

    After sustaining enough structural damage, it collapses in on itself, with a slight lean toward the point where it was hit. Similar to the WTC buildings.

    Edited:


    [Citation Needed]

  31. Post #231
    Craig Willmore's Avatar
    February 2011
    1,416 Posts
    It's funny because a.) you didn't properly cite a source, and b.) you completely ignored my post.

    If you aren't even going to attempt to debate properly, I'm going to just disregard what you type.

  32. Post #232
    OvB
    Facepunch resident scientist
    OvB's Avatar
    March 2007
    12,753 Posts
    Also, there's this building:
    Although only a section collapsed. The building was not of the same proportions or construction as the steel buildings of the WTC. The physics behind it is not the same, but that building did collapse in on itself on its own.

  33. Post #233
    Dennab
    May 2012
    338 Posts
    Also, there's this building:
    Although only a section collapsed. The building was not of the same proportions or construction as the steel buildings of the WTC. The physics behind it is not the same, but that building did collapse in on itself on its own.
    Now that is what WTC7 should've looked like.

    If you aren't even going to attempt to debate properly, I'm going to just disregard what you type.
    And nothing of value was lost.

  34. Post #234
    OvB
    Facepunch resident scientist
    OvB's Avatar
    March 2007
    12,753 Posts
    Now that is what WTC7 should've looked like.
    But WTC 7 was not a piece of shit concrete building, but a steel frame building being held up by 3 main load-baring columns. One of them was completely destroyed, putting the weight on the other two, which were under constant flame, which anyone with an elementary science knowledge knows weakens metal (something "truthers" don't seem to understand) The buildings entire structural integrity was gone. There was literally nothing holding it up.

  35. Post #235
    Dennab
    May 2012
    338 Posts
    But WTC 7 was not a piece of shit concrete building, but a steel frame building being held up by 3 main load-baring columns. One of them was completely destroyed, putting the weight on the other two, which were under constant flame, which anyone with an elementary science knowledge knows weakens metal (something "truthers" don't seem to understand) The buildings entire structural integrity was gone. There was literally nothing holding it up.
    Its collapse would be it disintegrating over the course of a minute, not it plummeting down in 6 seconds.

  36. Post #236
    OvB
    Facepunch resident scientist
    OvB's Avatar
    March 2007
    12,753 Posts
    Its collapse would be it disintegrating over the course of a minute, not it plummeting down in 6 seconds.
    Nope. That's not how it works. Unless you want to find proof that you can remove all the load baring supports from a steel building, and have it take a minute to fall. Not to mention the rest of the structure was also weakened from fire in a similar way. Building collapses are a chain reaction. Even in controlled demos they only put charges on select load baring beams. The rest is physics. It's just instead of demo charges you had debris taking out one column and fire causing a fatal blow to the other two columns strength.

    Then there's the fact that it was sitting there in this condition for 7 hours In reality it took 7 hours to collapse. It's only when those two remaining beams finally cave in on the heat and pressure that the building comes down.

  37. Post #237
    Governor Goblin's Avatar
    December 2011
    2,782 Posts
    Okay, so the three weight load column system in the WTC7 building is already weak and unusual, then is carved out making it even more weak and is heavily on fire for most of the day, then the interior collapses due to it and the shell comes after evident by the fact that the first thing to fall in the video posted was the penthouses.

    Oh but that looks unnatural because Fenderson tells us so.

  38. Post #238
    Not that bad of a seed
    asteroidrules's Avatar
    January 2011
    10,445 Posts
    Its collapse would be it disintegrating over the course of a minute, not it plummeting down in 6 seconds.
    There are few more idiotic things a truther can say than that. It did not "plummet down in 6 seconds", find the actual footage of what happened, truthers only show the last six seconds because it makes it look like what they say it is, when you see the whole thing you realize it's not. Not only do those final six seconds not cover the seven hours of out-of-control fires and falling debris striking the building, but the actual collapse begins quite some time before.

    Edited:


    Here's a decent video of it, it was made before the official investigation was concluded so some of the information (like the source of the fires) is incorrect, but the footage is genuine.
    By the firefighters' statements the actual collapse took over an hour, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is approximately 59 minutes 54 seconds longer than six seconds.

    And why does it seem that absolutely every video having to do with 9/11 is from the 80s-90s, I get that this stuff was recorded 11 years ago, but that video was edited together in 07.

  39. Post #239
    Gold Member
    Sgt Doom's Avatar
    March 2005
    19,840 Posts
    Lets disregard the twin towers and take a look at WTC building 7. I will provide for you a clip of its collapse.
    Now I'm sorry to tell you this, but no building ever collapses this way due to fire damage. When a building collapses due to fire damage is topples the fuck over, not collapses in on itself. Prove me wrong by showing me a building collapsing in on itself due to fire damage. (hint: you cant)

    This argument is disregarding the mountain of other evidence including the huge spike in put orders made on businesses effected by 911 one day before.
    I've got a better video.


  40. Post #240
    President of the Westboro Baptist Church Fan Club
    Dennab
    February 2012
    2,084 Posts
    Fenderson give proof that it was a controlled demolition.