911 Truth on C-SPAN tonight!

Ya know what tommy? As much as I love destroying you and your posts, this is really getting sad? oh well, here goes again. If my house is ?destroyed? by fire, does that mean that it?s completely destroyed? Does that mean it?s collapsed? Guess what buddy? IT DOESN?T! There are plenty of houses destroyed by fire that are still standing. Guess what the difference between that context of ?destroy? and my context of destroyed was little friend? Building #7 was UTTERLY destroyed by fire, as in IT COLLAPSED. If you had posted a link or a story about a modern STEEL SKYSCRAPER falling to fire, I would have clapped for you? instead you posted about the Madrid skyscraper lmao? And guess what my dearest cum guzzler:

The Madrid skyscraper did NOT collapse. Even after burning for almost THIRTY FUCKING HOURS it DID NOT COLLAPSE. Building #7 fell after *just* seven hours. That is the difference tom tom. Building #7 Collapsed. Madrid Skyscraper DID NOT FALL. My dearest tom, what don't you get about NO MODERN SKYSCRAPER IN HISTORY HAS COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE. None. Zip. Nada. So buddy, PLEASE stop making yourself look like a fool. I really do love tearing you apart here but you are just looking sillier and sillier from all the stupid shit you get wrong.

Building #7 and the Twin WTC towers have been the *only* skyscrapers in HISTORY to fall to flames. The Madrid building, need I remind you again, still STOOD after 26 hours of burning. IT DID NOT FALL you stupid fucking CUNT. Destroyed in the context I?ve been using which I?ve stated FROM THE BEGINNING of our little talks is defined by Building #7 COLLAPSING to the ground in the same manor that the WTC twins did.

To be honest you are really starting to bore me with your drivel. You post on here faulty analogy after analogy, claim after claim and each time I shoot you down and you keep pulling shit out of thin air. There are *no*, I repeat, NO modern skyscrapers in history that have fell to fire. None. You lied and tried to say that the Madrid tower suffered the same fate as Building #7. You made an entire post about it for Jesus fucking sake. After I shot you down you retort to saying something like ?lol destroyed is destroyed LOL?. You are so moronic that it?s not even funny any more little buddy. But I digress.

Simply put tom tom, YOU ARE WRONG. You posted false information, and you are a liar. The Madrid building STILL STOOD STRONG after THIRTY HOURS of BURNING. You sir are a moron, a liar, and you really should be applying for a job at the Bush Administration: They need more assclowns like you to cover for their ass.


Yes, the building was intact and standing. I guess due to your reading disorder you missed what I posted seven thousand times in our last little bout. Here ya go again you stupid faggot and if I were you I would really read it. It?s even bold for fuck sake.

"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

Twenty-Six hours later that building was still standing strong. Guess that Madrid building was made out of some kinda of futuristic alien material eh? Oh wait steel? Just like the rest of the skyscrapers that have caught on fire and yet none until 9-11 fell due to fire? JESUS CHRIST ALERT THE INTERNETS.


That is correct, modern skyscrapers cannot collapse due to fire alone. Thanks for pointing out your own stupidity there buddy, saves me some typing.

"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095


I guess you missed this again:

"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095


No, I?ve said since the beginning no modern skyscraper has fell due to fire alone. The one in Madrid was NOT destroyed by fire. Here ya go Bush Buddy, just in case you missed it one last time:

"Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. "
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

You don't have to be a nut to question the assumed truth or anything else for that matter. I simply asked why conspiracy nuts get very abusive when you challenge them. But it does not follow that I think everyone who questions 9/11 is a conspiracy nut.

I for example have been doing some digging on the death of David Kelly (a British weapons inspector) who leaked against the British Govenment on the build up to the Iraq war was found out and committed 'suicide'. Things do not add up for me on this case. This I guess would make me a conspiracy theorist in some peoples eyes! lol

man im reading this thread over

i know whats up...course i have always been ahead of the curve

Yes if you have a theory for "a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act" ie. kill David Kelly and put it out as a suicide, then technically you are a conspiracy theorist. So what now? Are the conspiracy theorists seekers for the truth or just the false image that the illuminati-controlled media created about them by making many them look redicilious and what not, so no one believes them.

And that my friends is why they call us crazy.

No it means your house is destroyed ie 'spoiled, ruined or demolished'. You stated on more than one occasion that modern skyscrapers cannot be destroyed by fire. The Madrid building was destroyed by fire. That is indisputible.

But I do now see you have shifted your argument from 'destroyed' to 'collapsed' so can I now assume you agree that a modern skyscraper can be destroyed by fire?

The ENTIRE CONTEXT in which I have been talking about skyscrapers being DESTROYED has been based on the SKYSCRAPER utterly destroyed, i.e., have been being COLLAPSED. Reread (lol? yeah right, you?ll just post something about magic again) pages 1-5 and let's see you try to weasel your way out of this shit you stupid fucking fucker. And NO a modern skyscraper, using the word destroy(ed) the same way I?ve been using it the last fucking five pages, can NOT be destroyed by fire you fucking moron.

Yes I agree that a skyscraper can be destroyed by fire like this burning 29 hours:



and not like this after burning just less than 2 hours:

I repeat can a modern skyscraper be destroyed by fire? To destroy means 'spoil, ruin or demolish'. Your understanding or grasp of English is not my concern or responsibility.

We have a winner!

Comparison of the two events is in fact meaningless. Madrid sheds no light either way on what happened to Building 7 or the twin towers as the height/design/construction of the building and the event trauma were different in each case.

Goodnight

Nice faggot, real nice. In the English vernacular destroy can be used to mean many things; from slight damage to full blown world war II style events such entire countries getting DESTROYED left and right, and it's even used as slang when referring to killing someone. "I am going to destroy you!". Though someone as smart as yourself should know this right? =) The context I am using is from dictionary.com, and is as follows:
To ruin completely

That's right, I meant destroy as to completely and UTTERLY be fucking DESTROYED. Not a little tiny itsy bit or even a whole lot -- I meant it as UTTER DESTRUCTION WHICH LED TO THE COLLAPSE OF THE BUILDING. Again, if you think otherwise re-read pages 1-5 and get back to me sometime later tonight pal. Anyways, I think we've cleared this up my dear cum guzzler. It seems you are the one that can't quite comprehend the complexity of the English language. =(

LMAO. So you are honestly going to say that comparing the two skyscrapers means nothing? Then why did you bring it up in the first place? I'll explain it to you if you don't understand it yourself:

Let's see... you brought it up because you somehow thought it would magically prove that a skyscraper could be demolished completely from fire alone. Instead of double checking, you were so sure that this was your "magic bullet" and you went ahead and decided to foolishly make an entire post dedicated to the Madrid building. When I point out to you that the Madrid building never collapsed, unlike Building #7, you went on to say "Uh huh, it did TOO get destroyed tee-hee! See the fire damage! Tee-hee!". When I pointed out that the entire time I have been referring to modern skyscrapers and being destroyed is using destroy in such a context to mean total COLLAPSE of the building. In fact, if you care to actually re-read pages 1-5 you?ll see that I clearly state modern skyscraper + collapse about fifty some-odd times BEFORE you stupidly brought Madrid into the mix.

Instead of accepting your wrongs, you instead have to keep on posting more and more bullshit and in doing so you keep digging yourself deeper into a hole. That hole is kinda huge now wouldn't you say? I bet it's so big that not even O?Reilly could lie himself out of. I really enjoyed our little debate though to be honest it really wasn?t much of a debate with you lying and spewing out false analogy after false analogy. But it was fun regardless! If you care to continue please bring up some other useless lie so we can have fun with that tomorrow

Well - Im sure some civil engineers will disagree with this - but - NIST(the US government testing labs) did some studies and tests on the stuctural steel from the towers and found that they had only been exposed to a temperature that would be expected from a jet fuel fire of that type - which generally burns at less than 500 deg F - the fuel fire lasted approximately 10 minutes before it was all used up based on the colors of smoke from the building - then the furniture and office supplies as well as wall board took over and would have burned at the temperature of a normal house fire - again - way lower than the temperatures need to deform steel

More importantly is that the firefighters were able to reach the stairway door outside the primary impact floor (they were all killed just as they were going in to put out the remaining fire due to the collapse) - which if a fire inside the door was burning anywhere near the melting point of steel - would have vaporized the firefighters and their hoses - which just didnt happen. The construction of those doors was not steel and no firefighter in his right mind makes the decision to enter a room that is burning above 500 degrees - let alone 1500 degrees - and they would have radioed that to the command center if they encountered those temps - but they didnt - they radioed they were entering the floor to fight the leftover fires

Why the hell is this thread still going on? It was already PROVEN earlier on (read the entire thread, people) that building #7 was intentionally brought down with explosives. This is all public information... geezus.

Oh and don't forget the conspiracy theorists will sell tons of books and tapes/CDs that they would not have sold before.
Add to that all the face time they would not get otherwise.

next will be the tipo ( oups, I meant typo ) ....

.. like Ann Coulter

( happy 9/11 money grabbing widows ) ....

I recorded this CSPAN thing, I gotta say, they gave great VERBAL EXPLINATIONS, but seriously lacked in the multimedia department.

It was boring to watch, if theyre serious about getting people interested its gonna need to be presented to the public in a better, more eye-catching way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_YzbODb9To

Find out the truth about 911 tonight at 5:00 CST on C-SPAN. Also, you can watch it now at http://cspan.org.

damn i missed it

You can view it now at cspan.org and they are re-airing it tonight on cspan

While all this discussion of collapsing buildings is interesting, it is all a diversion from much more compelling evidence and core reasons for 911. To understand the how and why of 911, read this excellent 700-page bestseller. Only the government's Ommission and Distortion report on 911 sold more copies:



Buy it here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/086...423146?ie=UTF8

The needs of many out way the needs of a few.
To kill 3000 of your own to benfit billions is a acceptable trade off for big goverment.

it is the current state of thought for sure...something that needs to be changed

see Star trek: search for SPock to see what i mean ;)

Hitler used to blow shit up, oganize rallies and Kill people all in the name of the jews to insite anti jew sentiment.

It's nothing new, Castro has done it to his own people. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book. Do I beleive that Bush pulled this off. No.
I don't think we conspired to destroy our own buildings which led to one of the worst recessions financially for the US.

i am sure their original plan was to get will farrel to give the presentations... he probably just didn't show up..

its CSPAN... not MTV.

Neither do I. Bush did not do it. He was simply one small player amongst a few hundred elitists that cut across the administration, intel agencies and private think tanks, often referred to as a "shadow government". They are the real power and have been running things for decades, responsible for such things as the Iran-Contra scandal, drug running, and black operations too numerous to mention. The president is nothing more than a figurehead and puppet for the puppet masters.

If you want something more visually interesting AND even more informative, then check out Alex Jones' newest and most kick-ass documentary, now online on Google Video:

TERROR STORM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...&q=terrorstorm

this is a better link, the other one does not work.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...&q=terrorstorm

This is who created 9/11

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/

All about big bizz. Don't give me a smart reply till you watch this. Last I checked PBS and Frontline was a credible source of information.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=cspan+911

Is it the Alex Jones one posted July 8th... or a different one?

last i checked, PBS was primarily funded by oil companies

Thats what this is all about : )
Old money and a disapearing resource.

it is the same one:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...46892514662399

Mayby....BUT:

The towers were struck by hijacked Boeing 767 jet planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175. A typical Boeing 767 is 180 feet (55 m) long and has a wingspan of 156 feet (48 m), with a capacity of up to 24,000 US gallons (91 m³) of jet fuel. The planes hit the towers at very high speeds. Flight 11 was traveling roughly 490 mph (790 km/h) when it crashed into the 1 WTC, the north tower; flight 175 hit 2 WTC, the south tower, at about 590 mph (950 km/h).

buildings had in fact been designed to withstand the impact of the largest airliner of the day, the Boeing 707-320, lost in fog while looking to land. The modeled aircraft weighed 263,000 lb (119 metric tons) with a flight speed of 180 mph (290 km/h), as in approach and landing.[2]The 767s that hit the towers had a kinetic energy more than seven times greater than the modeled impact. Nonetheless, the impacts alone did not cause the towers to collapse.

And here's a link to all of you who think that Bush had anything to do with this.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...93973848835726

i think this video says it all, i have not read this thread.

Hopefully you have checked the Viewers Guide also to that video, cause that video says nothing.

to all americains here.....please watch loose change on google video and if you can give me all the answers to all those open questions, then but only then i'll give up the idea that your goverment had something to do with it

watch also the latest movie with george clooney and matt damion, sorry forgot the title, but very interessting

You're wasting your time.. if it's more than a 2 minute clip or not a new blowjob trailer very few will watch it.
People are basically lazy and would rather just accept the 'official report' as being just that and not bother thinking beyond it..

Example: wtc7's owner stated (the video is out there) that they decided to pull the bldg. .. within a few hours of the attack because of the damage.. My how fast the demo team was to do weeks worth of work in a few hours..
bldg. 7 was several times stronger than the others due to what it held, yet it was supposedly extensively damaged by a few fires..
Buildings much closer that were hit by the falling towers had lots of damage and fires, but were fine..

Bldg. 7 fell due to a controlled demolition, the 2 towers fell in the exact same manner, yet people won't even bother to ask how that could be.
They just choose to go with the jet fuel (most of which exploded outside the buildings) melting the steel which caused both buildings to fall straight down into nice neat piles.. It's never happend before.. yet two side by side fall in identical manners..
Choosing to say coincidence relieves people from having to actually use any thought process..

The same folks that produced this official report also officially reported, "They have weapons of mass destruction and we know where they are."

We're being blatantly lied to and people just toss it under the rug and go on with their sheltered little lives because they can't be inconvenienced by something if it isn't happening in their own back yard..

And for those who bitch about this thread still going.. why are you wasting such precious time to come here to do so?
Much easier to scroll an extra inch so you can read about yayhoo stickin' his finger up his ass..

First, my personal view is that the U.S. government did NOT directly carry out the 911 attacks, BUT many officials were aware that something "big" was likely to happen in NYC ...

And more to the point, the U.S. government went out of its way to take advantage of the situation to further restrict freedoms; there are reports that indicate the Bush administration prior to 911 was seeking to use (in other words hoping for) some major disaster to push through more laws / restrictions.

Tried travelling lately on a commercial flight ... can't even bring a bottle of water on board ... it's crazy!

To digress a bit, I'm thinking of building a new website all about how "security sucks" ... it will be named, you guessed it, SecuritySucks.com ... still under development, and only an idea at this point, but could be a real winner, since many people want to vent about the flaws / absurdity of "security" in general; probably be a great venue for marketing security products, etc ... anyways, I'm brainstorming out loud.

Getting back to 911 ... if anyone here has a website about 911 tapes (many more were just released the other day), email me ... I have 911Tapes.com that I'm looking to develop or sell...

If interested, please contact me via PM at Domagon ( http://forums.domagon.com ) or email me at [email protected]

Ron

p.s. some say building #7 was blown up, etc because it fell so fast ... a more realistic possibility is that it was built like crap - keep in mind that in the main twin towers, the designers specified "drywall" instead of concrete for around the elevator shafts and other critical areas. Who knows for sure with all the 911 coverups going on, but often the simpliest explaination is the correct one; building #7 was probably built like crap and thus could take much abuse to its structure.