50 jews did it

Pigshit. Where would President Bush get 500 million and what would be his motive? But it is a very silly speculation and really does not deserve a response.

money = daddy

motive = money


How much do you think his family has made from the war so far ?



he borrowed alot of money from the bin laden family this isn't a theory this is fact


i think what you meant to say was you have no valid response nor can you disprove it thus saying its silly voids you from having to think :winkwink:

Any open minded person would consider all options before discounting them.

A smart person would say "all known evidence suggests 9/11 was not an inside job" a foolish person says "thinking is wrong, dont think things unless everything can be proven without a shred of doubt" how utterly ridiculous

Just more pigshit.

You're way too late to troll the 911 conspiritards.

They've traded in their "9-11 was an Inside Job" signs for "Vote Ron Paul" signs.

Get with the times.

Bush & pals stood making way too much money to not be involved in some form or fashion.

How did hundreds of crew men get into the world trade center and rig it with explosives to create a contriolled demolition without any of the THOUSANDS of visitors to the wtc ever knowing?

Explain that one buddy.

And hilary doesn't have a penis.

Come on now... lets talk real

No, there weren't hundreds of guys in coveralls walking into the lobby along with office workers.

First, it wouldn't take hundreds. Second, there were six underground levels with separate entrances for vehicles. Third, who knows how security was handled for the underground floors containing the utilities.

Personally I wouldn't even consider a 911 conspiracy ...... except building #7 makes me question everything.

You see they tried what youre insinuating back in 1993 and the building didnt fall.

To take the building down the way it came down with explosives they would of had to rig the entire building or at least the top floors with explosives.

To do that they would of needed jack hammers. Where did all the dust go? How come nobody heard the jack hammers?

Do a little research, learn how a building gets taken down, and then comment.

That is ridiculous. My father in law who is a fire chief was there when 7 came down. Nothing suspicious happened.

God you people are so gullable.

So #7 came down from a minor fire? What do I research?

So a Fire Chief thinks it's normal for a building to impolde after a minor fire? OK, I believe him.

Minor fire? That building basically got hit with one of the towers and was burning from the early morning til that evening.

Did you not see this?

I dont even need to ask my father in law about it to know this...

Listen idiot. Read the last post and then talk.

How do you know it was a minor fire?

HAHAHA Where you on scene?

Headless, #7 was NOT hit by a tower.

Where you on scene?

actually there is mountains of evidence that debunks the 9-11 conspiracy theories but conspiratards choose to ignore it because it doesn't play into their super awesome evil murderous government fantasies that some how only they are smart enough to see. They are also some how immune to the brain washing the other 95% of America are under the influence of.

gee who should I believe? Popular mechanics magazine

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html

Or dipshit some kids with a mac book, video editing program, and absolutely no particular expertise to even comment on such matters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_(video))

Tough choice.

you were? How did you pull your fat ass out of there?

well first off it certainly would not take "hundreds" of crew men to demolish a building, in theory it could be done with just a few men ( this from one of the top demolition companies that actually do this for a living ) especially considering most of the work involved in demolition is for SAFETY and REMOVAL , 2 things you wouldnt be worried about if you were planning a "terrorist" attack

secondly there was plenty of time to do it when they pulled many of the people who actually could have prevented it in drills prior to 9/11.

but its easier to disprove a demolition purely on common sense. Why would you fly 2 planes into 2 buildings then demolish them at the same time and why would you hide it, i see no rational explanation for that .. flying 2 planes into the building would be enough i think , there would be no reason to demolish the building completely, or to try and do it covertly.

exactly....

butter all butter

because it was on film, showed very little smoke or fire. I have seen plenty of buildings on fire way more severe and they didnt fall down.

my gut feeling was they let #7 burn because they had plenty of other things to do, and there wasnt any people in it. or someone took advantage of a shitty situation.
remember #7 was the command hub for a disaster so it should have been alot harder to bring down.

i think alot of the demolition talk is kinda silly, whats more likely is shoddy mob controlled contractors built shitty buildings that shouldnt have come down , and to admit that just makes america look bad so its kinda been swept under the rug :2 cents:

No, of course not. If I was I couldn't have seen anything anyway. Look at the way this building fell from being on fire, it just doesn't happen. Then there are the remarks of the owner.

Because this was never explained satisfactorily ... I have doubts about other aspects I probably shouldn't have.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...ocked.down.wmv

http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV

Actually, youre wrong. It was not a minor fire. It's structure was severly damaged from the event. The fire crews couldnt get it under control most of the day and that is why she came down.

Yeah the shitty building done when the building were erected more then likely contributed to the mess, but it was not a minor fire.

I remember my father in law tell my wife and I how at one point they knew it was going to come down if they couldnt control the fire.

I'm not talking about a grand 911 theory, believe me. But #7 causes doubt on my part.

So youre coming to a conclusion based on opinions and not facts.

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

Ahh ok. So they figured "Terrorists destroyed these.. Might as well sneak in a mini-conspiracy and blow up the last one for some reason".

Does #7 look like a normal building on fire to result you? Did the collapse appear anything other than an implosion of some sort?

its structure being damaged has no relation to the strength of the fire only the ability to fight it.
again the ability of the fire fighters to stop the fire has no relation to the strength of the fire, they had plenty of other things to do and way less manpower or ability to do it. this doesnt make it a "major" firew , it makes it a minor fire with little ability to fight it

i saw the fire with my own eyes, it was certainly NOT a major fire. I'm not a firefighter , but i would guess at any other time by itself the fire would have been easy to control.If your step-father was there and is a firefighter , then i would trust his opinion more than mine but he would never convince me it was a major fire. If he told me it was a minor fire but the ability to fight it was hampered by structural damage and lack of manpower THAT i would believe

isnt the same true about any fire ? if i lit a garbage can on fire in the sears tower it would def be considered a "minor fire" but if it couldnt be controlled due to many other factors , then it would eventually bring the building down , correct ?

wouldnt it be safe to say ANY building on fire will come down if they cant control the fire, no matter how small the fire is ?

if you pull everyone out of a "controllable" fire , doesnt it become uncontrollable ?

I'm basing it on what I saw. What's it look like to you?

Smokey nice try at spinning it. But one major flaw in your thinking.

By mid afternoon most of the fire departments from the southern half of NY were on scene. There were plenty of fireman fighting the fire. There were plenty of firemen on scene. Actually at one point there were too many and they were turning trucks around because there was nothing for them to do.

It was a major fire. You cannot dispute that unless you were in the building.

And I know you werent.

Here's a fire department photo ..... I don't see how this fire leads to an implosion that has the building fall like a worn out casino.

http://www.imagefilez.com/out.php/i2...erno2small.jpg

Where's the proof that it was an implosion? Who planted the bombs? When did they plant them?

It looks like the building collapsed to me. Now show me the proof it was blown up.

You don't fail to see it.. it refuse to see it.

You have no proof of any implosion but believe it.

you can see that a fire burned in that building for hours but flat out refuse to believe that had anything to do with the collapse.

Ok, use your term "collapse" how does a fire cause this ....

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...ocked.down.wmv


*** I said implosion because the building falls into it's self, not falling over.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

When you have some proof of your delusion of a set implosion you let me know.

Until then I see that as a collapse caused by an uncontrolled fire that burned for 7 hours.

Implode: to violently collapse or compress inward.

*set into motion by explosives

Collapse: what building 7 did.

We see the same thing differently.

One thing I'd like to see is another building anywhere collapsing/imploding like that due to a fire.

Some people think outside the media box, some are controlled by it.

That footnote is yours don't infer I ommited something, OK?

WEBSTER: implosion ... to collapse inward as if from external pressure; also : to become greatly reduced as if from collapsing

What I'd like to hear is why you think that blowing up building 7 while the entire world is watching on live television for absolutely no plausible reason sounds completely sane and reasonable.

What I'd like to hear is why you think that saying building 7 fell from a fire while the entire world is watching on live television for absolutely no plausible reason sounds completely sane and reasonable.

?

Because that's exactly what you mean when you say implosion. A collapse set into motion by an explosion.

What else could you possibly mean? The entire point of your argument is that building seven was blown up and didn't merely collapse after burning for 7 hours.

Because I saw with my own eyes the building on fire for hours. There's is irrefutable proof of that. I saw no explosions and have seen no credible evidence to support that claim.

Malicious, You think #7 fell from fire, I don't ...... It's late .... later, Lee

too much to go into here

as well many people highly convicted in their beliefs...so let it be

i could careless anymore

Too bad they all can't just see a building collapse after burning for hours and just blindly jump into far fetched fantasies of evil murdering presidents and governments who most regard as the most incompetent in recent memory. but, some how managed to pull off one of the greatest crimes in history when the last president couldn't even get away with a blowjob.

But hey, Fuck those sheeple! Amiright!?