"Disneygeek" <edrhodes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:64e8d4f0-807c-4908-87b0-2cc470078ae7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jul 19, 7:02 am, "zasochimti" <zasochi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Disneygeek" <edrho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
messagenews:56c2ee63-3a09-45ec-b92e-1d9be714f360@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >He doesn't believe in "silent" explosives,
>>
>> Neither do I, but WTC1 and WTC did NOT fall due to "structural
collapse".
>
>You must believe in "silent explosives" since there were no sounds of
>explosives heard but you insist that explosives brought down the
>Towers. Ergo, by your own words, you must believe in "silent
>explosives."
Well, I am not dismissing the possibility that there were thousands of
smaller
explosions going off in both of the towers, because that's what video
evidence
suggests. How they did it, why they did it... those are the questions that
need
answers via a new investigation.
Now, be a good little puppet, and show me how in any of the videos that
show WTC1
and WTC2 collapsing, no one can see an explosive wave travelling around
both of the
towers, 20-30 floors beneath the actual "collapse". Sometimes blowing off
one part of
the side of let's say WTC1 or, if you prefer, WTC2.
You just go and do that, whacko "debunker".
>> But you seem to parrot that ****, day in and day out. I wonder why.
>
>Because there were no explosives heard during the collapse.
But what you can hear is a huge roar. That's what suggests that WTC1 and
WTC2 were
not brought down by conventional explosives. What? You think that if your
pathetic gvt
decided to do a flase flag attack, that they would use conventional
explosives? With huge
flashes, and large bangs? So that a moron such as yourself can see and
hear them?
Again, you just show everyone how there "weren't" thousands of little
explosions going off,
way below the actual "collapse". And how an explosive wave "wasn't"
travelling all around
both of the WTC towers.
If you're right, and I'm wrong... it shouldn't be too big of a problem for
you.
Go!
>> Neither do I, but WTC1 and WTC2 did not fall down because of
"structural damage"
>> nor were they blwon into finest of dusts with conventional explosives,
dumbass.
>
>There was dust, but it was not ALL of what was there. That's simply a
>fact.
There was too much dust for a conventional "structural collapse".
And do remember, whacko "debunker", that BOTH towers collapsed. And that
they were BOTH 400m high. Do you know how much material that is? And for
90pct
of it to be turned into finest dust would suggest that it wasn't a
conventional "structural
collapse". And that concrete was BLOWN (not just merely "crushed") into
finest of
dusts.
I know you "debunkers" have HUGE problems explaining these facts. BUT, if
you're
right and we're wrong, it shouldn't be too difficult to prove us wrong.
But you won't, because you can't. Because what's obvious is - obvious.
>> But you seem to parrot that ****, day in and day out. I wonder why.
>
>You have a repetition problem. Seek help.
Don't worry, I know why you parrot your ****, day in and day out, whacko
"debunker".
But, you're too big of a ***** to admit it. I guess that's why you're a
whacko "debunker"
in the first place.
You HAVE to be a chicken**** to be a "debunker". S***.
>> Nor
>>in conspiracy theories that involve misrepresenting collapse times,
>>
>> Well then, the stage is yours.
>>
>>A) How long did it take WTC1 to collapse?
>> B) How long did it take WTC2 to collapse?
>> C) How long did it take WTC7 to collapse?
>>
>> Let's see, whacko "debunker".
>
>I'll take the road everyone else has taken on both sides of this
>argument.
>
>It's been posted here. Several times. In some cases, with actual
>formulas.
>How long do you THINK it should have taken?
I asked YOU a simple question. Why are you dodging the bullet, "debunker"?
Oh, I know. Because even if you say that WTC towers collapsed in 20
seconds each, even if you say that WTC towers collapsed in 40 seconds,
even that would be too damn fast for a conventional "structural collapse".
So, whacko "debunker", you can shove your "formulas" up your ass, because
they've been done probably by some chicken**** asshole just like you,
"disneygeek".
Nevertheless:
A) How long did it take WTC1 to collapse?
B) How long did it take WTC2 to collapse?
C) How long did it take WTC7 to collapse?
Don't be a ***** all of your life, "disnygeek". Gimme some simple answers.
>> While Larry Silverstein said "pull it", "meaning pull them out", when
all the rescue
>> personell has been pulled out of WTC7 way back around 12 o'clock.
>
>Out of the building. But, Silverstein believed firefighters were still
>in the immediate area of WTC7 and agreed that they should be "pulled"
>back in the inevitable event that the building was going to come down.
When was that? Before or after firefighters "knew" that WTC7 was
"unstable"?
>> Care to explain, whacko "debunker"?
>
>I just did. Next?
You didn't explain jack ****. Because "pull it" still doesn't mean "pull
them out".
You and Larry's ****puppets can spin it all you want. It doesn't change
anything.
It only changes the sentence Larry will get once he faces the jury. And
makes it
bigger and harsher.
>> >(Not to mention the absurd idea that an owner of a building would be
>> >formulating plans to demolish a building with the head of the Fire
>> >Department!)
>>
>> Yeah, I mean, "that would never happen". So never did Hitler, nor
Charles
>> Manson, nor did CIA had anything to do with Contras, nor AlQaeda...
>
>Wow. That's reaching even for you.
See how you run away when someone pushes you into a corner, huh?
Chicken****, that's what you are, "disneygeek". Don't let anyone tell you
anything
different. Because, that's what and who you actually are.
>> Are you seriously THAT dumb, "disneygeek", that you expect people to
>> fall for that **** you keep spewing out?
>
>I dunno, you seem to expect them to fall for the **** YOU keep spewing
>out.
I don't expect anyone to fall for anything. All one needs to do is to
watch a few
original TV broadcasts from 9.11.2001. in order to see that "kooks" are
not lying,
and that people like you lie all of the mother****ing time. From
12.9.2001.
And by some kind of magic, you whacko "debunkers" ignore certain
testimonies,
certain facts, refuse to answer certain questions etc. And you still
haven't come
up with an explain as to where exactly did Flight77 start to descend, and
start
flying in a straight line, just a few feet off the ground at 550mph. Oh,
and where
are the rest of the videos that were confiscated around the Pentagon, huh
"disneygeek"?
And you still expect people to believe you, when you still can't answer
why your
authorities didn't conduct a proper criminal investigation of the biggest
terrorist
attack in the history of not just USA but - the world.
See, whacko "debunker"? I know you're in a tough spot, and I am aware of
the
fact that you think that you lying even more will help you get out of that
tough spot.
But it won't.
>> If you honestly believe that people will believe you, well then you
need a
>> reality check.
>>
>> >He doesn't believe your interpretation of the events, nothing more
>> >sinister than that.
>>
>> AND he also ignores certains testimonies, certain facts, certain
arguments,
>> certain videos, certain witnesses, certain "coincidences"...
>
>I think it's interesting that you accuse him of ignoring testimony
>when you yourself ignore testimony about the condition of WTC7 prior
>to the collapse.
Well then, give us some proof of the condition WTC7 was in prior to it's
collapse.
Until then, all you whacko "debunkers" have is a 47 storey building
falling down
symetrically under 12 seconds. Which means - 4 floors per second. In case
of WTC1 or WTC2 - 10 or more floors per second.
Yeah, "structural collapse" my ass.
And you still have to explain how come all of the sup****ting elements of
WTC7
happened to fail simultaneously.
Go!
>> Go away, "disneygeek". I mean, your lies are as obvious as 9/11.
>
>No. I have no more intention of "going away" than you do. Get over it.
>
>And yes, 9/11 IS obvious. Planes were flown into the Towers causing
>significant structural damage, which was made worse by fire and the
>strain of the massive weights above the impact points. The collapse
>damaged other buildings one of which (WTC7) fueled by an illicit
>kereosene fuel pump, burned for hours finally collapsing.
You still can't explain how come WTC1 and WTC2 came down so fast.
TOO fast for a conventional "structural collapse".
Btw, WTC1 and WTC2 did not suffer "significant" structural damage.
The other 60-70 floors beneath the impact point suffered NO damage
at all. Unless people who re****ted bombs going off in the lobby and
basement(s) are right.
Btw, have you ever heard of resistance, whacko "debunker"? You know, the
closer the floor to the Earth, the more resistance it gives? Because, you
know,
Earth is still bigger than a 100 storey skyscraper.
And, oh what happened to South tower? How come the upper section, above
the impact zone, was tilting over and then it went straight down through
the path
of MOST resistance, huh?
What? Too "difficult" for you to answer, eh whacko "debunker"?
>> And sorry, whacko "debunker", that's just the way it is. But you keep
on
>> spewing bull****. That way, I'll feel no anger, no remorse when I'll be
>> kicking your ass for telling outward lies for the last 7 years. In
which as
>> a consquence of lies of Bush and his admin (and in the end - your lies
too)
>> thousands, hunderds of thousands of people have died.
>
>My ass is not "kicked."
Not yet, I agree. But it will be difficult not to once the truth gets out.
It's not
like it didn't already.
That's why you're here, telling lies, "disneygeek". Ain't that so?
You on the other hand have shown yourself to
>be a fool who is incapable of argueing a point without lowering
>yourself to insults and innuedo.
I'm sorry. I can't help myself when I'm dealing with inhumane s*** such as
yourself, who doesn't give a damn about the victims nor their families. I
just
can't myself calling you an asshole, because that's what you most
obviously
are, "disneygeek".
What? You expect to lie and others to give you "respect"? That's NOT how
that thing goes, whacko "debunker".
Comprende?
>You haven't presented any facts.
Yes I have. My only fact is - YOU! AND the fact that there wasn't a
criminal
investigation into the events of 9/11, that no one has proved that it was
"the terrorists",
that 9/11 Commission finds the aspect of who funded the alleged
"terrorists" of
"little im****tance" etc.
I can still throw in the fact that George Walker Bush and his admin
literally REFUSED
to set up a commission in the first place. Not like they didn't have time,
not like they
couldn't - they literally REFUSED to set up a commission. And when they
were pushed
into a corner by victims' families, he "decided" to put Henry Kissinger as
a head of 9/11
Commission. Who, when asked about his bussiness partners by the name of
bin Laden,
resigned the very next day.
And ALL that (and there is much more of "coincidences") still doesn't make
you to suspect
that something is not right.
So, what do you expect, "disneygeek"? For me to treat you with "recpect"?
"Decency"?
**** you, asshole.
Capisci?
Your
>scenario requires facts simply not in evidence (silent explosives, the
>owner of the building colaborating with the Head of the Fire Dept. to
>arrange a demolition) and when these points are brought up,
WHAT evidence? Evidence that was ****pped to India and China to be melted?
While George Walker Bush and his admin stalled the set up of a commission?
WOW, whacko "debunker".
"Your" evidence is spotless, right? I mean, who wouldn't believe you, OR
George Walker Bush. Or his admin.
you start
>ranting and raving worse than the lead character at the end of
>"Deathnote" (Obscure reference, don't trouble your head about it.
>Those who get it will laugh!)
Yet, you still refused to give a straight answer as to how much time did
it take
for WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 to "collapse due to fires and structural damage".
>> And not only that. I'll save a special kick in the head for taking a
giant
>> piss on the graves of the victims of 9/11. Taking a piss at their
families'
>> grievances, by talking **** about TruthMovement (which was started BY
>> familiy members of the victims), telling outward lies, ignoring certain
facts,
>> arguments, witnesses, testimonies etc.
>
>I am not pissing on the victims or their families.
Yes you are, coward/traitor. Yes you are. Each and every time you call
truthers
"nuts" or "crazy" or accuse them of "helping Bush", you are taking a giant
****
on all of the graves of all of the victims of 9/11.
You, Vandar, BDK, Gov****ll, Iarnrod, agent86, parrisk, John Pindelski,
James
Meigs, David Dunbar, Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, David Frum, George
Walker
Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Lynn
Cheney,
that chicken**** from "screwloosechange", Webpundit from Youtube, jayep
from Youtube and all the other media whores throughout the world. And
politicians too.
And you know what? We, honest people, will not forgive, let alone forget
when the
time comes to set things right. Each and every last one of you. No matter
how "powerful"
any of you liars actually are.
And you wanna know the funniest thing of all? YOU, "disneygeek", will get
most of the
"beatings". Because, if you think Larry Silverstein gives a flying ****
about you, OR your
kids, OR your family - you are a ****ing fool. And you deserve to be
killed in a false
flag attack.
And don't get all pissed by me saying these things. Or "insulted". Don't
"sulk", you ****ing
piece of ****, ok?
Stop lying, and I'll apologize.
Comprende?
You are by turning
>their tragedy into your own personal massive government conspiracy.
Haha, poor whacko "Debunker". VICTIMS' FAMILIES ARE THE ONES ASKING
FOR A NEW INVESTIGATION! I am just helping them in getting there. While
they are
chasing the "big fish", I am chasing your patheti and insigificant ass,
"disneygeek". Because,
IMHO, people like you are the ones guilty of each and every single war
since the dawn of
time. Cowards, chicken****s, traitors and liars. People with zero amount
of integrity or
objectivity. Spineless s*** who turn whichever the way the tide turns.
Comprende?
Good.
Now, **** off. And remember the name of John O'Neill, you piece of
"debunking" ****e.
|
