9/11 Inside Job?

[Rustycage]

Where's the wing impact? The vertical stabilizer impact?

Anyways, here is one of the movies I spoke about earlier:

[Nobodys_Fault]

/sigh

Apparently you think a commercial airliner is the size of a private plane. LOL

You do realise the "no plane hit the pentagon" theory is considered retarded even amongst the 'truther' movement?

But go ahead keep /sighing and LOL'ing. It's amusing to watch somebody attempt to take the intellectual high ground with an argument so stupidly implausible.

[SoulMonster]

But go ahead keep /sighing and LOL'ing. It's amusing to watch somebody attempt to take the intellectual high ground with an argument so stupidly implausible.

I wasn't even aware lots of people claim no plane hit the Pentagon -- it is just too crazy. To deny the thousands of eye witnesses, the evidence at sight, the fact that a plane disappeared, the fact that it connects well with planes crashing into the towers, the plausible motive of the terrorists, etc, is just mind-boggling. And to actually meet some here on this site is beyond hilarious .

[Rustycage]

/sigh

Apparently you think a commercial airliner is the size of a private plane. LOL

You do realise the "no plane hit the pentagon" theory is considered retarded even amongst the 'truther' movement?

Making shit up doesn't validate your hilarious claims, man.

But go ahead keep /sighing and LOL'ing

I will. You and the above poster have ignored 9/10 of everything presented just in this topic and the stuff you do address has been addressed with ridiculous rebuttals.

So LOL /sigh

[Nobodys_Fault]

Making shit up doesn't validate your hilarious claims, man.

Within the 'truther' community there are entire blogs dedicated to debunking the "no plane at the pentagon" theory because they feel it's so stupid, it makes the rest of them look retarded. I couldn't make that up if I tried.

But go ahead keep /sighing and LOL'ing

I will. You and the above poster have ignored 9/10 of everything presented just in this topic and the stuff you do address has been addressed with ridiculous rebuttals.

So LOL /sigh

I only came in to this thread at page 17 or so. I'm just addressing the stuff I've read because I can't be arsed sifting through 16 pages of nonsense. But go ahead and point me towards the irrefutable proof that 9/11 was an inside job and no plane crashed in to pentagon. I'll gladly embrace enlightenment.

And please don't link to a shoddily put together hour long youtube video.

[Rustycage]

1: The main thing all "truthers" typically agree on is the whole hologram theory is bullshit. Speak for yourself and dont make shit up to make an excuse for you ignoring points that were made. It's lazy and ignorant.

2: I linked to an actual motion picture documentary, not a "shoddily put together youtube video." More excuses as to why you're lazy?

Anyone that follows this objectively can admit that there is a lot of inconsistencies that point to the official story being bullshit. It seems like the few I've encountered here just want to argue with the messengers instead of the actual message. It's become so ridiculous that we ended up arguing about fucking ice cubes. It's so absurd that you(regardless of when you entered) and a couple more totally ignore the dozens of supposed "coincidences" and inconsistencies throughout the topic. I'd like to make a list of majority of the shit you've ignored while you sit there and condescendingly ask for proof but it's really too much to count right now. We've been arguing about ice cubes and stupid explanations how a plane can disappear into a wall and not leave a single piece of wreckage outside of the wall prior to collapse or even leave a single mark from the wings and vertical stabilizer. It's being dumbed down after every post. If it is too much for you to debunk a supposed "shoddily put together video," then wtf are you even doing here? Jerking off?

Shall we start at the beginning since you entered late? Fine. We can start at the beginning of the timeline of that day.

Explain the attachment on the fuselage of the WTC planes and then explain the flashes from both planes immediately before any impact? We can start there and then we'll go round and round again.

Explain why there was a military exercise planned for that day detailing the exact events that occurred on 9/11.

Explain why Dick Cheney told NORAD to stand down.

I am very skeptical of any and every thing and I found it seriously hard to discredit it all. There's just 3 simple ones for you. Chip away.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Rustycage

[SoulMonster]

I will. You and the above poster have ignored 9/10 of everything presented just in this topic and the stuff you do address has been addressed with ridiculous rebuttals.

So let me just sum up your arguments in this thread:

"What caused the twin towers to fall was a detonation, not the impact from two planes and the ensuing fire".

Your reasons for believing in this are (1) that you believe that planes, who are built of lighter and less sturdy material, can not possibly damage the integral structure of the towers necessary to cause a structural collapse, which demonstrates that don't understand that impact is a product of mass and velocity. A light, soft material can do amazing damage if just accelerated to sufficient speeds. (2) Thermite was found on the site which suggests that thermite was used as an explosive; the only problem is that this claim, which is presented in a no-cited article by a known oddball and conspiracy theorist in a notorious paper not taken seriously by scientists, is refuted by the whole scientific establishment. And (3) that a picture showing a steel beam must indicate nano-thermite at work, despite the fact that the cut is diagonal and hence can't have been made through the action of thermite, and that other pictures show demolition people cutting similar steel beams as part of them cleaning the site.

"WTC 7 did not collapse as a result of the 8 hour long ravaging fires and the impact from pieces of one of the towers who fell on it, but rather because of another detonation".

Your reasons for believing this are (1) someone said that it was time to "pull" the building, which it is much more sensible to assume was meant as a time for pull the firemen out of the building, (2) that the speed of falling somehow was too high which for unknown and amusing reasons must mean that the collapse was caused by the structure being demolished by explosives and not that the structure was demolished by "mere" fires and impact, (3) that the structure fell right down and not over to one side, which demonstrates that you don't know much about how tall buildings fall, and (4) that neither the fires or impact damage was sufficient to bring it down based on a few pictures which doesn't document the extent of neither fire or impact damage.

"No plane hit the Pentagon" (my personal favourite).

Your reason for believing this is (1) that you claim that no pieces of the plane was found on site, something which is just plain wrong since numerous pieces of the plane (as well as the passengers) were found on site and have been posted in this very thread, and (2) that the damage to the building wasn't large enough, which is wrong, it was just as large as expected when you take into account the momentum of the plane and the structure of the building.

Anything else?

1: The main thing all "truthers" typically agree on is the whole hologram theory is bullshit.

But surely this is not too crazy for you to believe in?

[Rustycage]

It wouldn't surprise me if you have no idea where I'm coming from since you're too busy overlooking shit to try to label me as stupid and crazy. Which you have failed miserably at, thank you.

Click the back button on the topic if you can succeed in not overlooking it.

[SoulMonster]

It wouldn't surprise me if you have no idea where I'm coming from

I have no idea where you are coming from, and frankly I don't care. Neither do I see how that is relevant to this discussion. Still, I am quite confident and take comfort knowing that your lack of understanding and your tendency to embrace outrageous theories regardless of their implausibility, is well below the average in your country.

Edited April 28, 2013 by SoulMonster

[Rustycage]

It wouldn't surprise me if you have no idea where I'm coming from

I have no idea where you are coming from, and frankly I don't care.

Then stop asking. And I can assure you I wont answer any more of your posts.

[SoulMonster]

It wouldn't surprise me if you have no idea where I'm coming from

I have no idea where you are coming from, and frankly I don't care.

Then stop asking. And I can assure you I wont answer any more of your posts.

Huh? Where have I asked where you are coming from?

[Dazey]

If somebody can explain to me how this was cut with thermite I'll gladly don my tinfoil hat and admit defeat.

[Rustycage]

With an ice cube that is hard as an iceberg!

[Dazey]

With an ice cube that is hard as an iceberg!

You mean one made with saltwater and frozen at -25^oC? Again, how was that beam cut?

[Rustycage]

Never heard of a shaped charge?

[Dazey]

Never heard of a shaped charge?

I have indeed. Wouldn't have been effective in that case. The beam was cut gradually not blown apart. Keep trying though.

[Rustycage]

Never heard of a shaped charge?

I have indeed. Wouldn't have been effective in that case. The beam was cut gradually not blown apart. Keep trying though.

Explain the lack of slag in the rest of the beams cut during cleanup.

Also, from now on when you claim something, I'd like some proof with it. Your credibility is kinda crap, at the moment.

I know how much you like videos so:

[Dazey]

Never heard of a shaped charge?

I have indeed. Wouldn't have been effective in that case. The beam was cut gradually not blown apart. Keep trying though.

Explain the lack of slag in the rest of the beams cut during cleanup.

Also, from now on when you claim something, I'd like some proof with it. Your credibility is kinda crap, at the moment.

Sorry but you said it was thermite to begin with and now it's a shaped charge? Clearly the beams were cut and not detonated so I'm just wanting clarification from you as to how it was done with thermite.

[Rustycage]

Thanks Dazey, you helped me find the video of the firefighters on the payphone when explosions were going off.

[Dazey]

Thanks Dazey, you helped me find the video of the firefighters on the payphone when explosions were going off.

Did they call you with an explanation as to how thermite can make neat diagonal cuts in structural steel?

[Rustycage]

Nano-thermite is used for military explosives, Dazey.

A Nano-thermite or "super-thermite"^%5B1%5D is a metastable intermolecular composite (MICs) characterized by a particle size of its main constituents, a metal and a metal oxide, under 100 Nanometers. This allows for high and customizable reaction rates. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as for general applications involving propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.

That was a quick browse so if you have something to refute the claim that Nano-Thermite(which was found at WTC) is used for explosives, go ahead.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Rustycage

[Crash Diet]

Hmm this thread is too long

is there any good theories or just the general shitstorm?

[Rustycage]

Paging Dazey.....

[Dazey]

Nano-thermite is used for military explosives, Dazey.

A Nano-thermite or "super-thermite"^%5B1%5D is a metastable intermolecular composite (MICs) characterized by a particle size of its main constituents, a metal and a metal oxide, under 100 Nanometers. This allows for high and customizable reaction rates. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as for general applications involving propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.

That was a quick browse so if you have something to refute the claim that Nano-Thermite(which was found at WTC) is used for explosives, go ahead.

Page received. None of that explains in any way how it would be able to burn through the beam in the way you see in the picture.

I've never argued anything about it being found at the site or that it might be used as an explosive. Only that those beams were clearly not cut with explosives.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Dazey

[Rustycage]

Nano-thermite is used for military explosives, Dazey.

A Nano-thermite or "super-thermite"^%5B1%5D is a metastable intermolecular composite (MICs) characterized by a particle size of its main constituents, a metal and a metal oxide, under 100 Nanometers. This allows for high and customizable reaction rates. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as for general applications involving propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.

That was a quick browse so if you have something to refute the claim that Nano-Thermite(which was found at WTC) is used for explosives, go ahead.

Page received. None of that explains in any way how it would be able to burn through the beam in the way you see in the picture.

I've never argued anything about it being found at the site or that it might be used as an explosive. Only that those beams were clearly not cut with explosives.

So then YOU can prove that it was a torch cut? Excuse me if I don't take you for your word here.

I've shown you how nano-thermite can be used as a shape charge to create the diagonal cut so what's the deal now?

Care to explain the explosions heard in the video I posted of the two firefighters making phone calls after the first collapse? Surely you won't try to claim it was propane tanks like the first ridiculous story.