Conspiracy Theory 9/11 - Part 3

What's your opinion regarding the 9/11 attacks?

  • The official story makes the most sense

    Votes: 48 40.7%

  • The attacks were allowed to happen

    Votes: 28 23.7%

  • Inside job by US/shadow Government

    Votes: 42 35.6%
  • Total voters
    118

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

nut said:
35%
Click to expand...
That’s pretty generous of you!

My stuff up threshold for professionals seeking to put people in jail is much harsher than yours, but hey, if that’s your number then that’s your number.

So at 35% that’s around 13 of their articles that would need to be as poorly put together as the one we just discussed.

What do you reckon nut? Reckon we will find that many?
 
BustedWing said:
That’s pretty generous of you!

My stuff up threshold for professionals seeking to put people in jail is much harsher than yours, but hey, if that’s your number then that’s your number.

So at 35% that’s around 13 of their articles that would need to be as poorly put together as the one we just discussed.

What do you reckon nut? Reckon we will find that many?
Click to expand...

If only 1% of the evidence ends up proving the official story is BS... what then?
Would it be a fail?
 
nut said:
If only 1% of the evidence ends up proving the official story is BS... what then?
Would it be a fail?
Click to expand...

The collapse of WTC Building 7 itself, is enough all of it's own for that.

That building would have taken weeks to wire for demolition, in order for it to come down at free-fall speed in the way that it did.
 
JackOutback said:
It's certainly a hot take, fresh with new 'details'.
Click to expand...

Buildings made of concrete & steel don't 'collapse' like this.

upload_2018-12-15_14-47-30.png

This is akin to a volcanic eruption with accompanying pyroclastic flow, of a dustified nature.

Where have all the floors gone?
 
nut said:
If only 1% of the evidence ends up proving the official story is BS... what then?
Would it be a fail?
Click to expand...

But that’s not really the question I’m posing, is it.

I’m asking how often would someone need to be exposed before they lose credibility in your eyes.

You say 35% of the time in this case.

I find it remarkable that those you hold up as those championing the truth can be wrong more than 1/3 of the time, and lose no credibility with you. I’d stop listening to them well before that, but hey, each to their own.
 
BustedWing said:
But that’s not really the question I’m posing, is it.

I’m asking how often would someone need to be exposed before they lose credibility in your eyes.

You say 35% of the time in this case.

I find it remarkable that those you hold up as those championing the truth can be wrong more than 1/3 of the time, and lose no credibility with you. I’d stop listening to them well before that, but hey, each to their own.
Click to expand...

Can yuh answer my question ?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

JackOutback said:
I can't believe intelligent people believe p[lanes didn't do this when we saw it with our own eyes.
Click to expand...

Oh dear.....Still trying to defend the indefensible.

Yet another Zionist ring-in shill.

What we saw was the planes hit the buildings....Then the buildings collapse later on.

Whether one chooses to believe that 2 planes can both melt & bring 2 ginormous sky-scrapers down like that, melting all their concrete & steel into dust, is quite another question entirely.

Major logic fail.
 
Here's yet another set of 'coincidences' that our defenders of the realm are also unable to answer.

How is it that both planes hit in the precise spots on both towers where extensive 'fire-proofing' work had been done only just prior to the event.

Also....How was it that both planes also hit the computer floors of company's that were directly involved in major securities fraud & insider-trading investigations.....Fraud investigations that were also coincidentally taking place inside of WTC 7.....Where the securities commissions head-quarters was situated.

Also rather telling was how those investigations have never been re-opened ever since....How about that hey?

But Yes....2 planes strike 2 buildings.....2 buildings collapse....Ergo it must have been the planes.

But hang on.....WTC 7 must have collapsed via Winder Woman's invisible plane.....Lol.

You just gotta love the warped logic on these apologists.
 
Last edited:
Procrastinator35 said:
Oh dear.....Still trying to defend the indefensible.

Yet another Zionist ring-in shill.

What we saw was the planes hit the buildings....Then the buildings collapse later on.

Whether one chooses to believe that 2 planes can both melt & bring 2 ginormous sky-scrapers down like that, melting all their concrete & steel into dust, is quite another question entirely.

Major logic fail.
Click to expand...
Your cries of Zionist are just absurd; I live in WA and don’t have any personal connection to Jews or Israelis, I am stridently anti-Israel’s present foreign policy. If I’m not part of the evil Zionist agenda, what’s my motivation exactly?
 
JackOutback said:
Your cries of Zionist are just absurd; I live in WA and don’t have any personal connection to Jews or Israelis, I am stridently anti-Israel’s present foreign policy. If I’m not part of the evil Zionist agenda, what’s my motivation exactly?
Click to expand...

How anyone can logically claim that those 2 planes brought 2 100+ storey sky-scrapers down….When they were designed in mind to withstand such an impact, truly beggars belief.

All the jet-fuel from those planes burned off on impact, as can be plainly seen with the naked eye.....And yet here you are.....claiming that a 100+ story skyscraper with 52 solid steel core beams running right the way up the centre of each building, collapsed & melted to the ground, with all it's 100+ stories of concrete floors & steel girders melting away beneath it.

I'm not sure that common-sense in your calling sport.
 
Procrastinator35 said:
Buildings made of concrete & steel don't 'collapse' like this.

View attachment 595762

This is akin to a volcanic eruption with accompanying pyroclastic flow, of a dustified nature.

Where have all the floors gone?
Click to expand...

This has been done and debunked atleast 5 times already. I did it 3 times only for you to post adhoms in reply. Give it a rest.
 
nut said:
How do explain bits falling up?
Click to expand...

Physics aint exactly my field, but even my rudimentary comprehension of the discipline tells me that those defending the official line - That somehow those planes alone comprise the singular cause of those buildings to collapse - are delusional beyond extreme.
 
Total Power said:
This has been done and debunked atleast 5 times already. I did it 3 times only for you to post adhoms in reply. Give it a rest.
Click to expand...

Yet another empty post with empty words.

Just saying you have 'debunked' something doesn't make it so.

And no one here considers you an authority.

Those pictures speak for themselves & say a thousand things more than any troll post of either yours or Busted Wing 's can.

No building collapses like that....and there's not a thing you or Busted Wing can say to counter that fact.

100 floors of steel & concrete simply do not melt away.

It's time to bring some common-sense & clear evidence of the senses back to this debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top