T4T911 - Terrorists for Truth 9/11

Originally posted by MrAtomicspace
reply to post by theregonnakillme

 

What are you typing?! Before you talk nonsense, listen to what the families had to say..

I'll be back in 30 minutes, I just have to go to Wallmart and buy a bucket so I can fill it with sand, that way you don't have to keep going to the beach to hide your head.

Originally posted by theregonnakillme
With all the evidence available:

911truth
September Clues

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by theregonnakillme
With all the evidence available:

911truth
September Clues

reply to post by theregonnakillme


Just stop it. You are wrong, I do not know whether your doing this just for statistics or something else. But it is just BS, if you believe it what you are saying, than why don't you disprove my facts??

Originally posted by theregonnakillme
LOL just try and prove it is false

No-planes at the WTC has been proven false time and time again. Every single time a thread is made, it's debunked, then it gets buried and dies or moved to the HOAX forum.

Originally posted by theregonnakillme
Why is it that I have over 100,000 listening to my radio show who are mainly very poor

There's your first clue. Poor, uneducated, gullible people listening to the disinfo you peddle to them without a means to fact-check or otherwise see what you're peddling to them is bunk BS.

Originally posted by theregonnakillme
yet so called educated people keep in line and protect an obvious lie?

It's only "obvious" to the poor, uneducated, gullible people. Those of us with some semblance of an education can see right through the disinfo without much effort.

Originally posted by theregonnakillme
But I do conform to the rules of ATS and will continue to provide all the proof

September Clues is not proof of anything. There are multiple debunks and I already posted a link to some of them.

If you honestly and genuinely think you have absolute proof, contact Semperfortis to set up a debate for us in the debate forum. Otherwise, you're just all talk and no proof.

Satire doesn't work well when what you believe could be in itself satire. That's why creationists always do a terrible job of satirizing evolution. And yes, claiming that there were no planes at 9/11 is disrespectful, just as denying the holocaust happened is disrespectful.

reply to post by _BoneZ_
Why is it that you denounce this crackpot theory and embrace another crackpot theory? Looks like the pot calling the kettle black to me. He believes that the Military should be able to magically detect which plane is being hijacked out of the 1000s of planes flying, and that every video of the event has been magically manipulated by the government, and you believe the steel is invincible to fire until it reaches it's melting point and that the government is capable of rigging occupied buildings to explode with no one to the wiser. Both of you deny the work of professionals, labeling it as "disinfo", while embracing the work of people with little to no credentials.

Please do I would love to send your number to Boeing who make the aircraft! It is their engineers and claim the government is lying and that it was not possible for one of their 767 to be flown at that speed at sea level, or for that fact be flown by someone without thousands of hours flight time. You can argue all you want, concepts and idea's, that is your right as a free American (enjoy it while it lasts though the very people you are protecting are about to take all those rights form you!). When the manufactures of the 767 tell you it is not possible, why do you continue to believe the government, whose own people CIA, Navy intelligence, congressmen, the people who wrote the NIST report and FEMA report all say, WHITEWASH! Now we have the government actually pushing the conspiracy theories because the movement is gaining headway. to the point that AEtruth and others are being supported to mis-direct people away from NO PLANE's and what changed the molecular structure of the debris!

How can you deny facts? Are you that ignorant? Im sorry for saying so, but I do not know what else to say.
Im am wasting my time with such a person...

Originally posted by technical difficulties
you believe the steel is invincible to fire until it reaches it's melting point

Either you're being dishonest, or stereotypical. Take your pic. I love when people try to tell me what I believe and what I don't believe.

Nobody is saying fire won't weaken steel locally. Fires cannot bring a steel-structured highrise completely down to the ground. Hence why CD companies use explosives on steel-structured buildings and not fire.

Originally posted by technical difficulties
Both of you deny the work of professionals, labeling it as "disinfo", while embracing the work of people with little to no credentials.

Could you please elaborate on the "work of professionals" that you're referring to? I seem to recall thousands of professionals listed at AE911T, STJ911, PatriotsQuestion911. And those member lists far outweigh any amount of names you can come up with that support the official conspiracy theory.

And while we're at it, the "professional" agency known as NIST says right at the beginning of their report that their report cannot be taken as factual, nor be used as evidence in a court of law. They used guesses, theories and calculations. Your only decision is which conspiracy theory to believe in and which professionals to believe.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I agree with you, if you argue that the planes did not take down the towers. Most engineers know that it would be impossible to do so, unless explosives are used. Furthermore, if a such building could be taken down by say, 2-3 Boeings (767) it would not fall in such precise manner, only demolition crews can make a building fall precisely onto its foundations. I also think there was another attempt at the WTC before this, it was a bombing on Feb 23rd, 1993, and it did not colapse the tower, evidence of the structural strength.

WTC bombing Feb 23rd, 1993

reply to post by theregonnakillme

Please do I would love to send your number to Boeing who make the aircraft! It is their engineers and claim the government is lying and that it was not possible for one of their 767 to be flown at that speed at sea level, or for that fact be flown by someone without thousands of hours flight time. You can argue all you want, concepts and idea's, that is your right as a free American (enjoy it while it lasts though the very people you are protecting are about to take all those rights form you!). When the manufactures of the 767 tell you it is not possible, why do you continue to believe the government, whose own people CIA, Navy intelligence, congressmen, the people who wrote the NIST report and FEMA report all say, WHITEWASH!

I forgot to address this comment before.
1. Regarding the "Boeing engineer" claim, can you provide some evidence for your claims? Just so you know Boeing does have my number..

2. I am Canadian, not American, and I am not aware of a country better than Canada! I do not know about you, but we here thrive because of our social ethics, and tolerance.

3. Having thousands of flight time is not a requirement to fly a B767. I am capable of flying such aircraft, and I do not have that much flight time.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by technical difficulties
you believe the steel is invincible to fire until it reaches it's melting point

Either you're being dishonest, or stereotypical. Take your pic. I love when people try to tell me what I believe and what I don't believe.

Nobody is saying fire won't weaken steel locally. Fires cannot bring a steel-structured highrise completely down to the ground. Hence why CD companies use explosives on steel-structured buildings and not fire.

And as usual, CDers leave out the facts in order to make the other side look bad. The twin towers had a unique design, not to mention they were also hit by airliners. Why is it that you CDers seem to believe that every building is designed the same?

Originally posted by technical difficulties
Both of you deny the work of professionals, labeling it as "disinfo", while embracing the work of people with little to no credentials.

Could you please elaborate on the "work of professionals" that you're referring to? I seem to recall thousands of professionals listed at AE911T, STJ911, PatriotsQuestion911. And those member lists far outweigh any amount of names you can come up with that support the official conspiracy theory.Too bad theories are determined by a large amount of evidence, not just a large amount of professionals (assuming you're even telling the truth about that).
1. Before a building implosion starts, there is a sequence of bangs and flashes, and yet not a sequence of flashes were seen nor sequences of bangs were heard prior to any of the collapses, aside from a few single explosions and flashes that occurred at different times, some even occurring during the collapse, but it's not like explosions have never occurred during fires before, that a explosion during a fire is akin to a virgin birth
2. The process of rigging buildings to be demolished takes weeks and in some cases even months. However, when you take into consideration that they're doing this in three important occupied buildings, it's next to impossible.
3. WTC 1 and 2 both collapsed at the point of impact

And while we're at it, the "professional" agency known as NIST says right at the beginning of their report that their report cannot be taken as factual, nor be used as evidence in a court of law. They used guesses, theories and calculations. Your only decision is which conspiracy theory to believe in and which professionals to believe.

And if the people who have done actual research as opposed to simply going to sites that agree with them say that their reports can't be taken as factual, what does that say about CDers?

reply to post by technical difficulties

And as usual, CDers leave out the facts in order to make the other side look bad. The twin towers had a unique design, not to mention they were also hit by airliners. Why is it that you CDers seem to believe that every building is designed the same?

It is true that the structure of the towers was compromised by the aircrafts, but the manner in which the towers fell perfectly in their foundations raises doubts and skepticism. Also the aircrafts collided on the upper portion of the towers, therefore the foundation should not have been compromised to such extent which would result in their collapse.

Furthermore, the flashes and sounds made from the explosives during an implosion can be seen and heard because it is a controlled demolition. In amid such chaos it would be impossible to hear inside explosions (if in fact they did happen) or even to see flashes. In fact people have claimed that they did infact hear explosions.
Also, for the sake of arguement lets say that the explosives were detonated at the moment of impact, if there were flashes or noises, people might confuse them with flashes and explosions coming from the jet engines.

I am not supporting any of the theories specifically, but the event as a whole was not very convincing to me.