It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
Originally posted by morder1
reply to post by SmoKeyHaZe
Look at this guys post history... Its obvious hes a troll, he only posts on 9/11 threads, and discredits everything without offering any proof
Its time to stop feeding the troll...
Skeptic and Believer my @%%
That video he linked proves nothing to me... Fire does not melt steel, Even though it was damaged, it should have collapsed to that point, instead of straight down at near free fall speed...
A building free-falling like this at the rate of 10 floors per second, defies laws of physics, if you say fire did this.
Interesting picture and caption. As though you expect there to be ZERO resistance. Give us a break.
Still doesn't explain building 7.
Why does building 7 need to be explained? A CRAZY amount of debri hit it from Tower 1, fires raged across a bunch of floors, the people even had a feeling it was going to collapse because of the fires andsaid so many times "It's going to collapse!"......How would they know it was going to collapse if they need explosives to do it? did everyone know there were bombs on there? Of course not, anyone with half a brain knows when a building takes that much damage it's going to fall. Wake up sheeple, don't believe everything you see on the net from some loser in his mom basement. At least the news is regulated and you need credentials. Makes more sense to me.
Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
Originally posted by morder1
reply to post by SmoKeyHaZe
Look at this guys post history... Its obvious hes a troll, he only posts on 9/11 threads, and discredits everything without offering any proof
Its time to stop feeding the troll...
Skeptic and Believer my @%%
That video he linked proves nothing to me... Fire does not melt steel, Even though it was damaged, it should have collapsed to that point, instead of straight down at near free fall speed...
A building free-falling like this at the rate of 10 floors per second, defies laws of physics, if you say fire did this.
Interesting picture and caption. As though you expect there to be ZERO resistance. Give us a break.
Still doesn't explain building 7.
Why does building 7 need to be explained? A CRAZY amount of debri hit it from Tower 1, fires raged across a bunch of floors, the people even had a feeling it was going to collapse because of the fires andsaid so many times "It's going to collapse!"......How would they know it was going to collapse if they need explosives to do it? did everyone know there were bombs on there? Of course not, anyone with half a brain knows when a building takes that much damage it's going to fall. Wake up sheeple, don't believe everything you see on the net from some loser in his mom basement. At least the news is regulated and you need credentials. Makes more sense to me.
AGAIN, to the fool who cannot be bothered to read or answer posts...If WTC7 is affected by "debris" from the towers, then surely, the other surrounding WTC's should have been affected in some way?
Yet we see none of them dropping down in the same fashion as WTC7. Come on, explain this...Oh wait, you can't.
Please try & use your brain cells...A bit of common sense is needed here.edit on 17-6-2011 by SmoKeyHaZe because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
Originally posted by morder1
reply to post by SmoKeyHaZe
Look at this guys post history... Its obvious hes a troll, he only posts on 9/11 threads, and discredits everything without offering any proof
Its time to stop feeding the troll...
Skeptic and Believer my @%%
That video he linked proves nothing to me... Fire does not melt steel, Even though it was damaged, it should have collapsed to that point, instead of straight down at near free fall speed...
A building free-falling like this at the rate of 10 floors per second, defies laws of physics, if you say fire did this.
Interesting picture and caption. As though you expect there to be ZERO resistance. Give us a break.
Still doesn't explain building 7.
Why does building 7 need to be explained? A CRAZY amount of debri hit it from Tower 1, fires raged across a bunch of floors, the people even had a feeling it was going to collapse because of the fires andsaid so many times "It's going to collapse!"......How would they know it was going to collapse if they need explosives to do it? did everyone know there were bombs on there? Of course not, anyone with half a brain knows when a building takes that much damage it's going to fall. Wake up sheeple, don't believe everything you see on the net from some loser in his mom basement. At least the news is regulated and you need credentials. Makes more sense to me.
AGAIN, to the fool who cannot be bothered to read or answer posts...If WTC7 is affected by "debris" from the towers, then surely, the other surrounding WTC's should have been affected in some way?
Yet we see none of them dropping down in the same fashion as WTC7. Come on, explain this...Oh wait, you can't.
Please try & use your brain cells...A bit of common sense is needed here.edit on 17-6-2011 by SmoKeyHaZe because: (no reason given)
Well considering only building 7 was effected by the debris, it's not "sure" that other buildings would be effected because...they weren't lol If it was so "sure" then how come it didn't happen? Truthers make no sense EVER!
Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
Originally posted by morder1
reply to post by SmoKeyHaZe
Look at this guys post history... Its obvious hes a troll, he only posts on 9/11 threads, and discredits everything without offering any proof
Its time to stop feeding the troll...
Skeptic and Believer my @%%
That video he linked proves nothing to me... Fire does not melt steel, Even though it was damaged, it should have collapsed to that point, instead of straight down at near free fall speed...
A building free-falling like this at the rate of 10 floors per second, defies laws of physics, if you say fire did this.
Interesting picture and caption. As though you expect there to be ZERO resistance. Give us a break.
Still doesn't explain building 7.
Why does building 7 need to be explained? A CRAZY amount of debri hit it from Tower 1, fires raged across a bunch of floors, the people even had a feeling it was going to collapse because of the fires andsaid so many times "It's going to collapse!"......How would they know it was going to collapse if they need explosives to do it? did everyone know there were bombs on there? Of course not, anyone with half a brain knows when a building takes that much damage it's going to fall. Wake up sheeple, don't believe everything you see on the net from some loser in his mom basement. At least the news is regulated and you need credentials. Makes more sense to me.
AGAIN, to the fool who cannot be bothered to read or answer posts...If WTC7 is affected by "debris" from the towers, then surely, the other surrounding WTC's should have been affected in some way?
Yet we see none of them dropping down in the same fashion as WTC7. Come on, explain this...Oh wait, you can't.
Please try & use your brain cells...A bit of common sense is needed here.edit on 17-6-2011 by SmoKeyHaZe because: (no reason given)
Well considering only building 7 was effected by the debris, it's not "sure" that other buildings would be effected because...they weren't lol If it was so "sure" then how come it didn't happen? Truthers make no sense EVER!
You sir are a sheep & troll. You're answer does not make sense, or even try to give a rational explanation as to why ONLY WTC7 goes down from "debris".
"it's not "sure" that other buildings would be effected because...they weren't lol."
So the debris just happens to somehow avoid doing damage to the other buildings? No effect on WTC6, but takes down WTC7? I think you should at the lay-out of WTC's to get my point.
Coz it's obvious you still don't understand, or are ignorant to this fact. That is why your "debris" theory is BS.
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
Originally posted by morder1
reply to post by SmoKeyHaZe
Look at this guys post history... Its obvious hes a troll, he only posts on 9/11 threads, and discredits everything without offering any proof
Its time to stop feeding the troll...
Skeptic and Believer my @%%
That video he linked proves nothing to me... Fire does not melt steel, Even though it was damaged, it should have collapsed to that point, instead of straight down at near free fall speed...
A building free-falling like this at the rate of 10 floors per second, defies laws of physics, if you say fire did this.
Interesting picture and caption. As though you expect there to be ZERO resistance. Give us a break.
Still doesn't explain building 7.
Why does building 7 need to be explained? A CRAZY amount of debri hit it from Tower 1, fires raged across a bunch of floors, the people even had a feeling it was going to collapse because of the fires andsaid so many times "It's going to collapse!"......How would they know it was going to collapse if they need explosives to do it? did everyone know there were bombs on there? Of course not, anyone with half a brain knows when a building takes that much damage it's going to fall. Wake up sheeple, don't believe everything you see on the net from some loser in his mom basement. At least the news is regulated and you need credentials. Makes more sense to me.
AGAIN, to the fool who cannot be bothered to read or answer posts...If WTC7 is affected by "debris" from the towers, then surely, the other surrounding WTC's should have been affected in some way?
Yet we see none of them dropping down in the same fashion as WTC7. Come on, explain this...Oh wait, you can't.
Please try & use your brain cells...A bit of common sense is needed here.edit on 17-6-2011 by SmoKeyHaZe because: (no reason given)
Well considering only building 7 was effected by the debris, it's not "sure" that other buildings would be effected because...they weren't lol If it was so "sure" then how come it didn't happen? Truthers make no sense EVER!
You sir are a sheep & troll. You're answer does not make sense, or even try to give a rational explanation as to why ONLY WTC7 goes down from "debris".
"it's not "sure" that other buildings would be effected because...they weren't lol."
So the debris just happens to somehow avoid doing damage to the other buildings? No effect on WTC6, but takes down WTC7? I think you should at the lay-out of WTC's to get my point.
Coz it's obvious you still don't understand, or are ignorant to this fact. That is why your "debris" theory is BS.
Ya I'm a troll because I don't believe outrages conspiracy theories, you don't deserve answers because you're a nut job and you wouldn't accept the answers anyway.....I thought a missle must have it the Pentagon before because there was no wing damage to the building, then a saw all the poles that were knocked down, witnesses, and how the wings folded back into the hole I was satisfied because I'm not crazy. A crazy person would still come up with an excuse as to why it's false even when your proved wrong. Just like how the explosive theory has been proven wrong....you still believe though hahahaa
Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe
Originally posted by morder1
reply to post by SmoKeyHaZe
Look at this guys post history... Its obvious hes a troll, he only posts on 9/11 threads, and discredits everything without offering any proof
Its time to stop feeding the troll...
Skeptic and Believer my @%%
That video he linked proves nothing to me... Fire does not melt steel, Even though it was damaged, it should have collapsed to that point, instead of straight down at near free fall speed...
A building free-falling like this at the rate of 10 floors per second, defies laws of physics, if you say fire did this.
Interesting picture and caption. As though you expect there to be ZERO resistance. Give us a break.
Still doesn't explain building 7.
Why does building 7 need to be explained? A CRAZY amount of debri hit it from Tower 1, fires raged across a bunch of floors, the people even had a feeling it was going to collapse because of the fires andsaid so many times "It's going to collapse!"......How would they know it was going to collapse if they need explosives to do it? did everyone know there were bombs on there? Of course not, anyone with half a brain knows when a building takes that much damage it's going to fall. Wake up sheeple, don't believe everything you see on the net from some loser in his mom basement. At least the news is regulated and you need credentials. Makes more sense to me.
AGAIN, to the fool who cannot be bothered to read or answer posts...If WTC7 is affected by "debris" from the towers, then surely, the other surrounding WTC's should have been affected in some way?
Yet we see none of them dropping down in the same fashion as WTC7. Come on, explain this...Oh wait, you can't.
Please try & use your brain cells...A bit of common sense is needed here.edit on 17-6-2011 by SmoKeyHaZe because: (no reason given)
Well considering only building 7 was effected by the debris, it's not "sure" that other buildings would be effected because...they weren't lol If it was so "sure" then how come it didn't happen? Truthers make no sense EVER!
You sir are a sheep & troll. You're answer does not make sense, or even try to give a rational explanation as to why ONLY WTC7 goes down from "debris".
"it's not "sure" that other buildings would be effected because...they weren't lol."
So the debris just happens to somehow avoid doing damage to the other buildings? No effect on WTC6, but takes down WTC7? I think you should at the lay-out of WTC's to get my point.
Coz it's obvious you still don't understand, or are ignorant to this fact. That is why your "debris" theory is BS.
Ya I'm a troll because I don't believe outrages conspiracy theories, you don't deserve answers because you're a nut job and you wouldn't accept the answers anyway.....I thought a missle must have it the Pentagon before because there was no wing damage to the building, then a saw all the poles that were knocked down, witnesses, and how the wings folded back into the hole I was satisfied because I'm not crazy. A crazy person would still come up with an excuse as to why it's false even when your proved wrong. Just like how the explosive theory has been proven wrong....you still believe though hahahaa
Come on, try & debunk my theory as to why only WTC7 goes down with no effect on the other WTC's.
Don't try to steer the subject onto the Pentagon attack
I don't deserve answers? That's coz you don't have a single valid answer little kid.
You ARE a troll because your replying to posts with no real contribution other than to get your own point across & evoke a reaction.
Keep deluding yourself son, because you are not changing anybody elses opinion on here, by just simply 'disagreeing' with the conspiracy theories.
If you could even answer my question without trying to dodge it, then I could look past the weak trolling.
But the fact that, you just replied to my question with this shows me how clueless you really are, that you cannot come up with a better answer, than to go on another little pointless rant.
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
then a saw * * * how the wings folded back into the hole I was satisfied because I'm not crazy.
Originally posted by dubiousone
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
then a saw * * * how the wings folded back into the hole I was satisfied because I'm not crazy.
How old are you? Have you made it past the 5th grade yet? That's not an insult. It's a serious question. I am seriously curious about your age because you post like someone with an extraordinarily limited amount of life experience.
If you believe that the massive wings of an airliner traveling at that speed could have folded back and neatly slid through the hole upon impact with the stationary Pentagon wall, then you have no common sense whatsoever, were likely born yesterday, and have no comprehension of basic Newtonian physics.
What kind of force would it take to cause the two massive jet engines, in the instant when the plane impacts the wall, to make two 90 degree changes of direction [traveling forward at 500 mph, then an instantaneous 90 degree change of direction sideways toward the center, and then another instantaneous 90 degree change of direction to continue traveling straight forward through the hole]. In order to acomplish that miracle, the two jet engines would have to accelerate at miraculous rates of speed toward the center, suddenly stop traveling sideways, and then suddenly start traveling forward again. Do you have any concept of the impossibility of that occurrence?edit on 6/17/2011 by dubiousone because: Clarification.
Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
You mad? lol