9/11 World Trade Center Totally fake! But you still believe it!

Discussion in '9/11' started by Kokomojojo, Sep 1, 2011.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. MrRelevant

    MrRelevant New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,840
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well Id say a guy who posts WTCs are all 'fake' then gives us a link to the actual plane crashing into the WTCs isnt intent on debate ,just getiing a rise.

    The truth movement is little more than bowel movement at this stage.

    Each year goes by,the various 'theories' (using incredibily loosely) must be tweaked and finessed to refit the new mold struck by further evidence proving their "truth" nothing but ficticious nonsense.

    What you get here are attention whores. Folks ,like this ,with nothing to add....just knows he'll get responses from regurgutating long refuffed trash in the hopes we'll play along...and I will. Even tho its pleasurable to watch such people swim in ignorance,they are well past the point of being embarrassed by their insanity. The small support they got in the mid 2000s sustains them, they think that their crazy stories are mainstream now....they couldnt be more wrong tho.

    The benefit of course of arguing these stubbornly dishonest people is the information one delves into to prove thier fables wrong. I know more about 911 than I ever wanted to know 10 years ago. Those who say we dont know everything are of course right....we never will...these are politicians and lifelong govt employees...there are no better people at protecting themselves...this of course not equate to not knowing most of what happened which clearly points the heart of the 'official story'.
     
    BullsLawDan and (deleted member) like this.
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,487
    Likes Received:
    1,727
    Trophy Points:
    113


    well since the only people you deem qualified to speak to the matter are nuclear scientists then its only proper that you apply those same rules to yourself.

    If proving you are a nuclear scientist is proving a negative then suffice to say you are not, there fore not qualified to speak to the matter by your own standards.
     
  3. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0





    i wasn't aware one had to have credentials as a nuclear scientist to dispel the wacky notion that the towers were brought down with nukes.
     
  4. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,487
    Likes Received:
    1,727
    Trophy Points:
    113
    really?

    All I seen was graphics that could be done in anyones home.

    Yeh the movement has accomplished its goals to show the world the treasonous fraud that has been perpetrated on them by the MOBocracy.

    The MOB fell to their own deceitful lies.
     
  5. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,487
    Likes Received:
    1,727
    Trophy Points:
    113

    double standards hmm.
     
  6. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    At this point, I think it's some of that, combined with the fact that, the longer they waste their lives in this false belief, the more difficult and embarrassing it will be for them when they finally are forced to admit they're completely wrong.
    Yeah. When I first discovered these theories I was scared (*)(*)(*)(*)less. It was about 2004. But, after reading through them, and listening to what they were saying, and examining things, I realized they were not even close to being plausible.

    The key is that every one of their theories adds massive, unneeded, superfluous levels of complexity to the events of that day. The more they pile on, the less "efficient" and skilled this supposed conspiracy must be, and thereby the less likely they would have accomplished this and gotten away with it.

    I mean, the scientific evidence is just icing on the cake - 9/11 denier theories don't even stand up to a simple logical analysis.
     
  7. MrRelevant

    MrRelevant New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,840
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If that was the only video of the crash you'd be in business....but thats hardly the case.

    Its the simple things you ignore that makes you look so silly.
     
  8. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So thousands of videos from thousands of different people were all faked?

    How many people are involved in this conspiracy now? Tens of thousands? And not one is talking? Ten years and not one person has even claimed they were involved?

    Of course, your ridiculous assertion is laughable on its face due to the tens of thousands of people who were in NYC and witnessed the attacks live, as they happened. What were those people seeing?
     
  9. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Only if in fact YOU had the credentials to back up your claim of nukes used at the WTC.

    Of course just about anyone has enough 'cred' to dispel the laughable notion of nukes bringing down the towers.
     
  10. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,652
    Likes Received:
    3,698
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Indeed. It is the simple things that make you look silly. The minimum size of a nuclear explosion is governed by the critical mass of the fissile material. Once the fissile material is > 1 critical mass an unregulated chain reaction cannot be stopped. This "simple" rule of nuclear physics rules out the possibility that you have any idea what you are talking about on the subject of "micro" nuclear weapons.

    http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html
     
  11. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,487
    Likes Received:
    1,727
    Trophy Points:
    113

    wow we could make a movie out of all that drama, nope nothing to see.

    well unless you like the same ole empty official song and dance.

    [​IMG]
     
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,487
    Likes Received:
    1,727
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I do not recall mentioning a fission explosion. hit the books.
     
  13. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When you talk about a 'nuke',exactly WHAT are you talking about?


    Can you give a straight answer?
     
  14. ChrLz

    ChrLz Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Indeed. Checked mirror lately?

    And do you know why your cause has not managed to find an 'Erin Brokovich'?

    Hint, it's not because your views are being suppressed...
     
  15. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,487
    Likes Received:
    1,727
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I did not look into that, why?
     
  16. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,487
    Likes Received:
    1,727
    Trophy Points:
    113
    what is commonly known in the industry as a "nuclear reaction"
     
  17. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,652
    Likes Received:
    3,698
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, there's only two types of nuclear reactions, and you said you weren't talking about fission.

    On the other hand, Iron doesn't participate in fusion reactions because it's too heavy.

    Let me guess, you're talking about a truther kind of nuclear reaction?
     
  18. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,485
    Likes Received:
    2,414
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is why you are so funny to read. You talk in circles, and do it so fast and hard that your always seem to have your... never mind that.

    OK, now for a little basic information. A "Nuclear Reaction" is nothing special. This is simply when the particles of one element split those of another element. This may be the particles in Uranium, or even elements much less likely to have an uncontrolled reaction, like Lithium and Deuterium.

    There is a reason why deuteruim is often used in nuclear research is that it is an unusual isotope. It is a hydrogen atom, which instead of having the standard 1 proton-1 electron arangement, has 1 proton- 1 neutron- 1 electron. Because the hydrogen can loose the neutron with no ill effects, this is a perfect element to test with.

    And the first "nuclear reaction" observed involved not uranium, oxygen and nitrogen. And there was no "boom" involved. There are a lot of similar combinations that have been experimented with over the last century. However, only the heavy metals like Uranium and Plutonium have the density and highly unstable elemental mixes that make explosions possible. All other nuclear reactions process fairly slowly, and without any real noticeable effect.

    So please explain this all to us. You are not talking about a fission explosion. By definition then you can't be talking about a fusion explosion either. But you are talking about an explosive nuclear reaction.

    And nuclear reactions always involve fission or fusion of some sort. That is by their definition.

    So please tell us, what exactly are you talking about?
     
  19. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'll take this opportunity to repeat something that was in another thread... I offered Koko or any other 9/11 Denier $100 if they could go 5 posts in a row of directly answering any question posed to them.

    So far, none of them have even made it one.
     
  20. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,487
    Likes Received:
    1,727
    Trophy Points:
    113

    getting warmer!

    No boom?

    everyone knows there was a boom, if there was no boom prove it.
     
  21. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,487
    Likes Received:
    1,727
    Trophy Points:
    113

    you mean official story denial.
     
  22. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,485
    Likes Received:
    2,414
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG]
     
  23. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,487
    Likes Received:
    1,727
    Trophy Points:
    113




    Thats ok we understand, we knew you cant :)






    [​IMG]
     
  24. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,487
    Likes Received:
    1,727
    Trophy Points:
    113

    racist bas *****
     
  25. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wonder if koko is actually thinking they hauled nuclear reactors up the towers and allowed them to go critical?
     

Share This Page