911 World Trade Center Tower "Collapse", a new "Demolition" Euphemism!

How do you know the "best parts" are missing? Have you seen them? And if you haven't, then how do you know they exist? I've never seen so many posts, and so full of idiotic theories, as yours.

 

Yes, and equally there are people who convince themselves that white smoke is, in fact, white flames. Nobody takes them seriously. We call them delusional.

 

The only arse I see being handed to anyone in this pathetic thread of yours, is your own. Honestly, I read more plausible stuff in Superman comics when I was 10.

 

You haven't posted incontrovertible truth abouit anything. Just theories. Let us know when you find something other than blurry, indistinct videos which you have interpreted in a way which attempts to support your narrative.

 

You are correct, my bad. I had the idea of steel breaking under pressure but steel has different classes of applications and its composition is different for each one.

I did my comment in base of a drywall screw made of steel that breaks easily than the common iron nail of the same proportion. That is as far as I know about construction in reference to concrete, drywall, etc.

Electric installation and electrical means is my strong shot.

 

thats what OCTA'S are. delusional,ignoring the laws of physics and that many of the alleged highjackers turned up alive.hee hee.

 

None of the highjackers turned up alive. The highjackers were all killed.

Hee.hee.

 

NONE of the hijackers 'turned up alive'.....it was just a mistake by the beeb,One they've since corrected.


Hee Hee

 

'inside job' still doing a fantastic job of trolling I see? Anyone who uses 'tee hee' after making a conspiracy claim is obviously just fishing for attention. He doesn't really believe what he is saying, I think that's clear enough to most.

 

Anyone who continually has the need or the desire to continually exert the effort to try and counter everything that counters the "official" BS story, clearly has some agenda. I think that's even clearer to most.

 

Anyone who continually has the need or the desire to continually exert the effort to try and counter everything that counters the BS inside job story, clearly has some mental defect. I think that's even clearer to most.

 

Anyone that can't recognize that 911 is itself full BS lies, changing timelines and many other obvious distortions of the truth, clearly lacks an average IQ or comprehension level (or willfully ignorant). Now there's "clear".

 

Sorry Fraud,It's truthers who are doing that,not us......

 

I agree, why do you think we debunkers continually speak down to you "truthers"? You continually spread lies, create false innuendos, obvious distortions of the truth, it takes someone of higher understanding and knowledge, you know people who can actually interpret evidence such as radar, physics, you know the stuff the folks with a lesser IQ can't understand and continually get wrong....but thanks for noticing the effort.

 

No Lonely, it's shills that are doing that, not us.

 

Why the "speaking down"? That's an easy one. That's the agenda. Thanks for acknowledging the effort is still under way though. The "evidence" you supposedly interpret to be proof of the BS story being valid is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, intentionally trying to over complicate and distort that which you do not want people to comprehend for themselves. Again, an agenda.

 

Talk is easy, back your assertions. Please provide proof of images, radar, physics being faked, and the official story of 9/11 being an inside job. Do include details, as well as math as it is needed, I will be waiting....like I have for the last 12 years.....and will be for the next 100 years. Here's you chance oh wise one, put up or shut up.

 

I might consider your proposal, if an honest exchange were actually possible. It isn't.

 

Dodge noted. What a cowardly response.

 

Shills are all in your imagination..

 

They're paid well too!

 

You would know.

 

I do indeed boss.

 

How much does Alex Jones pay, I wonder.

 

I don't know. What's considered "scale"?