Author Topic: rare 9/11 footage, how was this unseen for so long? (Read 212726 times)

OzmO · « **Reply #1425 on:** May 18, 2016, 11:42:44 AM »

Quote from: M4tad0r on May 17, 2016, 04:49:26 PM

If you truly believe the Government on what happened on 9/11 then watch Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition, you are going to be laughing your ass off with that crazy Russian, but his theory explains why and how two 115 floor buildings became dust where only the steel beens were left, and why everything inside was destroyed, nothing bigger than a office phone was ever recuperated, no office furniture, no bodies, nada.

http://www.911thology.com/nexus1.html

Another good article where you are going to crack up, you should read it.

It think there might be some malware on that link.

Not that if nothing survived bigger than a office phone proves or supports that Russian's nuKe theory anyway.... here some thing as big or bigger that survived.

12 survivors pulled from WTC rubble (assuming all 12 were bigger than a office phone:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/this_just_in/2002/09/an_unlikely_hero.html

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/be/ef/d6/beefd6e3c5e017560dc4257644253581.jpg

Office phone lol

If you google WTC 9/11 bodies you get pics too.

Seriously, most 9/11 arguments are either based on association fallacies or false premises.

M4tad0r · « **Reply #1426 on:** May 18, 2016, 12:36:14 PM »

Quote from: OzmO on May 18, 2016, 10:48:10 AM

Because they can't guarantee it will land on its footprint. WTC 7, 1 and 2 are good examples of that. With explosives they can.

additionally all had 3rd party damage damage.

Sorry to bring this up again. But that was a flawed logic premise.

Hey Ozmo remember this picture you provided as damage from WTC 7 onto other buildings? Gues what, it was a lie.

From the germant article I provided a link to:

In the photo above, you can see damage inflicted to the neighboring “Verizon-Building” by such a piece of steel perimeter assembly. From the twin towers. Thank you.

http://www.911thology.com/nexus1.html

M4tad0r · « **Reply #1427 on:** May 18, 2016, 12:39:26 PM »

Quote from: OzmO on May 18, 2016, 11:42:44 AM

It think there might be some malware on that link.

Not that if nothing survived bigger than a office phone proves or supports that Russian's nuKe theory anyway.... here some thing as big or bigger that survived.

12 survivors pulled from WTC rubble (assuming all 12 were bigger than a office phone:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/this_just_in/2002/09/an_unlikely_hero.html

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/be/ef/d6/beefd6e3c5e017560dc4257644253581.jpg

Office phone lol

If you google WTC 9/11 bodies you get pics too.

Seriously, most 9/11 arguments are either based on association fallacies or false premises.

The only premises based on false theories are yours every time you come back here with your lies, at this point it's more then clear the Government patsy that you are but I will entertain you for a while.

All this pictures of evidences you said are from all around the twin towers. If you think that came from underneath the twin towers I got a bridge to sell you. Lol

M4tad0r · « **Reply #1428 on:** May 18, 2016, 12:40:42 PM »

Quote from: OzmO on May 18, 2016, 11:23:23 AM

Yet a few years later they did investigate and provided a report.

Which to date they have not presented or released for peer review and you have not demonstrated otherwise. Thanks for playing, try again.

M4tad0r · « **Reply #1429 on:** May 18, 2016, 12:50:43 PM »

Quote from: OzmO on May 18, 2016, 10:48:10 AM

Because they can't guarantee it will land on its footprint. WTC 7, 1 and 2 are good examples of that. With explosives they can.

additionally all had 3rd party damage damage.

Sorry to bring this up again. But that was a flawed logic premise.

Biggest lie to date, lying Ozmo still saying the buildings did not come down into it's own footprint, now me know who's the pot head here.

The only flaw logic is yours, like trying to slander the the guy who wanted to recreate 9/11, the creators of loose change and now this, HAHAHAH, nice try patsy.

TWIN TOWERS

TWIN TOWERS

WTC 7

WTC 7

OzmO · « **Reply #1430 on:** May 18, 2016, 12:59:34 PM »

Quote from: M4tad0r on May 18, 2016, 12:50:43 PM

Biggest lie to date, lying Ozmo still saying the buildings did not come down into it's own footprint, now me know who's the pot head here.

I have shown visual evidence. Undeniable.

Quote

The only flaw logic is yours, like trying to slander the the guy who wanted to recreate 9/11, the creators of loose change and now this, HAHAHAH, nice try patsy.

So we are back to name calling?

The point is he can't recreate the conditions without an exact replica of the WTCs. Basic logic and science.

OzmO · « **Reply #1431 on:** May 18, 2016, 01:01:43 PM »

Quote from: M4tad0r on May 18, 2016, 12:40:42 PM

Which to date they have not presented for peer review and you have not demonstrated otherwise. Thanks for playing, try again.

sorry, I would trust our government over some Russian hack who uses false premises to make his arguments. And that says a lot because i don't trust our government.

OzmO · « **Reply #1432 on:** May 18, 2016, 01:07:09 PM »

Quote from: M4tad0r on May 18, 2016, 12:39:26 PM

The only premises based on false theories are yours every time you come back here with your lies, at this point it's more then clear the Government patsy that you are but I will entertain you for while.

All this pictures of evidences you said are from all around the twin towers. If you think that came from underneath the twin towers I got a bridge to sell you. Lol

Couldn't keep it civil could you?

you said he said nothing bigger than a office phone. I showed pics of things bigger then and office phone.

you said He said no bodies. google it, there were bodies and 12 survivors.

I provided pics. undeniable.

So now, all you have to come back with is calling me a liar (and name calling)?

that's WEAK SAUCE.

M4tad0r · « **Reply #1433 on:** May 18, 2016, 01:07:16 PM »

Quote from: OzmO on May 18, 2016, 12:59:34 PM

I have shown visual evidence. Undeniable.

So we are back to name calling?

The point is he can't recreate the conditions without an exact replica of the WTCs. Basic logic and science.

My visual evidence beats your lies every time, Fact.

The moment you star lying, the truce is over, trying to slander people left and right like the patsy you are, I'm going to call you out on your bullshit, end of story.

But they did on 9/11. We all see were you are going with YOUR flaw logic, lol.

OzmO · « **Reply #1434 on:** May 18, 2016, 01:08:47 PM »

Quote from: M4tad0r on May 18, 2016, 01:07:16 PM

My visual evidence beats your lies every time, Fact.

The moment you star lying, the truce is over, trying to slander people left and right like the patsy you are, I going to call you out on your bullshit, end of story.

But they did on 9/11. We all see were you are going with YOUR flaw logic, lol.

So those surrounding buildings were not damaged?

Those pics are faked?

Everyone is on it?

I am showing you pics, how am i lying?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

WEAK SAUCE HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

M4tad0r · « **Reply #1435 on:** May 18, 2016, 01:08:57 PM »

Quote from: OzmO on May 18, 2016, 01:01:43 PM

sorry, I would trust our government over some Russian hack who uses false premises to make his arguments. And that says a lot because i don't trust our government.

Here you go again, you just can't restrain your self from slandering people, eh?

To bad for you I'm in this thread. Lol.

OzmO · « **Reply #1436 on:** May 18, 2016, 01:10:28 PM »

Quote from: M4tad0r on May 18, 2016, 01:08:57 PM

Here you go again, you just can't restrain your self from slandering people, eh?

To bad for you I'm in this thread. Lol.

It didn't take long for the true you to come back eh?

I love that you are in thread.

OzmO · « **Reply #1437 on:** May 18, 2016, 01:12:27 PM »

You are by far the most fun person i have ever dealt with on 9/11

You couldn't keep it civil, when i provided visual evidence debunking your claims, you call me lair?

ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO

Your list of failures are so long now.

This is a great example of the mental fragility of a typical 9/11 Truffer

M4tad0r · « **Reply #1438 on:** May 18, 2016, 01:14:53 PM »

Quote from: OzmO on May 18, 2016, 01:08:47 PM

So those surrounding buildings were not damaged?

Those pics are faked?

Everyone is on it?

The surrounding building were damage but from the debris that were lunch from the twin tower as we seen in the videos, NOT form WTC 7 while going down. Fact.

The pictures you presented were in fact damage from debris from the twin towers. Fact. Your explanation lies, like the pictures from accident from planes that supposedly desintegraded, also lies.

What do you see at the right bottom side of the crashed building? I'm seeing the wings and ENGINES, you?

OzmO · « **Reply #1439 on:** May 18, 2016, 01:16:13 PM »

Quote from: M4tad0r on May 18, 2016, 01:14:53 PM

The surrounding building were damage but from the debris that were lunch from the twin tower as we seen in the videos, NOT form WTC 7 while going down. Fact.

The pictures you presented were in fact damage from debris from the twin towers. Fact. Your explanation lies, like the pictures from accident from planes that supposedly desintegraded, also lies.

What do you see at the right side of the crashed building? I'm seeing the wings and ENGINES, you?

You are by far the most fun person i have ever dealt with on 9/11

You couldn't keep it civil, when i provided visual evidence debunking your claims, you call me lair?

ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO

Your list of failures are so long now.

This is a great example of the mental fragility of a typical 9/11 Truffer

PS: that pic if for the pentagon argument, not the WTC 7 one. lol can't even get that right can you? add another one to your failure list HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

M4tad0r · « **Reply #1440 on:** May 18, 2016, 01:18:02 PM »

Quote from: OzmO on May 18, 2016, 01:10:28 PM

It didn't take long for the true you to come back eh?

I love that you are in thread.

Thinking you are winning, when every body is seen you for the patsy that you are, HAHAHHAHAHAHAA.

Nice try. Please try again.

OzmO · « **Reply #1441 on:** May 18, 2016, 01:18:58 PM »

Quote from: M4tad0r on May 18, 2016, 01:18:02 PM

Thinking you are winning, when every body is seen you for the patsy that you are, HAHAHHAHAHAHAA.

Nice try. Please try again.

You are by far the most fun person i have ever dealt with on 9/11 (seriously)

You couldn't keep it civil, when i provided visual evidence debunking your claims, you call me lair?

Quote from: M4tad0r on May 18, 2016, 12:39:26 PM

you come back here with your lies… … it's more then clear the Government patsy

Quote from: M4tad0r on May 18, 2016, 12:50:43 PM

Biggest lie to date, lying Ozmo... ....nice try patsy.

Quote from: M4tad0r on May 18, 2016, 01:07:16 PM

The moment you star lying,

ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO

Your list of failures are so long now.

This is a great example of the mental fragility of a typical 9/11 Truffer When losing badly they regress into personal attacks.

thebrink · « **Reply #1442 on:** May 18, 2016, 05:55:58 PM »

Quote from: Fortress on May 18, 2016, 09:39:28 AM

It really is all so overwhelming to imagine any semi-intelligent individual could be presented with so much information and yet remain committed to a belief in the official story.

I watch the montage videos of men and women jumping/falling from the WTCs to their certain deaths and feel such anger. They could be my wife, my brother or my friend.

Some people decided their lives were expendable in service of their selfish pursuits.

That the horrors these victims experienced before finding peace in death was acceptable, as long as they got what they wanted.

The disparity in our species is nothing short of awe-inspiring. Some are so good, well meaning and decent.

And some are so utterly despicable it's difficult to comprehend.

X2

Interesting sentiments

illuminati · « **Reply #1443 on:** May 18, 2016, 05:58:30 PM »

Quote from: illuminati on May 18, 2016, 02:52:15 AM

Let's create a What if Scenario.

I am a novice trainee pilot Never Having actually Flown a Real Plane.
I have Hijacked A Plane At X Thousand Feet up.
Killed The Pilots & Taken over the controls.
I plot a course to The Pentagon, considering I have no previous knowledge of the route to this destination.
I Bring the plane down from X number of Feet up to approx 10/20/30 feet above the ground.
I straight away Find a clear pathway Never having Flown a on this Route at this height & Find a clear route No trees No Lamposts No other Tall obstructions on the way in To Allow me to
Fly The Plane into The Pentagon At 500mph & 10/20 above The ground.

Please can some one quote me odds on this.

Also for those that Believe my Fairy Tale
1. I have a Bridge For Sale.
2. I Know Of A Village That Is
Missing An Idiot.

calfzilla · « **Reply #1444 on:** May 18, 2016, 10:24:54 PM »

My guess is in about 50 years or so the government will fess up and be like "oh yeah we did it because we needed to provide you more security and such, but would never do anything like that today, it was a different time". Blah blah yeah right

Colossus_1986 · « **Reply #1445 on:** May 19, 2016, 06:57:18 AM »

Quote from: calfzilla on May 18, 2016, 10:24:54 PM

My guess is in about 50 years or so the government will fess up and be like "oh yeah we did it because we needed to provide you more security and such, but would never do anything like that today, it was a different time". Blah blah yeah right

Scary shit when a country can withhold information and then 50years later stuff gets declassified and they're like "ah well yeah we did that, what you gonna do now?".

Given Americans have the memory of a goldfish (Since history repeats itself over and over), they won't even bat an eye when presented with that info some 50 years later.

Colossus_1986 · « **Reply #1446 on:** May 19, 2016, 06:58:54 AM »

Quote from: Fortress on May 18, 2016, 09:39:28 AM

It really is all so overwhelming to imagine any semi-intelligent individual could be presented with so much information and yet remain committed to a belief in the official story.

I watch the montage videos of men and women jumping/falling from the WTCs to their certain deaths and feel such anger. They could be my wife, my brother or my friend.

Some people decided their lives were expendable in service of their selfish pursuits.

That the horrors these victims experienced before finding peace in death was acceptable, as long as they got what they wanted.

The disparity in our species is nothing short of awe-inspiring. Some are so good, well meaning and decent.

And some are so utterly despicable it's difficult to comprehend.

X3

Pork_Chop · « **Reply #1447 on:** May 19, 2016, 07:37:18 AM »

To suggest jet fuel can melt asbestos-fire-retardent clad steel beams is like saying a nice log would melt a stove.

OzmO · « **Reply #1448 on:** May 19, 2016, 11:11:17 AM »

Quote from: Pork_Chop on May 19, 2016, 07:37:18 AM

To suggest jet fuel can melt asbestos-fire-retardent clad steel beams is like saying a nice log would melt a stove.

To suggest that jet fuel melted the steel beams and that's why the WTC's fell, means you haven't read and researched 9/11.

OzmO · « **Reply #1449 on:** May 19, 2016, 11:14:24 AM »

The most common of trait of CT'ers is the denial of reality especially when presented with visual proof that destroys their flawed logic and false premise based arguments.

So they live in the fairy tale land of false premises that sway the ignorant.

Most if not all become cowards in the process of their BS getting exposed for what it is.