nano Thermite found in all 911 dust samples

jet fuel bringing down a sky scraper is ludicrous. I feel sorry that you haven't got the grasp of physics that I do. Too bad you think I 'm stupid. I know what my level of science understanding is, so I couldn't care less if a camera jockey and bunch of idiots who think the links in this thread suffice in any way in explaining the events and the evidence. You morons are the problem with a,erica. Too fucking lazy to do your homework so you're ignorant and you trust persons and institutions with records of fraud. What morons you are

The Laws of Physics are unamerican and a conspiracy theory.

Can you prove science exists?

Where is it located?

What political party does science belong to?

"SCIENCE" ?? What are you, some kind of fucking communist?

The fact that debate even has to occur of whether jet fuel can bring down giant buildings is fucking AMAZING. These people are morons.

Just think of confused all the REAL hijackers were who had to force pilots to take them where they wanted to go .. they didn't know that it takes no specific training to fly big motherfucking aircraft to perfection. Anybody who's ever played a video game can jump into the cockpits of heavy aircraft and execute manuevers even experienced combat pilots couldn't do.

Why do we waste so much money training pilots?

And look around the country and around the world and one can clearly see that every tall building in the world is being retrofitted to ensure they don't fall down like a pancake if somebody lights a match or a waste basket catches on fire given that now we know that small fires can bring down large buildings. The building retrofitting industry has incresaed its profits 2700 % since 9/11 .. or shall I say SHOULD HAVE if engineers actually took the fairy-tale of 9/11 seriously.

Oh wait, Popular Science says it can happen. You can read it for yourself .. it's on the page right after "How to drain your cesspool."

There are a thousand unanswered questions and a thousand things that are absolutely impossible about the 9/11 fairy-tale, but in truth there's no need to debate the thousand questions and impossibilities. If one believes that giant buildings can be brought down by jet fuel/kerosene, there's really no point in debating anything further. At that point you already knoiw that you're talking to a moron.
 
Last edited:
This is a logical fallacy. Nobody has said it was just fuel that brought down the buildings, that would indeed be ludicrous.

And telling me that I am too "lazy to do my homework" fights with BAC's post as the most ironic on the thread.

Did you read the reports? Did you even bother to read the thread?

I've never suggested you are "stupid", so far the only people who have used that word on this thread are the people who pretend that their "questions haven't been answered."

I'll reiterate here, I sympathize with people who believe this kind of thing, I too distrust the government. I just don't allow that mistrust to blaze me into the illogical and unsupported.

There is no other way to put it but if you believe that giant buildings came down in the way you described, it's absolutely moronic. Ignoring the laws of science and physics is moronic and decidedly stupid .. and that's exactly what you do with your conspiracy theory.

You aren't the only one to read the reports, many of which are seriously flawed. But it doesn't take reading any report to understand the laws of science. It doesn't take reading a report to understand that weakening structures do not fall uniformly at free-fall speed. You'd have to be a complete moron to believe that and totally ignorant of the basic laws of physics and science.

You claim you're informed brother, but you aren't.
 
The Twin Towers must of had special desks, papers, chairs, carpet, and such; because in any other building, all of that stuff is flammable.

All buildings that have fires, even LARGE and ALL-CONSUMING Fires, which was not the case in any of the WTC buildings, have all the stuff you mentioned and more .. YET no steel-frame building in the history of Man has ever collapsed from fire .. BECAUSE IT'S NOT POSSIBLE .. which is why it has NEVER happened BEFORE 9/11 or SINCE, nor will it EVER happen EVER .. BECAUSE IT'S NOT POSSIBLE you fucking moron.

The very fact that you were dumb enough to post some shit about paper and stuff is just mindless.
 
But do run away BAC... I knew from the start that you would ignore facts and try to spin your way out of your hole with more bullshit. Leave the intelligent discussions for those of us who haven't shut our minds to any new data.

:lmao:

Science is a conspiracy theory.

You don't need no stinkin' science.

.. and you claim you're the smart one.

:lmao:

Naw, not running .. just stopped trying to debate this issue with people who believe science is a conspiracy theory.

Think I'll just have fun with dumb people instead. :)
 
There is no other way to put it but if you believe that giant buildings came down in the way you described, it's absolutely moronic. Ignoring the laws of science and physics is moronic and decidedly stupid .. and that's exactly what you do with your conspiracy theory.

You aren't the only one to read the reports, many of which are seriously flawed. But it doesn't take reading any report to understand the laws of science. It doesn't take reading a report to understand that weakening structures do not fall uniformly at free-fall speed. You'd have to be a complete moron to believe that and totally ignorant of the basic laws of physics and science.

You claim you're informed brother, but you aren't.
Again, it isn't me that ignores what science has to offer, nor the reports that are cited by the theorists. Instead of accepting what they say the report says I actually read the report and find they are fooling with your mind.

The reality is, I have questions, I would love to know all the information. I can recognize that this portion of your theory is rubbish, just by reading the reports cited by the links you gave.

Your ability to ignore much information to make a concerted effort at suggesting you have all the answers because you think your links are better is amazing, and funny.
 
All buildings that have fires, even LARGE and ALL-CONSUMING Fires, which was not the case in any of the WTC buildings, have all the stuff you mentioned and more .. YET no steel-frame building in the history of Man has ever collapsed from fire .. BECAUSE IT'S NOT POSSIBLE .. which is why it has NEVER happened BEFORE 9/11 or SINCE, nor will it EVER happen EVER .. BECAUSE IT'S NOT POSSIBLE you fucking moron.

The very fact that you were dumb enough to post some shit about paper and stuff is just mindless.

The complete stupidity of the above is astounding.

1) Just because something has not happened before doesn't mean it is impossible.

2) Again, look at how the structures differ. I have posted it countless times on these threads. The design of the towers were different.

3) NO high rise structure in history has been slammed into at 500 miles per hour by a 767.

4) Do explain which laws of physics you think suggest that the buildings could not collapse as they did. You have said this multiple times, but never expand on what you seem to think is impossible.
 
:lmao:

Science is a conspiracy theory.

You don't need no stinkin' science.

.. and you claim you're the smart one.

:lmao:

Naw, not running .. just stopped trying to debate this issue with people who believe science is a conspiracy theory.

Think I'll just have fun with dumb people instead. :)

Keep laughing dumbass.... the only one ignoring science is you. The very reports you cited yesterday disagree with you. I pointed that out... you have yet to respond. Instead you pretend that your fantasy is somehow reality and that science and physics suggest that the buildings cannot collapse as they did.... when the reports and data suggest that they most certainly could.

Are there questions that still need to be answered... yes. But the idiocy that you continue to spew forth is not a part of the unanswered questions.
 
Again, it isn't me that ignores what science has to offer, nor the reports that are cited by the theorists. Instead of accepting what they say the report says I actually read the report and find they are fooling with your mind.

The reality is, I have questions, I would love to know all the information. I can recognize that this portion of your theory is rubbish, just by reading the reports cited by the links you gave.

Your ability to ignore much information to make a concerted effort at suggesting you have all the answers because you think your links are better is amazing, and funny.

With all due respect and jokes aside, I'm simply amazed by this issue.

Nothing has ever looked like a controlled demolition that wasn't a contolled demolition, and I'm sure even you will admit that all three buildings looked exactly like controlled demolition in every way.

In truth, the debate really stops right there. To believe it was anything other than a controlled demolition is FAR beyond the range of anything I would accept as reasonable ..and that's just one of a thousand questions and impossibilities.

Beyond the rancor, logic and common sense does not support what you believe my brother.
 
With all due respect and jokes aside, I'm simply amazed by this issue.

Nothing has ever looked like a controlled demolition that wasn't a contolled demolition, and I'm sure even you will admit that all three buildings looked exactly like controlled demolition in every way.

In truth, the debate really stops right there. To believe it was anything other than a controlled demolition is FAR beyond the range of anything I would accept as reasonable ..and that's just one of a thousand questions and impossibilities.

Beyond the rancor, logic and common sense does not support what you believe my brother.
What do I believe? I think you are making some incorrect assumptions about what I believe.
 
All buildings that have fires, even LARGE and ALL-CONSUMING Fires, which was not the case in any of the WTC buildings, have all the stuff you mentioned and more .. YET no steel-frame building in the history of Man has ever collapsed from fire .. BECAUSE IT'S NOT POSSIBLE .. which is why it has NEVER happened BEFORE 9/11 or SINCE, nor will it EVER happen EVER .. BECAUSE IT'S NOT POSSIBLE you fucking moron.

The very fact that you were dumb enough to post some shit about paper and stuff is just mindless.

The conversation tends to go away, once you begin to use personal insults.
So why don't you shut your sperm burbing mouth and take your totally fucked theories and shove them up your ass; where I'm sure that they'll be right at home, next to your head.

There, is that better??
 
With all due respect and jokes aside, I'm simply amazed by this issue.

Nothing has ever looked like a controlled demolition that wasn't a contolled demolition, and I'm sure even you will admit that all three buildings looked exactly like controlled demolition in every way.

In truth, the debate really stops right there. To believe it was anything other than a controlled demolition is FAR beyond the range of anything I would accept as reasonable ..and that's just one of a thousand questions and impossibilities.

Beyond the rancor, logic and common sense does not support what you believe my brother.

Well gee golly... we can never set foot on Mars because it has never been done before. We can never cure cancer because it has never been done before. We can never cure AIDS because it has never been done before. If I say something it must be true because I dont need to provide any scientific evidence that this is impossible. It is impossible because I say so.

typical BAC....'I will continue to ignore the evidence in the links I provided that say I was wrong, I will also ignore any evidence presented from any other site, I will also ignore that the buildings I continue to compare to the WTC buildings are NOT the same design as the WTC buildings, I will continue to ignore the fact that those other buildings didn't have 767's slam into them, I will continue to ignore the fact that WTC 7 had massive structural damage because I have a photo from the other side of the building, I will then pretend that no one has answered my objections. Thanks... love BAC'
 
The complete stupidity of the above is astounding.

1) Just because something has not happened before doesn't mean it is impossible.

Oh sure .. it can happen three times in the same day to buildings of different strustures .. never before in history .. three times in the same day .. defies the laws of physcics, science, and engineering .. three times, same day.

Sure .. :)

2) Again, look at how the structures differ. I have posted it countless times on these threads. The design of the towers were different.

The towers were designed withstand the impact of large aircraft with asymmetrical girders throughout the building. The towers stood close to an airport and they took the impact of a plane into the design specifications. The towers were better designed to withstand the impact of a large plane far beetr than other buildings that have been struck by planes .. and didn't melt.

What's your story for WTC7 .. wasn't hit by plane, no significant debris hit it .. free fall speed.

3) NO high rise structure in history has been slammed into at 500 miles per hour by a 767.

Many lessor buildings have been stuck by large planes .. none ever melted .. but beyond that, the belief that a pplane hitting a building would cause it to collapse uniformly at free-fall speed in decidedly unlearned. You would have to know absolutely nothing about physics or buildings.

4) Do explain which laws of physics you think suggest that the buildings could not collapse as they did. You have said this multiple times, but never expand on what you seem to think is impossible.

Had you been paying attention you would know that I have expanded on the science quite often. It's not rocket science and most students learn them by the 8th grade. I know I did.

The Law of Falling Objects
The Law of Continued Momentum
Newton's Third Law
The Conservation of Energy Law -- An object, as it falls, converts its gravitational potential energy (due to height above ground) into kinetic energy (speed). If that object has to use some of its energy for something else, like pushing air out of the way, then there will be less energy available as kinetic energy so it will take longer to reach the ground. If that object meets any mass resistence as it falls, it decreases the rate of fall even further.

The buildings on 9/11 fell at free fall speed .. which meant that NONEof the buildings encountered ANY resistance during their collapse and feel as id there was nothing but air. Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum.. one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors and intact steel support columns the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case — somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans.

You cannot replicate such an event in a lab because it is not possible.

It is scientifically impossible that the fires in the World Trade Center generated enough energy to turn reinforced concrete into fine powder in mid-air. Each of the Twin Towers contained approximately 90,000 tons of concrete that was visibly pulverized as it exploded in mid-air.

It is scientifically impossible that the fires in the World Trade Center generated enough heat to threaten the structural integrity of the steel. Even FEMA acknowledged that the jet fuel completely dissipated within the first few minutes after impact. Jet fuel is essentially kerosene it quickly burns out without large amounts of air .. as it did on 9/11.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics -- Heat generally cannot spontaneously flow from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.

The towers came straight down but debris was blown in every direction .. pulverized debris.

Obviously you attended a different science class than I did so perhaps you can enlighten me on what science supports your conspiracy theory.

And while you're at it please show me where you got the idea that thermite was used in the cleanup.
 
Well gee golly... we can never set foot on Mars because it has never been done before. We can never cure cancer because it has never been done before. We can never cure AIDS because it has never been done before. If I say something it must be true because I dont need to provide any scientific evidence that this is impossible. It is impossible because I say so.

typical BAC....'I will continue to ignore the evidence in the links I provided that say I was wrong, I will also ignore any evidence presented from any other site, I will also ignore that the buildings I continue to compare to the WTC buildings are NOT the same design as the WTC buildings, I will continue to ignore the fact that those other buildings didn't have 767's slam into them, I will continue to ignore the fact that WTC 7 had massive structural damage because I have a photo from the other side of the building, I will then pretend that no one has answered my objections. Thanks... love BAC'

So my grandkids can expect to see the actual Santa Claus this Christmas?

:lmao:

What a sad position to be forced to take.

Just because it's impossible doesn't mean it can't happen.

.. amazing
 
The conversation tends to go away, once you begin to use personal insults.
So why don't you shut your sperm burbing mouth and take your totally fucked theories and shove them up your ass; where I'm sure that they'll be right at home, next to your head.

There, is that better??

Fuck you dummy. The shit you post is mindless and easily discredited.

Any chance you can actually make me do any of the above?

If you think you can, I'm sure we can arrange to have you try it. :)

That would be pleasing indeed.
 
Fuck you dummy. The shit you post is mindless and easily discredited.

Any chance you can actually make me do any of the above?

If you think you can, I'm sure we can arrange to have you try it. :)

That would be pleasing indeed.


But I thought this was how you wanted the conversation's to go, you butt ugly fuckface!!
Hey, it's not my fault that your a prison biatch with tits tattooed on your back.
 
Back
Top