You yourself said the government was hiding contact with aliens, Xooxer. What's to say they didn't employ the aliens to do this, or to say they only reached contact after they found them doing this? How do we know they didn't use a cloaking device and plant a bomb within the internal structure?

Because those ideas are insane.

Xooxer wrote:

Because those ideas are insane.

But belief that the government willingly did this and has made contact with aliens isn't?

AnNoYaNcE.FaCtOr wrote:

Xooxer wrote:

Because those ideas are insane.

But belief that the government willingly did this and has made contact with aliens isn't?

Nope.

Xooxer, you have got to calm down. Perhaps 9/11 was an inside job... okay, start with that as your premise. Now dissect your nine second video and think about this: is your assertion that this video proves WTC7 was a controlled demolition infallible?

No one blames you for your suspicion; the known actions of the Bush Administration is about as close to purposefully evil as I've ever known... however, you still CANNOT make the assertion that 9/11 was an inside job; and that nine second video is far from conclusive.

And yeah, Hazman. I deleted your posts. Like I said, if you don't want your nonsense removed, don't post it. Your post asks for evidence? LOOK AT THE FRIGGEN VIDEO! Your link to some stupid "alien attack" is what prompted me to remove it. I won't have this conversation be derailed. This is not your personal attack platform, and I will not support posts that don't put forward intelligent thought. I haven't banned anyone from posting here, but I'll do so if you continue to post garbage. I'm looking at you, Rugg.

Oh, now being a "truther" is a bad thing? Asking questions is a bad thing? Since when? When did it become unpatriotic to demand an investigation? Oh, right. When G.W.Bush told you not to tolerate "outrageous conspiracy theories". Guess what the official story is? Yep, an outrageous conspiracy theory. Without a full investigation, this is what you get. Don't like it? Talk to The Man.

The onus is on them to prove it wasn't controlled demolition, because that video in a court of law would prove it was. Undeniably. The fact that they have refused to provide any answers indicates their lack of integrity. The fact that the money trail points right back at the top is pretty much a solid case in itself.

My intent is to insult you, to anger you and to make you think. I will never convince you. I realize that. The best I can hope for is making you so furious you either explode from rage and take out a few people, or you get mad enough to prove me wrong, which in turn will force you to address this issue fully, instead of relying on sound bites from Faux News and G.W. Bush to tell you what to think.

Jp wrote:

Not too many steel structured high-rise buildings have had a jumbo jet fly into them, either. I can think of two. Both of them collapsed afterwards. Coincidence? I think not!

Planes fly into buildings. One hit the Empire State Building. None ever fell. The WTC towers didn't fall. They took the impacts and stabilized, just as they were designed to do. They were built to take a jetliner impact, and they performed beautifully in that respect.

Jet fuel is pretty high octane. It burns fast, it burns hot.

In about 10 seconds, actually. After that, it's just office furniture and supplies burning. The fuel was spent so fast it had no impact on the steel at all. None.

I'm also pretty sure that the supposed mechanism for collapse wasn't melting the supports, it was distorting them enough (by expansion due to heat) that they weren't actually supporting the floor any more.

Which is a lie. The tests NIST did proved it couldn't have happened that way. These towers were too strong, too redundant and too reliant to be brought down by flames. The rate of collapse is a physical impossibility with the known laws of physics without extra energy.

So the floor collapsed, and smashed into the floor below, and bada-bing, bada-boom, you've got yourself something that looks a lot like controlled demolition.

Wrong! Boy, people sure do love being wrong. You're talking about the pancake collapse. That's already been abandoned by the official story. Even your Owners aren't stupid enough to think that's plausible. lol

That'd be more impressive if this millenium was more than seven years old.

Considering the massive amount of damage that's been done since, I don't think it is. The impact of this event will ripple through this millennium like a bell. Global warming? Ha! Small potatoes. The economy? Who cares? It's all about 9/11.

EDIT: Looking into this a bit more, I've just realised you were talking about the building that wasn't hit by a plane. My comments above aren't particularly relevant to that. Ah well.

Well, maybe there is some intelligent life out there after all....

I will note that having bits of a steel-structured high-rise building fall on top of you from a great height is also probably not great for structural integrity, and argument from ignorance is a fallacy for a reason.

You miss the point. A building does not fall into itself at freefall speeds perfectly symetrically because one odd support gave way. At best, it topples to one side, or partially collapses. This is not what we see. We clearly see the whole building just sink into it's own foundation.

If I had posted this video as some random demolition and tried to convince you it was done with fire, you'd also call me crazy. Only because it's a 9/11 building do you question your own eyes.

I had a huge reply for this, but hit a wrong button and lost it. Just google 'put options' to start down the money trail.

No, I mean the truth. Oh, the 9/11 Report said it was all false rumors or people trading normally, but what Snopes doesn't say is that the report gave no evidence for this conclusion, only the conclusion itself. If these trades had no suspicious roots, then why not prove it?