[Vote] Who did 911?

[BADecker]

Official version?  The question is not whether people agree with all aspects of some "official version", but something entirely different.

It is about questioning the gigantic leap you made in your thinking between a comment by Rumsfield as to level of detail in transactions, to your presenting a theory of govenrment involvement in 911 to destroy records of 2T of transactions.  That ridiculous leap is the issue here.  That dog don't hunt.

And yes, accounting down to the transaction level is a product of very cheap computer memory.

Your colloquialisms sure are slicker than snot on a doorknob! Concluding that when 2.3 trillion dollars goes unaccounted for, that some or most of it may have been stolen is not a giant leap in logic, in fact when money goes missing that is usually the first thing people look at. Clearly there were many reasons for the 9/11 attacks, but pointing out one of the potential motives does not mean that was the only reason why it was perpetrated. Your failure in logic is your own inability to critically examine the inconsistencies of the 9/11 commission report because you are too busy "debunking".

Maybe the snot evolved there. Maybe it was all evolution that did 9/11.

 

[1715206512]

1715206512

[1715206512]

1715206512

[1715206512]

1715206512

[1715206512]

1715206512

[1715206512]

1715206512

[Spendulus]

Official version?  The question is not whether people agree with all aspects of some "official version", but something entirely different.

It is about questioning the gigantic leap you made in your thinking between a comment by Rumsfield as to level of detail in transactions, to your presenting a theory of govenrment involvement in 911 to destroy records of 2T of transactions.  That ridiculous leap is the issue here.  That dog don't hunt.

And yes, accounting down to the transaction level is a product of very cheap computer memory.

Your colloquialisms sure are slicker than snot on a doorknob! Concluding that when 2.3 trillion dollars goes unaccounted for, that some or most of it may have been stolen is not a giant leap in logic, in fact when money goes missing that is usually the first thing people look at. Clearly there were many reasons for the 9/11 attacks, but pointing out one of the potential motives does not mean that was the only reason why it was perpetrated. Your failure in logic is your own inability to critically examine the inconsistencies of the 9/11 commission report because you are too busy "debunking".

It's not even "debunking."

I'm just trying to indicate that 8 annual entire budgets for the entire Defense department was not and is not "missing."  Keep in mind in this discussion that these budgets (which I doubt you have ever actually looked at, but please do) have black budgets right there laid out that way.    They don't have to tell you what they spent that money on, but you do get an idea of the size of those sub budgets.

You can't develop a conspiracy theory on it being an inside job by first, "making up" the word "missing" and then mis interpreting that word to allow for massive thievery that required a coverup.  That's ridiculous.  Look at the actual budgets and the actual things Rumsfield said and what he meant and you'll see.

So you have not "pointed out one of the potential motives."  Go ahead, point out some others that do make sense - be my guest.

That's the point.

[BADecker]

Official version?  The question is not whether people agree with all aspects of some "official version", but something entirely different.

It is about questioning the gigantic leap you made in your thinking between a comment by Rumsfield as to level of detail in transactions, to your presenting a theory of govenrment involvement in 911 to destroy records of 2T of transactions.  That ridiculous leap is the issue here.  That dog don't hunt.

And yes, accounting down to the transaction level is a product of very cheap computer memory.

Your colloquialisms sure are slicker than snot on a doorknob! Concluding that when 2.3 trillion dollars goes unaccounted for, that some or most of it may have been stolen is not a giant leap in logic, in fact when money goes missing that is usually the first thing people look at. Clearly there were many reasons for the 9/11 attacks, but pointing out one of the potential motives does not mean that was the only reason why it was perpetrated. Your failure in logic is your own inability to critically examine the inconsistencies of the 9/11 commission report because you are too busy "debunking".

It's not even "debunking."

I'm just trying to indicate that 8 annual entire budgets for the entire Defense department was not and is not "missing."  Keep in mind in this discussion that these budgets (which I doubt you have ever actually looked at, but please do) have black budgets right there laid out that way.    They don't have to tell you what they spent that money on, but you do get an idea of the size of those sub budgets.

You can't develop a conspiracy theory on it being an inside job by first, "making up" the word "missing" and then mis interpreting that word to allow for massive thievery that required a coverup.  That's ridiculous.  Look at the actual budgets and the actual things Rumsfield said and what he meant and you'll see.

So you have not "pointed out one of the potential motives."  Go ahead, point out some others that do make sense - be my guest.

That's the point.

More and more I think your big point is to cover up the fact that 9/11 was an inside job to a very great extent, even if it takes getting onto some semi-important sidetrack to do it.

[toddtervy]

Just your typical U.S. people, most of them are too stupid/crazy to realize it might be a bad thing.  You could also look at them as zombies, just a bit smarter than we're use to seeing on the tv shows. If stupid is not enough most are fat and addicted to food and/or drugs, as well as being  highly addicted to money and arrogance.  Burning and blowing up buildings should be the new symbol for America.  I don't think anyone believes that statue of liberty B/S anymore.

[Netpyder]

Official version?  The question is not whether people agree with all aspects of some "official version", but something entirely different.

It is about questioning the gigantic leap you made in your thinking between a comment by Rumsfield as to level of detail in transactions, to your presenting a theory of govenrment involvement in 911 to destroy records of 2T of transactions.  That ridiculous leap is the issue here.  That dog don't hunt.

And yes, accounting down to the transaction level is a product of very cheap computer memory.

Your colloquialisms sure are slicker than snot on a doorknob! Concluding that when 2.3 trillion dollars goes unaccounted for, that some or most of it may have been stolen is not a giant leap in logic, in fact when money goes missing that is usually the first thing people look at. Clearly there were many reasons for the 9/11 attacks, but pointing out one of the potential motives does not mean that was the only reason why it was perpetrated. Your failure in logic is your own inability to critically examine the inconsistencies of the 9/11 commission report because you are too busy "debunking".

It's not even "debunking."

I'm just trying to indicate that 8 annual entire budgets for the entire Defense department was not and is not "missing."  Keep in mind in this discussion that these budgets (which I doubt you have ever actually looked at, but please do) have black budgets right there laid out that way.    They don't have to tell you what they spent that money on, but you do get an idea of the size of those sub budgets.

You can't develop a conspiracy theory on it being an inside job by first, "making up" the word "missing" and then mis interpreting that word to allow for massive thievery that required a coverup.  That's ridiculous.  Look at the actual budgets and the actual things Rumsfield said and what he meant and you'll see.

So you have not "pointed out one of the potential motives."  Go ahead, point out some others that do make sense - be my guest.

That's the point.

The only ridiculous is spendulus

you still believe what the government shows you. so be it, hope that makes you sleep better
but am not swallowing that, and so is now most people of the world and all the families of people who perished in the 9/11... maybe they are wrong too. and the countless architect who proved that the free fall cannot happen because of jet fuel which has already burned out in the first 20-30 minutes of the crash, maybe they are wrong too, and rumsfeld saying a day before 9/11 that the pentagon cannot track 3.2 Trillion $. well maybe he was wrong too at that time. or he was drunk. then the countless other witnesses might be wrong too. and the person who "received" the passports of the hijackers from a man who ran right after giving him the passport, well maybe he was dreaming or he set up a lie. secret of the usa in wtc7 came to ash in a free fall from supposed heat from another building 1 football pitch away, well people who believe it was demolition, they might be wrong too. everybody is wrong except the people who governs usa and the specific companies directly involved with the president of that time, well they are right..

am i not right spendulus?

[Kluge]

Transnational heroin traffickers (basically George Soros).

[Spendulus]

Official version?  The question is not whether people agree with all aspects of some "official version", but something entirely different.

It is about questioning the gigantic leap you made in your thinking between a comment by Rumsfield as to level of detail in transactions, to your presenting a theory of govenrment involvement in 911 to destroy records of 2T of transactions.  That ridiculous leap is the issue here.  That dog don't hunt.

And yes, accounting down to the transaction level is a product of very cheap computer memory.

Your colloquialisms sure are slicker than snot on a doorknob! Concluding that when 2.3 trillion dollars goes unaccounted for, that some or most of it may have been stolen is not a giant leap in logic, in fact when money goes missing that is usually the first thing people look at. Clearly there were many reasons for the 9/11 attacks, but pointing out one of the potential motives does not mean that was the only reason why it was perpetrated. Your failure in logic is your own inability to critically examine the inconsistencies of the 9/11 commission report because you are too busy "debunking".

It's not even "debunking."

I'm just trying to indicate that 8 annual entire budgets for the entire Defense department was not and is not "missing."  Keep in mind in this discussion that these budgets (which I doubt you have ever actually looked at, but please do) have black budgets right there laid out that way.    They don't have to tell you what they spent that money on, but you do get an idea of the size of those sub budgets.

You can't develop a conspiracy theory on it being an inside job by first, "making up" the word "missing" and then mis interpreting that word to allow for massive thievery that required a coverup.  That's ridiculous.  Look at the actual budgets and the actual things Rumsfield said and what he meant and you'll see.

So you have not "pointed out one of the potential motives."  Go ahead, point out some others that do make sense - be my guest.

That's the point.

The only ridiculous is spendulus

you still believe what the government shows you. so be it, hope that makes you sleep better
but am not swallowing that, and so is now most people of the world and all the families of people who perished in the 9/11... maybe they are wrong too. and the countless architect who proved that the free fall cannot happen because of jet fuel which has already burned out in the first 20-30 minutes of the crash, maybe they are wrong too, and rumsfeld saying a day before 9/11 that the pentagon cannot track 3.2 Trillion $. well maybe he was wrong too at that time. or he was drunk. then the countless other witnesses might be wrong too. and the person who "received" the passports of the hijackers from a man who ran right after giving him the passport, well maybe he was dreaming or he set up a lie. secret of the usa in wtc7 came to ash in a free fall from supposed heat from another building 1 football pitch away, well people who believe it was demolition, they might be wrong too. everybody is wrong except the people who governs usa and the specific companies directly involved with the president of that time, well they are right..

am i not right spendulus?

No, you have a rambling line of nonsense.  I've explained rumsfield.  You were wrong about steel, wrong about aluminum, wrong about light pieces of paper and plastic fluttering around, You were wrong about many other things.

Many of these things are based on chemistry and physics, so there isn't any "arguing" about them.

Basically you just need a warm comforting blanket inside which no Muslims do bad things, so you'd prefer a conspiracy where The Great Satan (USA) Did 911.

Oh, wait a minute.  There's that darn ISIS.   I guess there are some really evil people in the Muslim community.

[Kluge]

Official version?  The question is not whether people agree with all aspects of some "official version", but something entirely different.

It is about questioning the gigantic leap you made in your thinking between a comment by Rumsfield as to level of detail in transactions, to your presenting a theory of govenrment involvement in 911 to destroy records of 2T of transactions.  That ridiculous leap is the issue here.  That dog don't hunt.

And yes, accounting down to the transaction level is a product of very cheap computer memory.

Your colloquialisms sure are slicker than snot on a doorknob! Concluding that when 2.3 trillion dollars goes unaccounted for, that some or most of it may have been stolen is not a giant leap in logic, in fact when money goes missing that is usually the first thing people look at. Clearly there were many reasons for the 9/11 attacks, but pointing out one of the potential motives does not mean that was the only reason why it was perpetrated. Your failure in logic is your own inability to critically examine the inconsistencies of the 9/11 commission report because you are too busy "debunking".

It's not even "debunking."

I'm just trying to indicate that 8 annual entire budgets for the entire Defense department was not and is not "missing."  Keep in mind in this discussion that these budgets (which I doubt you have ever actually looked at, but please do) have black budgets right there laid out that way.    They don't have to tell you what they spent that money on, but you do get an idea of the size of those sub budgets.

You can't develop a conspiracy theory on it being an inside job by first, "making up" the word "missing" and then mis interpreting that word to allow for massive thievery that required a coverup.  That's ridiculous.  Look at the actual budgets and the actual things Rumsfield said and what he meant and you'll see.

So you have not "pointed out one of the potential motives."  Go ahead, point out some others that do make sense - be my guest.

That's the point.

The only ridiculous is spendulus

you still believe what the government shows you. so be it, hope that makes you sleep better
but am not swallowing that, and so is now most people of the world and all the families of people who perished in the 9/11... maybe they are wrong too. and the countless architect who proved that the free fall cannot happen because of jet fuel which has already burned out in the first 20-30 minutes of the crash, maybe they are wrong too, and rumsfeld saying a day before 9/11 that the pentagon cannot track 3.2 Trillion $. well maybe he was wrong too at that time. or he was drunk. then the countless other witnesses might be wrong too. and the person who "received" the passports of the hijackers from a man who ran right after giving him the passport, well maybe he was dreaming or he set up a lie. secret of the usa in wtc7 came to ash in a free fall from supposed heat from another building 1 football pitch away, well people who believe it was demolition, they might be wrong too. everybody is wrong except the people who governs usa and the specific companies directly involved with the president of that time, well they are right..

am i not right spendulus?

No, you have a rambling line of nonsense.  I've explained rumsfield.  You were wrong about steel, wrong about aluminum, wrong about light pieces of paper and plastic fluttering around, You were wrong about many other things.

Many of these things are based on chemistry and physics, so there isn't any "arguing" about them.

Basically you just need a warm comforting blanket inside which no Muslims do bad things, so you'd prefer a conspiracy where The Great Satan (USA) Did 911.

Oh, wait a minute.  There's that darn ISIS.   I guess there are some really evil people in the Muslim community.

Even the president of the ISIS USA has confirmed there are no Muslims in ISIS.

[Spendulus]

Official version?  The question is not whether people agree with all aspects of some "official version", but something entirely different.

It is about questioning the gigantic leap you made in your thinking between a comment by Rumsfield as to level of detail in transactions, to your presenting a theory of govenrment involvement in 911 to destroy records of 2T of transactions.  That ridiculous leap is the issue here.  That dog don't hunt.

And yes, accounting down to the transaction level is a product of very cheap computer memory.

Your colloquialisms sure are slicker than snot on a doorknob! Concluding that when 2.3 trillion dollars goes unaccounted for, that some or most of it may have been stolen is not a giant leap in logic, in fact when money goes missing that is usually the first thing people look at. Clearly there were many reasons for the 9/11 attacks, but pointing out one of the potential motives does not mean that was the only reason why it was perpetrated. Your failure in logic is your own inability to critically examine the inconsistencies of the 9/11 commission report because you are too busy "debunking".

It's not even "debunking."

I'm just trying to indicate that 8 annual entire budgets for the entire Defense department was not and is not "missing."  Keep in mind in this discussion that these budgets (which I doubt you have ever actually looked at, but please do) have black budgets right there laid out that way.    They don't have to tell you what they spent that money on, but you do get an idea of the size of those sub budgets.

You can't develop a conspiracy theory on it being an inside job by first, "making up" the word "missing" and then mis interpreting that word to allow for massive thievery that required a coverup.  That's ridiculous.  Look at the actual budgets and the actual things Rumsfield said and what he meant and you'll see.

So you have not "pointed out one of the potential motives."  Go ahead, point out some others that do make sense - be my guest.

That's the point.

The only ridiculous is spendulus

you still believe what the government shows you. so be it, hope that makes you sleep better
but am not swallowing that, and so is now most people of the world and all the families of people who perished in the 9/11... maybe they are wrong too. and the countless architect who proved that the free fall cannot happen because of jet fuel which has already burned out in the first 20-30 minutes of the crash, maybe they are wrong too, and rumsfeld saying a day before 9/11 that the pentagon cannot track 3.2 Trillion $. well maybe he was wrong too at that time. or he was drunk. then the countless other witnesses might be wrong too. and the person who "received" the passports of the hijackers from a man who ran right after giving him the passport, well maybe he was dreaming or he set up a lie. secret of the usa in wtc7 came to ash in a free fall from supposed heat from another building 1 football pitch away, well people who believe it was demolition, they might be wrong too. everybody is wrong except the people who governs usa and the specific companies directly involved with the president of that time, well they are right..

am i not right spendulus?

No, you have a rambling line of nonsense.  I've explained rumsfield.  You were wrong about steel, wrong about aluminum, wrong about light pieces of paper and plastic fluttering around, You were wrong about many other things.

Many of these things are based on chemistry and physics, so there isn't any "arguing" about them.

Basically you just need a warm comforting blanket inside which no Muslims do bad things, so you'd prefer a conspiracy where The Great Satan (USA) Did 911.

Oh, wait a minute.  There's that darn ISIS.   I guess there are some really evil people in the Muslim community.

Even the president of the ISIS USA has confirmed there are no Muslims in ISIS.

Well I have to hand it to you, Kluge.  You have a conspiracy theory there that I have no problem with.  Because it's not based on violations of chemistry or physics.

LOL...

[Netpyder]

Official version?  The question is not whether people agree with all aspects of some "official version", but something entirely different.

It is about questioning the gigantic leap you made in your thinking between a comment by Rumsfield as to level of detail in transactions, to your presenting a theory of govenrment involvement in 911 to destroy records of 2T of transactions.  That ridiculous leap is the issue here.  That dog don't hunt.

And yes, accounting down to the transaction level is a product of very cheap computer memory.

Your colloquialisms sure are slicker than snot on a doorknob! Concluding that when 2.3 trillion dollars goes unaccounted for, that some or most of it may have been stolen is not a giant leap in logic, in fact when money goes missing that is usually the first thing people look at. Clearly there were many reasons for the 9/11 attacks, but pointing out one of the potential motives does not mean that was the only reason why it was perpetrated. Your failure in logic is your own inability to critically examine the inconsistencies of the 9/11 commission report because you are too busy "debunking".

It's not even "debunking."

I'm just trying to indicate that 8 annual entire budgets for the entire Defense department was not and is not "missing."  Keep in mind in this discussion that these budgets (which I doubt you have ever actually looked at, but please do) have black budgets right there laid out that way.    They don't have to tell you what they spent that money on, but you do get an idea of the size of those sub budgets.

You can't develop a conspiracy theory on it being an inside job by first, "making up" the word "missing" and then mis interpreting that word to allow for massive thievery that required a coverup.  That's ridiculous.  Look at the actual budgets and the actual things Rumsfield said and what he meant and you'll see.

So you have not "pointed out one of the potential motives."  Go ahead, point out some others that do make sense - be my guest.

That's the point.

The only ridiculous is spendulus

you still believe what the government shows you. so be it, hope that makes you sleep better
but am not swallowing that, and so is now most people of the world and all the families of people who perished in the 9/11... maybe they are wrong too. and the countless architect who proved that the free fall cannot happen because of jet fuel which has already burned out in the first 20-30 minutes of the crash, maybe they are wrong too, and rumsfeld saying a day before 9/11 that the pentagon cannot track 3.2 Trillion $. well maybe he was wrong too at that time. or he was drunk. then the countless other witnesses might be wrong too. and the person who "received" the passports of the hijackers from a man who ran right after giving him the passport, well maybe he was dreaming or he set up a lie. secret of the usa in wtc7 came to ash in a free fall from supposed heat from another building 1 football pitch away, well people who believe it was demolition, they might be wrong too. everybody is wrong except the people who governs usa and the specific companies directly involved with the president of that time, well they are right..

am i not right spendulus?

No, you have a rambling line of nonsense.  I've explained rumsfield.  You were wrong about steel, wrong about aluminum, wrong about light pieces of paper and plastic fluttering around, You were wrong about many other things.

Many of these things are based on chemistry and physics, so there isn't any "arguing" about them.

Basically you just need a warm comforting blanket inside which no Muslims do bad things, so you'd prefer a conspiracy where The Great Satan (USA) Did 911.

Oh, wait a minute.  There's that darn ISIS.   I guess there are some really evil people in the Muslim community.

here is the thing, I am not making the claims. i have taken word to word quotes and videos from architect and construction and demolition companies.. various.

but your argument is based on your beliefs and on the government reports..


also, i never said all muslims are good. there are extremist like in every community as well as atheism. i never denied it.

as for alquaida, the CIA and some fbi whistleblowers have already confirmed, as well as former people in the defence ministry have confirmed the alquaida was a joint operation of the USA to infiltration. and for the ISIS the USa government already denied that they are related to the muslim community.

in fact they are just nutheads in politics. there is a political war everytime and what the USA show the world and what really is the truth is 2 different things. Jon Stewart already provided some reports on that as well as independent talk shows within the USA. if you need some proofs i will be glad to provide more videos. but will you even watch one? you havent watched any of what i provided. fear of popping your bubble? you seem to be the one who just need a warm comforting blanket inside which only Muslims do bad things and are responsible for every act of terrorism.

terrorism/ terror as a word itself does not apply to muslims,

terrorism
ˈtɛrərɪzəm/Submit
noun
the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims


it never said religious aims right?

well here is what you would do, pick a few words or 1-2 line from what i replied and continue with your hate speech against muslims.. its not the first thread you are doing it, it certainly wont be the last one.. but what you are doing is, instead of trying to bring all people together, people like you are creating even more distance amongst each other of every religions

[Spendulus]

.....


here is the thing, I am not making the claims. i have taken word to word quotes and videos from architect and construction and demolition companies.. various.

but your argument is based on your beliefs and on the government reports..


also, i never said all muslims are good. there are extremist like in every community as well as atheism. i never denied it.
.......

When you claim "where did that big airplane go?" and I reply "Well, actually are talking about slightly more than a 2 meter on a side cube of aluminum, melted on impact" I am just calculating the energy of a plane headed straight down at near the speed of a bullet and the energy required to melt aluminum.  I never read any government reports.

So why you argue that kerosene can't melt iron, it's not your belief but comes from some Youtube video?

I just looked up the chemistry on iron on kerosene.  Is that complicated?  Is that a reason to accuse someone of anything?  Why in the world would you think youtube videos were a credible information source, anyway?

How about Isamofascism.  If I say those are the nuts who did 911, you call it hate speech against Muslims.  That's a bit crazy isn't it?

[Netpyder]

.....


here is the thing, I am not making the claims. i have taken word to word quotes and videos from architect and construction and demolition companies.. various.

but your argument is based on your beliefs and on the government reports..


also, i never said all muslims are good. there are extremist like in every community as well as atheism. i never denied it.
.......

When you claim "where did that big airplane go?" and I reply "Well, actually are talking about slightly more than a 2 meter on a side cube of aluminum, melted on impact" I am just calculating the energy of a plane headed straight down at near the speed of a bullet and the energy required to melt aluminum.  I never read any government reports.

would love to see the calculations. or is it just assumptions?

So why you argue that kerosene can't melt iron, it's not your belief but comes from some Youtube video?

beliefs??  we are talking about logic and science here not beliefs


I just looked up the chemistry on iron on kerosene.  Is that complicated?  Is that a reason to accuse someone of anything?  Why in the world would you think youtube videos were a credible information source, anyway?

ok youtube videos are bad. not good information. fine. how did you know it was done by muslims? where you got the information? were you there? were you in their circle when they said they would do the 9/11 attack?


How about Isamofascism.  If I say those are the nuts who did 911, you call it hate speech against Muslims.  That's a bit crazy isn't it?

[Spendulus]

.....


here is the thing, I am not making the claims. i have taken word to word quotes and videos from architect and construction and demolition companies.. various.

but your argument is based on your beliefs and on the government reports..


also, i never said all muslims are good. there are extremist like in every community as well as atheism. i never denied it.
.......

When you claim "where did that big airplane go?" and I reply "Well, actually are talking about slightly more than a 2 meter on a side cube of aluminum, melted on impact" I am just calculating the energy of a plane headed straight down at near the speed of a bullet and the energy required to melt aluminum.  I never read any government reports.

would love to see the calculations. or is it just assumptions?

So why you argue that kerosene can't melt iron, it's not your belief but comes from some Youtube video?

beliefs??  we are talking about logic and science here not beliefs

I posted the calculations right in this thread.  And you are the one that questioned that kerosene could melt iron, are you not?  If you are watching youtube videos that do not show how basic physics and chemistry work or misrepresent the science, why should you expect me to watch them?

Next you'll be saying Apollo didn't go to the Moon.

[madken7777]

Added
A 5th choice 'U.S. gov' was added. Votes to that point were 3,2,1 and 5 for the first four choices respectively.

Bush did it?

[Netpyder]

.....


here is the thing, I am not making the claims. i have taken word to word quotes and videos from architect and construction and demolition companies.. various.

but your argument is based on your beliefs and on the government reports..


also, i never said all muslims are good. there are extremist like in every community as well as atheism. i never denied it.
.......

When you claim "where did that big airplane go?" and I reply "Well, actually are talking about slightly more than a 2 meter on a side cube of aluminum, melted on impact" I am just calculating the energy of a plane headed straight down at near the speed of a bullet and the energy required to melt aluminum.  I never read any government reports.

would love to see the calculations. or is it just assumptions?

So why you argue that kerosene can't melt iron, it's not your belief but comes from some Youtube video?

beliefs??  we are talking about logic and science here not beliefs

I posted the calculations right in this thread.  And you are the one that questioned that kerosene could melt iron, are you not?  If you are watching youtube videos that do not show how basic physics and chemistry work or misrepresent the science, why should you expect me to watch them?

Next you'll be saying Apollo didn't go to the Moon.

but then every expert in chemistry and physics as well as demolition of building and architects who said it was not possible would be wrong and you would be right.. right?

also are your calculations based on the amount of steel and the amount of concrete that there was in the wtc or just steel? then, there were building which were on fire for nearly 24hours and none suffered the damage wtc had. now if you are talking about jet fuel which caused all that damage, then jet fuel did not even last 1hour in the flame.

when a building is on fire, what is the colour of its smoke?

what causes white smoke?

why was there smoke coming from the bottom of the wtc when it was the top floors which were burning?

how about those loud bangs right before the building collapses?

how did the glasses broken into pieces in the lobby whilst the plane crashed at the top?

there were at least over 10 choppers around the wtc when the first plane crashed till the building were brought down, where are the tapes from the choppers? why not show it to the public?

ben laden and accolade did it right? why spend a decade to find him, capture him, then kill him and throw him in the sea? i mean is that even sound correct to you? why not bring him for a trial in the court of Law?
they brought saddam hussein for a trial and hanged him. why not ben laden?

why benladens video always shows different ben laden? no video look alike.

how did a news reporter be able to track down ben laden, find his hideout and interview him, but usa military and spies could not find him?

why was wtc 6 imploded? it cannot have been exploded or come down because some of the lower floors are still standing whilst the middle of the building vanished?

how was wtc 7 suffered so much damage that the penthouse of the building started to drown and the building came down. wtc is over 1 football pitch away.

if wtc was burnt down because of the heat, why did other building closer to wtc1 and 2 not destroyed or suffered damage?

how did that big piece of steel fly over 2 football pitch to crash against that building ?

if you want any proof of what i stated, i can show you the pictures.. oh pictures can be photoshopped. well how about videos? ah that you wont watch
ok so how about witnesses? yeah they were not in full sense because of the instant trauma.

euhhh architects? construction company's managers and people who are in construction and demolition for more than a decade? will their words count? or maybe they are the one spreading about conspiracy theories?

ok how about 9/11 commission saying that those hijackers might not be the one who attacked the usa on 9/11? and at least 7 of the 19 is still alive and are doing well?

did you know that atta went to venise for 1 month and returned 2 days before the attack?
he rented a car , put his license, returned the car even. well if you know you are going to die in 2 days, why return the car? why take the pain to return it?

i would like a good complete answer to all my questions please. you always cherry pick only questions you can answer with hate and your own assumptions rather than answering all the questions asked backing them up with real proofs and statements being made..

i would like to have answers to all my questions, thank you

[seoincorporation]

Was the gov creating a excuse to make a war... We know how the gov loves the war.

But at last will be hard to know the truth, we can find a lot of information now, but there is a lot of conspiracy theories.

[BlitzandBitz]

Official version?  The question is not whether people agree with all aspects of some "official version", but something entirely different.

It is about questioning the gigantic leap you made in your thinking between a comment by Rumsfield as to level of detail in transactions, to your presenting a theory of govenrment involvement in 911 to destroy records of 2T of transactions.  That ridiculous leap is the issue here.  That dog don't hunt.

And yes, accounting down to the transaction level is a product of very cheap computer memory.

Your colloquialisms sure are slicker than snot on a doorknob! Concluding that when 2.3 trillion dollars goes unaccounted for, that some or most of it may have been stolen is not a giant leap in logic, in fact when money goes missing that is usually the first thing people look at. Clearly there were many reasons for the 9/11 attacks, but pointing out one of the potential motives does not mean that was the only reason why it was perpetrated. Your failure in logic is your own inability to critically examine the inconsistencies of the 9/11 commission report because you are too busy "debunking".

It's not even "debunking."

I'm just trying to indicate that 8 annual entire budgets for the entire Defense department was not and is not "missing."  Keep in mind in this discussion that these budgets (which I doubt you have ever actually looked at, but please do) have black budgets right there laid out that way.    They don't have to tell you what they spent that money on, but you do get an idea of the size of those sub budgets.

You can't develop a conspiracy theory on it being an inside job by first, "making up" the word "missing" and then mis interpreting that word to allow for massive thievery that required a coverup.  That's ridiculous.  Look at the actual budgets and the actual things Rumsfield said and what he meant and you'll see.

So you have not "pointed out one of the potential motives."  Go ahead, point out some others that do make sense - be my guest.

That's the point.

The only ridiculous is spendulus

you still believe what the government shows you. so be it, hope that makes you sleep better
but am not swallowing that, and so is now most people of the world and all the families of people who perished in the 9/11... maybe they are wrong too. and the countless architect who proved that the free fall cannot happen because of jet fuel which has already burned out in the first 20-30 minutes of the crash, maybe they are wrong too, and rumsfeld saying a day before 9/11 that the pentagon cannot track 3.2 Trillion $. well maybe he was wrong too at that time. or he was drunk. then the countless other witnesses might be wrong too. and the person who "received" the passports of the hijackers from a man who ran right after giving him the passport, well maybe he was dreaming or he set up a lie. secret of the usa in wtc7 came to ash in a free fall from supposed heat from another building 1 football pitch away, well people who believe it was demolition, they might be wrong too. everybody is wrong except the people who governs usa and the specific companies directly involved with the president of that time, well they are right..

am i not right spendulus?

No, you have a rambling line of nonsense.  I've explained rumsfield.  You were wrong about steel, wrong about aluminum, wrong about light pieces of paper and plastic fluttering around, You were wrong about many other things.

Many of these things are based on chemistry and physics, so there isn't any "arguing" about them.

Basically you just need a warm comforting blanket inside which no Muslims do bad things, so you'd prefer a conspiracy where The Great Satan (USA) Did 911.

Oh, wait a minute.  There's that darn ISIS.   I guess there are some really evil people in the Muslim community.

Even the president of the ISIS USA has confirmed there are no Muslims in ISIS.

Do you have any proof of him saying this.

[Netpyder]

spendulus i would like you to reply to my questions, maybe you have not seen them, its just 2 comment before this comment

[Netpyder]

Official version?  The question is not whether people agree with all aspects of some "official version", but something entirely different.

It is about questioning the gigantic leap you made in your thinking between a comment by Rumsfield as to level of detail in transactions, to your presenting a theory of govenrment involvement in 911 to destroy records of 2T of transactions.  That ridiculous leap is the issue here.  That dog don't hunt.

And yes, accounting down to the transaction level is a product of very cheap computer memory.

Your colloquialisms sure are slicker than snot on a doorknob! Concluding that when 2.3 trillion dollars goes unaccounted for, that some or most of it may have been stolen is not a giant leap in logic, in fact when money goes missing that is usually the first thing people look at. Clearly there were many reasons for the 9/11 attacks, but pointing out one of the potential motives does not mean that was the only reason why it was perpetrated. Your failure in logic is your own inability to critically examine the inconsistencies of the 9/11 commission report because you are too busy "debunking".

It's not even "debunking."

I'm just trying to indicate that 8 annual entire budgets for the entire Defense department was not and is not "missing."  Keep in mind in this discussion that these budgets (which I doubt you have ever actually looked at, but please do) have black budgets right there laid out that way.    They don't have to tell you what they spent that money on, but you do get an idea of the size of those sub budgets.

You can't develop a conspiracy theory on it being an inside job by first, "making up" the word "missing" and then mis interpreting that word to allow for massive thievery that required a coverup.  That's ridiculous.  Look at the actual budgets and the actual things Rumsfield said and what he meant and you'll see.

So you have not "pointed out one of the potential motives."  Go ahead, point out some others that do make sense - be my guest.

That's the point.

The only ridiculous is spendulus

you still believe what the government shows you. so be it, hope that makes you sleep better
but am not swallowing that, and so is now most people of the world and all the families of people who perished in the 9/11... maybe they are wrong too. and the countless architect who proved that the free fall cannot happen because of jet fuel which has already burned out in the first 20-30 minutes of the crash, maybe they are wrong too, and rumsfeld saying a day before 9/11 that the pentagon cannot track 3.2 Trillion $. well maybe he was wrong too at that time. or he was drunk. then the countless other witnesses might be wrong too. and the person who "received" the passports of the hijackers from a man who ran right after giving him the passport, well maybe he was dreaming or he set up a lie. secret of the usa in wtc7 came to ash in a free fall from supposed heat from another building 1 football pitch away, well people who believe it was demolition, they might be wrong too. everybody is wrong except the people who governs usa and the specific companies directly involved with the president of that time, well they are right..

am i not right spendulus?

No, you have a rambling line of nonsense.  I've explained rumsfield.  You were wrong about steel, wrong about aluminum, wrong about light pieces of paper and plastic fluttering around, You were wrong about many other things.

Many of these things are based on chemistry and physics, so there isn't any "arguing" about them.

Basically you just need a warm comforting blanket inside which no Muslims do bad things, so you'd prefer a conspiracy where The Great Satan (USA) Did 911.

Oh, wait a minute.  There's that darn ISIS.   I guess there are some really evil people in the Muslim community.

Even the president of the ISIS USA has confirmed there are no Muslims in ISIS.

Do you have any proof of him saying this.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d2977822-b85c-11e4-b6a5-00144feab7de.html#axzz3Z5o51c67

Violent extremists in Syria and Iraq have nothing to do with Islam, President Barack Obama said on Thursday, as he tried to separate the growing threat from terrorism in the Middle East from a discussion about religion.

[BlitzandBitz]

Was the gov creating a excuse to make a war... We know how the gov loves the war.

But at last will be hard to know the truth, we can find a lot of information now, but there is a lot of conspiracy theories.

Exactly. I don't understand why people care to argue over it when even if they are right any evidence has been destroyed.