Freakaloin

[Nightshade]

Well who else but the government would be behind the controlled demolition?

The fact that you think it was a controlled demolition further cements your position in the Fucking Idiot Hall Of Fame.

the evidence says different

(about the controlled demo that is, not about toxicbug. i think that issue is beyond question)

edit: let me put it this way: there are two competing explanations for what happened to the WTC:

* (the official explanation) that the 6 steel columns supporting the building were all softened/melted at identical rates by the burning jet fuel so as to cause a perfectly symmetrical collapse of two buildings within less that 90 minutes (an event unheard of in the history of modern construction, and in fact physically impossible); or

* (the conspiracy) that the buildings were 'pulled' by controlled demolition

the actual evidence doesn't support the official explanation in any way. take a look at the movie for the details. also have a look here:

http://www.911proof.com/

Common sense and what I saw on 9/11 tells me all I need to know. Why the HELL would the government go to all the risk of having a large, complicated demolitions operation in place, hopefully at the location the planes were going to hit, to make sure the towers fell Why, when all they had to do was sit back and let what they knew was going to happen happen? It doesn't make any freaking sense. I don't believe anything the Bush adminstration tells me, but I watched those towers come down on live TV and I saw fuck all evidence of demolition charges. There was no need for them, and to go to all the trouble of planting them and risk being exposed is idiocy.
Do you think a plane hit the Pentagon? I do, and I think that people that think otherwise are retarded. Why? Shitloads of eyewitnesses, and the same logic that applies to my no demo charges on the Towers argument. There's simply no reason for it.

[R00k]

Best part of the video has to be the part describing the underside of one of the plains hitting the TWC. The part where it slows the video frames down to provide indisputable evidence about some attachment, which must have been attached by aliens in area 51 or that mountain they keep the stargate in.

Dunno, I haven't seen the Loose Change movie.

[Chupacabra]

The fact that you think it was a controlled demolition further cements your position in the Fucking Idiot Hall Of Fame.

the evidence says different

(about the controlled demo that is, not about toxicbug. i think that issue is beyond question)

edit: let me put it this way: there are two competing explanations for what happened to the WTC:

* (the official explanation) that the 6 steel columns supporting the building were all softened/melted at identical rates by the burning jet fuel so as to cause a perfectly symmetrical collapse of two buildings within less that 90 minutes (an event unheard of in the history of modern construction, and in fact physically impossible); or

* (the conspiracy) that the buildings were 'pulled' by controlled demolition

the actual evidence doesn't support the official explanation in any way. take a look at the movie for the details. also have a look here:

http://www.911proof.com/

Common sense and what I saw on 9/11 tells me all I need to know. Why the HELL would the government go to all the risk of having a large, complicated demolitions operation in place, hopefully at the location the planes were going to hit, to make sure the towers fell Why, when all they had to do was sit back and let what they knew was going to happen happen? It doesn't make any freaking sense. I don't believe anything the Bush adminstration tells me, but I watched those towers come down on live TV and I saw fuck all evidence of demolition charges. There was no need for them, and to go to all the trouble of planting them and risk being exposed is idiocy.
Do you think a plane hit the Pentagon? I do, and I think that people that think otherwise are retarded. Why? Shitloads of eyewitnesses, and the same logic that applies to my no demo charges on the Towers argument. There's simply no reason for it.

:icon14:

[ek]

@ NS:

So why havent they released the footage of the Pentagon attack? There was atleast 4-5 cameras shooting in that direction at the time, and they have all been confiscated by the FBI within minutes of the "attack".

[R00k]

Common sense and what I saw on 9/11 tells me all I need to know. Why the HELL would the government go to all the risk of having a large, complicated demolitions operation in place, hopefully at the location the planes were going to hit, to make sure the towers fell Why, when all they had to do was sit back and let what they knew was going to happen happen? It doesn't make any freaking sense. I don't believe anything the Bush adminstration tells me, but I watched those towers come down on live TV and I saw fuck all evidence of demolition charges. There was no need for them, and to go to all the trouble of planting them and risk being exposed is idiocy.
Do you think a plane hit the Pentagon? I do, and I think that people that think otherwise are retarded. Why? Shitloads of eyewitnesses, and the same logic that applies to my no demo charges on the Towers argument. There's simply no reason for it.

So since you can't figure out why they would do it, then it didn't happen?

That's not logic man.

edit: And I'm not talking about the Pentagon BS.

[ek]

Any reasoning person who has really looked at everything involved with an objective eye would see that what we have been told happened that day was intentionally inaccurate.

Well said.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

here's the deal. freakaloin is always wrong.

[R00k]

I still haven't been convinced that Freakaloin even has any of his own opinions on the subject.

[seremtan]

Best part of the video has to be the part describing the underside of one of the plains hitting the TWC. The part where it slows the video frames down to provide indisputable evidence about some attachment, which must have been attached by aliens in area 51 or that mountain they keep the stargate in.

lol, what the fuck are you talking about? what attachment? there was no mention of anything to do with the planes hitting the WTC other than the fact that they hit

there was no 'attachment' on the pentagon plane either

[seremtan]

The fact that you think it was a controlled demolition further cements your position in the Fucking Idiot Hall Of Fame.

the evidence says different

(about the controlled demo that is, not about toxicbug. i think that issue is beyond question)

edit: let me put it this way: there are two competing explanations for what happened to the WTC:

* (the official explanation) that the 6 steel columns supporting the building were all softened/melted at identical rates by the burning jet fuel so as to cause a perfectly symmetrical collapse of two buildings within less that 90 minutes (an event unheard of in the history of modern construction, and in fact physically impossible); or

* (the conspiracy) that the buildings were 'pulled' by controlled demolition

the actual evidence doesn't support the official explanation in any way. take a look at the movie for the details. also have a look here:

http://www.911proof.com/

Common sense and what I saw on 9/11 tells me all I need to know. Why the HELL would the government go to all the risk of having a large, complicated demolitions operation in place, hopefully at the location the planes were going to hit, to make sure the towers fell Why, when all they had to do was sit back and let what they knew was going to happen happen?

well, precisely because what you say was going to happen anyway wasn't going to happen at all, because:

* the metal of the WTC girders is designed to withstand higher temps than that of burning jet fuel for many hours (i forget how many but many more than one)

* if the official story were true, that would make the WTC the first steel & concrete building in history to collapse thru fire damage. it just doesn't happen, and the movie provides examples of similar instances where the fire was far worse and burned far longer

* finally, even if the melting steel explanation were true, the probability that all 6 supports in the WTC would have given way at once to produce a nice symmetrical collapse (and in both towers too!) is pretty fucking remote

It doesn't make any freaking sense. I don't believe anything the Bush adminstration tells me, but I watched those towers come down on live TV and I saw fuck all evidence of demolition charges. There was no need for them, and to go to all the trouble of planting them and risk being exposed is idiocy.

so you don't believe anything the bush administration tells you, yet you believe their flimsy explanation of what happened on 9/11? how's that? if you think the truth would have come out and made such a 'false flag' operation highly risky, ask yourself this: if even someone as critical of the bush administration as yourself is unwilling to even consider the possibility of an inside job, how skeptical do you think everyone else will be of such an explanation, regardless of whatever evidence is placed before them? conspiracy theories generally get short shrift in the mainstream media and even elsewhere (fuck, even noam chomsky believes the official story, so what does that tell you?) - so where's the risk again?

Do you think a plane hit the Pentagon? I do, and I think that people that think otherwise are retarded. Why? Shitloads of eyewitnesses, and the same logic that applies to my no demo charges on the Towers argument. There's simply no reason for it.

yes, a plane of some sort definitely hit the pentagon, of that there's no doubt. there's just one problem: the evidence indicates that it was NOT the plane described in the official story. furthermore, why was all CCTV footage from nearby confiscated and never released apart from the 5 frames (which just show the explosion but no plane)? i mean, why keep something like from the public? why tell the employees at the sheridan and gas station neaeby who captured the footage to keep quiet about what they saw? please, tell me

[Dukester]

I choose to believe the engineers on The History channel no matter what.

As opposed to the people who want it to be a conspiracy so bad they can taste it.

[Duhard]

great img rofl

how about this one, toothpick?

[Captain]

Look at all those burns from men ejaculating on your shoulders.

[Duhard]

Look at all those burns from men ejaculating on your shoulders.

those spots started appearing after I fucked that 12 years old virgin from the local high school..one painful memory..

[Captain]

Look at all those burns from men ejaculating on your shoulders.

those spots started appearing after I fucked that 12 years old virgin from the local high school..one painful memory..

Oh that little boy gets older each time you tell the story.

[Duhard]

Oh that little boy gets older each time you tell the story.

no, there's three of them..12, 13 and 15 years old..get your facts straight, dumbass

[Dave]

Which one is best, [WDY]Duhard?

[Duhard]

Which one is best, [WDY]Duhard?

The 13 years old one was a lot of fun..hearing her scream like a fucking pig about to be executed made me mercilessly pound my man meat into her yet-to-be-formed vagina..

[Duhard]

too bad I had lots of legal issues for that..

[Dave]

I thought they were all dudes

[Duhard]

I thought they were all dudes

I don't fuck men..not anymore

[Dave]

except in prison?

[Duhard]

except in prison?

bingo..can't wait to go back home

[Dave]

If they get much younger, you won't be waiting long

[Duhard]

If they get much younger, you won't be waiting long

as soon as I get my driver's license back..it's homecoming!