Fandom Forums - View Single Post

**Mal** · 10-24-2009, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja

And you’ll convince the world that there was no conspiracy with this single liner statement. Counter facts with facts, this is a debate and not just your typical fave anime chit-chat. Go play somewhere else boy!

LOLOLOLOLOL. He thinks he's people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja

You haven’t claimed anything? Don’t play stupid Mibs, you just claimed that there was no 911 CONSPIRACY. If you are counter-arguing my statements, you have already made a stand; making you on the Negative Side. You don’t need to show anything about what happened? You just can’t prove that I’m wrong. I presented multiple facts, applying the laws of physic to the collapse of WTC. I believe you are / were a debater like me, and you know to well that you must present exhibits of photos and experts opinions/ studies to prove your point.

Disagreeing with you is not "claiming" anything except that you're wrong. We don't need to show anything about what happened. Why can you simpletons not understand this? You are the ones claiming the official report is wrong. So far as we're concerned, the official report has been proven right, so the burden of proving it wrong is on you.
And no, we're not "debaters like you". We're better. We actually understand logic, argument and the burden of proof.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja

What happened to the steel core didn’t just bend or sag, but melted. The planes crashed on the higher floor, but why were the base steel core melted?

You insist we provide "exhibits of photos and experts opinions/ studies to prove your point" then just flat out claim the cores melted? Where is your evidence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja

FYI, the steel beams and trusses were fire proofed with the CANCER CAUSING ASBESTOS!!

FYI, "CANCER CAUSING ASBESTOS" is fire proof, not plane proof.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja

Were the open fires of WTC strong enough liquefy steel?

Good work. You have proven that columns were cut during clean-up:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja

blah blah blah THERMITE blah blah UNRELATED OR ARBITRARY PICTURES blah blah

Yeah, that was all dumb.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja

Speaking of investments………..

First, let me introduce to this man.. Mr. Larry Silverstein:

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/1...csnap34680.png

See how he fought to double the insurance policy.

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/4889/vlcsnap33042.png

Lucky devil!

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/7269/vlcsnap33467.png

What an unreasonable bastard! Damn him for expecting his insurance company to fulfill their contract!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja

Just weeks after the 911 attack, he made the preparations to rebuild. GOD BLESS AMERICA!

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/922/vlcsnap36728.png

Would it have been better if he waited for a few more weeks? A month? A year? What difference would it have made? It's better that a new construction was planned as soon as possible to give people hope and comfort at that time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja

Still none of you can answer me why the WTC Building 7 collapsed. In fact the building 7 was never struck by plane. The truth may shock you!

OH SHI-! He caught us again guys! He knows that the only possible way a building can collapse is if you hit it with a plane!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja

First and foremost let my give you a bird’s eye view of the WTC 7:

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/7...csnap66821.png

Now, let me summarize your amazing story:

(1.) The WTC building 7 collapsed due to debris from WTC North Tower.

Since you didn’t produce any photo, let me provide you:

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/4...csnap67793.png

That sure is a massive cloud of debris engulfing WTC 7.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja

Compare this to what happened to WTC 3, WTC 4, WTC 5 and WTC 6.

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/6...csnap67981.png

The damage sustained by the buildings were infinitely far greater from WTC 7. But all the buildings withstood the crashing debris.

I'm really getting tired of you making the same dumb mistakes over and over again. Different buildings, different damage, different circumstances. Let's try another analogy:

There is a group of people standing around enjoying themselves at a party. All of a sudden OH SHIT A GRENADE!
The grenade explodes and the 4 people standing close to it are horribly maimed but survive. A fifth person standing 10 feet from the group is hit with a single piece of shrapnel which pierces their skull and kills them instantly.

Different people, different injuries, different circumstances. Get it yet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja

(2.) Fire fighters extinguished small pockets of fire.

Once again, please allow me to present the visual.

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/6659/vlcsnap67556.png

Yes there were some unidentified smoke… and some pockets of fire.

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/8...csnap67695.png

FYI, the WTC 7 is the first steel structure collapsed due to fire. AMAZING!!

Stop strawmanning it up. "small pockets of fire"? What about the "massive fire burn[ing] into the afternoon"? Zer0 clearly said it collapsed due to the combined damage of debris of WTC 1/2 and the massive fires throughout the building.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja

On my next presentation, I will reveal why WTC Building 7 has to be removed. Its collapse baffled scientist and engineers all over the world.

Because anything that baffles people is completely impossible. Like gravity, right? No one can explain for certain what it is, so it has to be impossible.