still think 9 11 was a conspiracy?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K

KennethC

Guest
#361
#361
Mitspa said:
Yea ..the guys cutting those beams just like your picture ..show a picture of that beam..before any rescue or cleanup started ?

and was it just the one beam...or do you have evidence of more beams being cut like you say?
Click to expand...

Still trying to stick to your video source, well at least I can say you stand firm instead of having a open mind and actually looking at anything somebody gives you to look at.

I have given you 3 sources so far and you have not mentioned a one of them, or even gave the impression that you are even going to look into them. That is not testing things out, that is just sticking to your preconceived notion rather it is right or wrong.

I stated in the past to reports talked on multiple beams found that way, not cut that way later...............

Then I just now gave you the CDI plan that was not even put forward tell Sept. 22 for the main cleanup, seems as though you just skimmed over that as well.
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
#362
#362
So we are supposed to believe that these busy office building was wired for explosives under the noses of all the people that worked there ..and then it burned for 7 hours with all these secret explosives finally going off in a perfect way to bring down the building?
 
Stephen63

Stephen63

Banned
#363
Aug 15, 2009
9,745
179
0
#363
The passenger jets are huge..... debris should have been splattered everywhere There should have been two huge jet engines lying in the wreckage..... but there wasn't. Several light poles were in line with the direction of the plane, but were never touched. Body parts were not found. The hole in the pentagon should have been much larger to accommodate the plane, OR there shouldn't have been much of a hole at all because the Pentagon's structure was heavily fortified. Either way, only a missle could have done that.
 
K

KennethC

Guest
#364
#364
Stephen63 said:
Ooor, that he really didn't smoke weed 'cuz he didn't inhale.:p
Click to expand...
Yeah I think it is funny those are the two things always people come back to on Clinton, Lewinsky incident and smoking weed.

OMGosh he is human people, he makes mistakes.

I notice not to many people though give him credit for all the cleanup of the bad polices Bush put in place before him. People forget how bad the policies and things got under Bush sr. !!!
 
K

KennethC

Guest
#365
#365
Mitspa said:
So we are supposed to believe that these busy office building was wired for explosives under the noses of all the people that worked there ..and then it burned for 7 hours with all these secret explosives finally going off in a perfect way to bring down the building?
Click to expand...
Do you know what the term "pull it" means in the demolition field ???
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
#366
#366
KennethC said:
Still trying to stick to your video source, well at least I can say you stand firm instead of having a open mind and actually looking at anything somebody gives you to look at.

I have given you 3 sources so far and you have not mentioned a one of them, or even gave the impression that you are even going to look into them. That is not testing things out, that is just sticking to your preconceived notion rather it is right or wrong.

I stated in the past to reports talked on multiple beams found that way, not cut that way later...............

Then I just now gave you the CDI plan that was not even put forward tell Sept. 22 for the main cleanup, seems as though you just skimmed over that as well.
Click to expand...
Yea its a clear and evident video of the guys working on the site ..cutting those beams ..just like your picture ... Who could doubt its exactly that? Unless you think they made a movie type deal and all these guys where really actors?
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
#367
#367
KennethC said:
Do you know what the term "pull it" means in the demolition field ???
Click to expand...
Just show some evidence Kenneth...show your beam if you can before clean-up ...you guys get stumped in one lie and then jump to another..prove what your claiming ..if you can? Find the one thing you know prove your 911 conspiracy and defend it without jumping to another lie
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
#368
#368
Stephen63 said:
The passenger jets are huge..... debris should have been splattered everywhere There should have been two huge jet engines lying in the wreckage..... but there wasn't. Several light poles were in line with the direction of the plane, but were never touched. Body parts were not found. The hole in the pentagon should have been much larger to accommodate the plane, OR there shouldn't have been much of a hole at all because the Pentagon's structure was heavily fortified. Either way, only a missle could have done that.
Click to expand...
So again your claiming all the pictures that show the plane and parts at the pentagon are fake and Purdue university is part of the cover-up?

[video=youtube;YTNRkb7AaQk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTNRkb7AaQk[/video]
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
#369
#369
Boys do you really think God wants you all to promote a lie?
 
K

KennethC

Guest
#370
#370
Mitspa said:
Yea its a clear and evident video of the guys working on the site ..cutting those beams ..just like your picture ... Who could doubt its exactly that? Unless you think they made a movie type deal and all these guys where really actors?
Click to expand...
No, but you are trying to make a video that was done of cleanup a multiple of days later and trying to make it apply to all beams, including those that were found that way before cleanup.

I showed you and told you how shape charges are consistent with not only those angle cuts as well, but also consistent with the multiple explosions heard by 100's of eyewitnesses. You just played that off, and including blew off the eyewitness from WTC 7 who was in the building that reported explosions in that building.

You believe somebody that was not there over somebody who was personally in the middle of it !!!
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
#371
#371
Re 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
 
G

GodIsSalvation

Banned
#372
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
#372
Mitspa said:
I think building 7 has been debunked by the one video ... not sure how anyone could challenge the info there?
Click to expand...
No because the video is purely theoretical. There is no actual physical evidence a fire caused the collapse of WTC7 and the NIST (government source) admits that the columns were only heated to about 570 degree F and admits they have no actual evidence, only theories. Besides that as Bushido predictably posited, there have been other similar steel structures caught on fire that either did not collapse at all or did not fall in like manner.

The fire could be seen as a contributing factor though, but you're still a few apples short of the whole bushel. You're on the right track though just gotta take it a lil further. I'll elaborate some more on this later though, don't wanna go giving you a freebie win now lol.
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
#373
#373
KennethC said:
No, but you are trying to make a video that was done of cleanup a multiple of days later and trying to make it apply to all beams, including those that were found that way before cleanup.

I showed you and told you how shape charges are consistent with not only those angle cuts as well, but also consistent with the multiple explosions heard by 100's of eyewitnesses. You just played that off, and including blew off the eyewitness from WTC 7 who was in the building that reported explosions in that building.

You believe somebody that was not there over somebody who was personally in the middle of it !!!
Click to expand...
Kenneth you have no idea when that picture was made...and the fact that it looks like a beam near the ground ..very much implies it was not taken before at least some cleanup had been done... and if you claim it was an explosive ..when did it explode ..after the building had been on fire for hours?
 
K

KennethC

Guest
#374
#374
Mitspa said:
Just show some evidence Kenneth...show your beam if you can before clean-up ...you guys get stumped in one lie and then jump to another..prove what your claiming ..if you can? Find the one thing you know prove your 911 conspiracy and defend it without jumping to another lie
Click to expand...
Since you keep trying to reverse things so to refuse to answer what people have asked you, I will ask you again:

Do you know what the term "pull it" means in the demolition field ???
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
#375
#375
GodIsSalvation said:
No because the video is purely theoretical. There is no actual physical evidence a fire caused the collapse of WTC7 and the NIST (government source) admits that the columns were only heated to about 570 degree F and admits they have no actual evidence, only theories. Besides that as Bushido predictably posited, there have been other similar steel structures caught on fire that either did not collapse at all or did not fall in like manner.

The fire could be seen as a contributing factor though, but you're still a few apples short of the whole bushel. You're on the right track though just gotta take it a lil further. I'll elaborate some more on this later though, don't wanna go giving you a freebie win now lol.
Click to expand...
Yes they use physics ..known physics and the evidence from the site to determine what happened ... see what you don't understand is that the burden of proof is against those that are claiming some outlandish conspiracy ... No one has to prove that what is obvious ..is obvious ..the building was on fire for hours..the firemen said it was starting to fail and seen it was about to fall...it did
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
#376
#376
KennethC said:
Since you keep trying to reverse things so to refuse to answer what people have asked you, I will ask you again:

Do you know what the term "pull it" means in the demolition field ???
Click to expand...
No im just trying to pin some of you guys down ..instead of allowing you guys to jump from one lie to another ...you say the beam proves the conspiracy ... I have shown clear evidence the beams where cut by the rescue and clean-up guys... you have no proof ..I have given proof
 
K

KennethC

Guest
#377
#377
Mitspa said:
Kenneth you have no idea when that picture was made...and the fact that it looks like a beam near the ground ..very much implies it was not taken before at least some cleanup had been done... and if you claim it was an explosive ..when did it explode ..after the building had been on fire for hours?
Click to expand...
Get off the picture and stop being so tunnel visioned in your approach, and answer the other questions instead of continuing to redirect.

I already said I am still looking for a date and time, it is not something that is done right away, especially when handling other issues as well. You are showing signs of not being patient and starting to be demanding because of that.

Focus on the other things as well and try to answer them if you can !!!
 
G

GodIsSalvation

Banned
#378
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
#378
Mitspa said:
Yes they use physics ..known physics and the evidence from the site to determine what happened ... see what you don't understand is that the burden of proof is against those that are claiming some outlandish conspiracy ... No one has to prove that what is obvious ..is obvious ..the building was on fire for hours..the firemen said it was starting to fail and seen it was about to fall...it did
Click to expand...
Most physics is pure theory too. The burden of proof is actually on us to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 9/11 was not a US government plot. I believe it possible to prove that. Indeed from the investigations put out by government sources mind you, there is absolutely no hard evidence that the fires are what brought down WTC 7. Now as I mentioned I would see the fire as a contributing factors in a compendium of factors. Like I said though I'll elaborate some more later, lol don't want to interfere between your and Bushido's challenge too much. Best hint I can give ya is that you're on the right track though, just gotta go a little further with it.
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
#379
#379
GodIsSalvation said:
No because the video is purely theoretical. There is no actual physical evidence a fire caused the collapse of WTC7 and the NIST (government source) admits that the columns were only heated to about 570 degree F and admits they have no actual evidence, only theories. Besides that as Bushido predictably posited, there have been other similar steel structures caught on fire that either did not collapse at all or did not fall in like manner.

The fire could be seen as a contributing factor though, but you're still a few apples short of the whole bushel. You're on the right track though just gotta take it a lil further. I'll elaborate some more on this later though, don't wanna go giving you a freebie win now lol.
Click to expand...
Can you refute anything in that video?

[video=youtube;uFJa9WUy5QI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI[/video]
 
K

KennethC

Guest
#380
#380
Mitspa said:
No im just trying to pin some of you guys down ..instead of allowing you guys to jump from one lie to another ...you say the beam proves the conspiracy ... I have shown clear evidence the beams where cut by the rescue and clean-up guys... you have no proof ..I have given proof
Click to expand...
No you are using tunnel vision to avoid answering the other issues you can't answer, or you would answer the questions without avoiding them.

You have shown evidence of the clean up, that is all you have done !!!

That does not disprove others, it just shows yes workers cut the beams at angles to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.