Zietgiest the movie - has anyone seen this?

[spankdoggie]

Oops... I thought you said "watch this video at the end"...
Ill watch it all soon

Cool.....

To be honest, I have not viewed your information, so I have been hypocritical, and I apologize.

I will view your information now.

Take care, and well wishes on this debate.

spank

 

[spankdoggie]

Okay, I am back, and have read everybody's stuff posted...

So basically, we all agree that the towers were all professionally prepared for demolition, prior to 9/11. If it looks like a duck, and smells like a duck... Obviously, there were demolition explosives involved.

Same with building 7.

So we all agree with that now, so let's get to Flight 93 now.

Here is some video proof that Flight 93 was shot down: YouTube - 9/11 Flight 93 Rare Footage

Disclaimers below...

1. I do not believe in UFO's
2. I do not believe in Chupacabras.
3. I do not believe in area 51.

I guess we can close this thread now.

 

[SilverUberXeno]

Are you drunk?

edit:

Drunk would be a generous assessment, I've decided. I sincerely hope nobody's wellbeing depends on your judgement. Nothing else to say on it, really. If you were any more willing to buy into conspiracies, you'd still be leaving cookies out for Santa Claus.

 

[spankdoggie]

Are you drunk?

edit:

Drunk would be a generous assessment, I've decided. I sincerely hope nobody's wellbeing depends on your judgement. Nothing else to say on it, really. If you were any more willing to buy into conspiracies, you'd still be leaving cookies out for Santa Claus.

SilverUberXeno: "Are you drunk?

spankdoggie: Can we keep our comments to this debate, and not resort to personal attacks when losing said debate in question?

SilverUberXeno: "Drunk would be a generous assessment, I've decided."

spankdoggie: Again, when losing a debate, please refrain from personal attacks, and keep to the subject, at hand.

SilverUberXeno: "I sincerely hope nobody's wellbeing depends on your judgement."

spankdoggie: I hope there is no person on this earth, who's life depends on your spelling, grammar, and sentence structure.

You obviously are not qualified to debate me on this subject. Perhaps we should just stick to the debating of how to write a sentence correctly, for now; perhaps we can move forward later?

SilverUberXeno: "Nothing else to say on it, really."

spankdoggie: Apparently not. Thank you for all of the proof provided above.

SilverUberXeno: "If you were any more willing to buy into conspiracies, you'd still be leaving cookies out for Santa Claus."

spankdoggie: This is where I tell you to kiss my ass.

 

[LyleG]

Again I am far from some conspiracy nut. I see those pics of building 7 and the damage it took. The damage was entirely on one side, specifically one corner of the building. The fire was on a few floors. If the building would have collapsed down and towards that damaged corner I could fully understand it. It didn't though, it collapsed inward onto itself. There was ZERO or least minimal structural damage to the middle of the building, there is no reason for it to fall the way it did. I have seen a building be imploded live and on numerous videos and this looked exactly the same. I have no idea how or why this really happened, I am simply making an observation and asking the question. I also thought this would be a sure fire way to draw Spank out

 

[Irish]

i don't buy the Building 7 theory put forward in the movie...I do however think that the pentagon damage (small rocket like hole) doesn't appear to have been caused by an airliner...

 

[SilverUberXeno]

The report WOAT provided explains how a lack of structural integrity caused the failure of one column to compromise the entire building.

Included in the assessment, or one before it, was the information that a vast amount of fuel was stored in building 7 to power a generator. Fuel might be combustible. What do you think, Spank? Was it alien warfare?

Your hypocrisy is appreciated.

"Let's not resort to personal attacks..."
"Kiss my ass!"

Comical Your parents must be proud.

 

[Adam Pettman]

If you were any more willing to buy into conspiracies, you'd still be leaving cookies out for Santa Claus.

Are you telling me that Santa was killed in a controlled explosion.

 

[Slingblade61]

You nit wits that even think for a split second that this could be true have a better chance of the tooth fairy appearing through the wonderland looking glass to club you silly with "lucky" the Leprechaun's golden shaleileigh than be proven correct.

 

[DaveE]

You nit wits that even think for a split second that this could be true have a better chance of the tooth fairy appearing through the wonderland looking glass to club you silly with "lucky" the Leprechaun's golden shaleileigh than be proven correct.

Stop holding back Sling, tell them what you really think. :laugh:

I agree by the way.

 

[Eracer]

Stop holding back Sling, tell them what you really think. :laugh:

I agree by the way.

Of course you do. You're one of them...

 

[spankdoggie]

You nit wits that even think for a split second that this could be true have a better chance of the tooth fairy appearing through the wonderland looking glass to club you silly with "lucky" the Leprechaun's golden shaleileigh than be proven correct.

... the ramblings of a blind man...

 

[TheWOAT]

I do NOT believe there were explosives used in WTC 7. You would have to prove there was no damage along that critical beam, then Id lean towards believing you.

As for the Pentagon, a plane hit it. If you see pictures on the right angles, you can see an outline of a plane, and there is debris outside the Pentagon, and not ot mention the BODIES AND DEBRIS found by first responders and officials. So are we to believe some powerful entity got rid of a plane and the bodies just to aim a missle at the Pentagon.. I mean, that makes no freakin sense, at all.

As for Flight 93... I wouldnt have a problem if it was shot down on order.

 

[SilverUberXeno]

Spank, I've been thinking, and I admire your will to not just believe what people say in the newspapers and such. A lot of things have been uncovered by under-the-radar reporting and whatnot, and that sort of things needs to be done. HOWEVER, you can't just go on believing the "unpopular" explanatiion because it's unpopular.

This was a short documentary aired in Italy, for goodness' sake. And they interview ONE engineer, whose credibility is worth questioning after a statement like that.

Turn your skeptical eye on your side for a moment, and you should see how fragile your evidence is. Compare that to WOAT's information, with accurate diagrams and explanations provided by many engineers, and which was likely reviewed by many more before and after publication.

You're jumping to a conclusion based on a lack of knowledge. Next you'll start with the defense immaculate conception.

 

[spankdoggie]

i don't buy the Building 7 theory put forward in the movie...I do however think that the pentagon damage (small rocket like hole) doesn't appear to have been caused by an airliner...

Well, in my opinion it was done by an airliner; just check out all the street lamps and poles that were knocked down as it hit...

Would Russia or China allow a private plane to fly into their secured airspace? I don't think so...

Seriously, once they allowed a movie to be made about Flight 93, then I knew the truth would not come out.

I don't know the truth.

You don't either (not you Irish, but you too).