Originally Posted by Destiny's Soldier

That's a good question. The planes were only 20% full. So my guess, and there is some evidence that the real planes landed at an airport and everyone was put on another plane (flight 93 ) which was eventually shot down at 10.06.

There, you have your dead bodies and there's no big mystery. Some pilots were either in on it or were told to switch off their transponders by the FAA.

But who are you? That is the big question. Nobody is so abusive on this thread only "Conor the Bold" himself. So I'm suspicious of you with your Best and Warm Regards as if you mean it.

Adrian, I think you are Conor the Bold reincarnated becuase you showed up about the same time as Youngdan was goading you.

Rhonda is doing a great job. And who cares what abuse comes our way. When you know you're right you never worry about a thing. At least, I don't.

We have irrefutable scientific evidence showing Nano-thermate present in the WTC dust. So in a court of law, I would win.

The motivation or why it was done is another days work, but we know for certain, WTC 1,2,7 came down by controlled demolition.

The truth will out eventually.

Originally Posted by Destiny's Soldier

That's a good question. The planes were only 20% full. So my guess, and there is some evidence that the real planes landed at an airport and everyone was put on another plane (flight 93 ) which was eventually shot down at 10.06.

Originally Posted by rhonda15

..for this to happen all the structural support columns would have to have given way at the same time..

Originally Posted by TommyO'Brien

Because one side of it had a massive hole in it. The delusionists like to look at the side that was perfect and say 'how did that happen?' They conveniently ignore pictures from the side that show a gaping big hole that fatally undermined the structure, making it a matter of when, not if, it fell. The camera angles used by most TV stations happened to show the good side inadvertently. (The best shots of the whole site could be got from there so cameras set up there. It was only when images from the other side were shown that people realised how the 'best' camera shots in terms of broad view didn't capture that the survival of WTC7 had been fatally compromised by falling masonry.)

Originally Posted by rhonda15

this is only something that happens in a controlled demolition as the video below explains:

Originally Posted by Almanac

How could he deride the "very suggestion" as if it were scientifically impossible? You have seen a controlled demolition, haven't you? You have seen footage of buildings suffering all kinds of damage during wars, right? Do any of them resemble what occurred on September 11th?

In the fifties the BBC was broadcasting propaganda from Iran in order to justify the Anglo-American coup against Mossadegh, a, the first, democratically elected leader of Iran, who being a patriot wanted to take his country's oil out of the Rockefellers' hands by nationalising it. The CIA-run black operation included buying up newspapers to demonise Mossadegh, organising demonstrations and orchestrating civil unrest and killing civilians in terrorist attacks and pinning the blame on Mossadegh. This is all public knowledge.

The BBC's role was covered in the documentary 'A Very British Coup.'

The House of Lords on Iran: Glory and Humiliation

Originally Posted by Trampas

I am doing my best to ignore this nonsense, but no doubt you are familar with the views of that "controlled demolition" specialist wheeled out on one of those British TV programmes (forget name). He rerided the very suggestion that any of those collapses could possibly be due to controlled demolition. That option is for fruitcakes only.

Originally Posted by rhonda15

jesus some people must be complete retards - how can you look at this video and not come to the conclusion that the official story doesn't pass the smell test.