- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The 9/11 Files: Tucker Carlson
Posted on 10/15/25 at 7:03 pm to Mister Completely
Posted on 10/15/25 at 7:03 pm to Mister Completely
quote:
You think an object traveling 530 mph hitting metal and glass is going to leave a little bit of a different impact than one that hits reinforced concrete/brick/limestone? Just a tad, maybe?
See this is why nobody takes you fruitcakes seriously. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not true.
I'm surprised any of the "plane" made it as far as it did.
I think the engines and parts that hit those parts of the building should have been pancaked against them if they did not give way. They aren't just absorbed.
I mean if there is a hole in the middle and wings on the outside, that makes sense.
And in the images of wreckage they do show, why and how did all the rivets get removed?
And as I said before, all they need to do is release a video showing a plane and I'll happily change my opinion. Of course, the WTCs were still brought down by controlled demolition but I have no need for the pentagon to be a missile or a plane.
This post was edited on 10/15/25 at 7:05 pm
0
Posted on 10/15/25 at 7:05 pm to Mister Completely
quote:
At least hundreds saw the plane, including people inside the Pentagon,
This post was edited on 10/15/25 at 7:12 pm
Posted on 10/15/25 at 7:12 pm to TX Tiger
And April Gallop got summarily smacked down by the courts for failing to produce anything other than murky conspiracy theories and zero evidence to back up her claims. Her attorneys got sanctioned, fined, and ripped a new one for it too.
Let's just stop for a second and think - there are literally hundreds of eye witnesses to this event. It's not a minor detail they might be mistaken about...it was a fricking 757. A thing that big, traveling that fast and that low, with American Airlines plastered all over it is kinda hard to miss.
To poo poo hundreds of people who saw it with their own eyes is...well...that's a strategy alright.
Let's just stop for a second and think - there are literally hundreds of eye witnesses to this event. It's not a minor detail they might be mistaken about...it was a fricking 757. A thing that big, traveling that fast and that low, with American Airlines plastered all over it is kinda hard to miss.
To poo poo hundreds of people who saw it with their own eyes is...well...that's a strategy alright.
Posted on 10/15/25 at 7:17 pm to TX Tiger
quote:
That's the dilemma, isn't it. If you truly believe that you are important enough to be told the truth to, then the joke's on you.
Never once have I suggested that I am important enough to be told the truth. When someone makes it out that a given news source is probably wrong and shouldn’t be considered trustworthy, then I want to know examples of this. Should be easy. Furthermore to suggest that Candace and Tucker are the wrong sources for news suggests that there is a better alternative. Surely you and the other poster have news sources whom you deem more trustworthy than Candace and Tucker. List those examples.
Posted on 10/15/25 at 7:27 pm to TX Tiger
I didnt watch the whole thing, but a DEI hire, first day back on the job, with child in tow, and laughed about going back to work on 9/11 is someone I should believe? And hired lawyers that got their aholes ripped open by the courts
quote:
Following this Court’s April 27, 2011 order for April Gallop and her counsel of record to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for filing a frivolous appeal, see Gallop v. Cheney, 642 F.3d 364 (2d Cir. 2011) (“Gallop I”), sanctions are imposed on Gallop’s counsel of record pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the inherent power of this Court. One of Gallop’s counsel of record, William Veale, is further sanctioned for filing a frivolous and vexatious motion to disqualify the panel “and any like-minded colleagues” from considering Gallop’s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing in banc of this Court’s opinion in Gallop I, following a July 7, 2011 order to show cause, see Gallop v. Cheney, 645 F.3d 519. In addition, Gallop’s lead counsel of record, Dennis Cunningham, is admitted pro hac vice for the purpose of this appeal, and is ordered to show cause why he should not be separately sanctioned for his principal role in drafting the relevant filings
Posted on 10/15/25 at 7:27 pm to olemc999
I agree with Tuck on a lot of shite, but not this. 911 was done by Muslims, period. I hate these conspiracies because it takes the focus off of those actually responsible.
There is nothing weird about tower 7. If you watch home videos taken that day, you will see close-up shots of tower 7 with massive fires inside shortly after the big towers fell. People pretend that tower 7 was untouched and just fell mysteriously. bullshite. News networks were reporting that tower 7 was getting ready to fall. Firefighters were on camera saying they weren't going to send men inside there because it wasn't salvageable.
There is nothing weird about tower 7. If you watch home videos taken that day, you will see close-up shots of tower 7 with massive fires inside shortly after the big towers fell. People pretend that tower 7 was untouched and just fell mysteriously. bullshite. News networks were reporting that tower 7 was getting ready to fall. Firefighters were on camera saying they weren't going to send men inside there because it wasn't salvageable.
Posted on 10/15/25 at 7:39 pm to Mister Completely
quote:Of course she did, just like all the other eye witnesses who questioned the "official" story (emphasis on "story").
And April Gallop got summarily smacked down by the courts
Posted on 10/15/25 at 7:40 pm to TX Tiger
Posted on 10/15/25 at 7:48 pm to TX Tiger
Here is probably the best video of WTC 7 closeup after it was on fire and before it fell. Notice that numerous different floors were a raging inferno. At about 2:40 he gets a shot that shows just how many different floors had smoke coming out of the windows.
At 3:00 he takes a closeup of cars out front. They are completely and utterly destroyed into trash heaps. And these cars were a couple hundred yards away from the main tower that fell.
At 3:00 he takes a closeup of cars out front. They are completely and utterly destroyed into trash heaps. And these cars were a couple hundred yards away from the main tower that fell.
Posted on 10/15/25 at 7:59 pm to TX Tiger
Posted on 10/15/25 at 8:04 pm to Mister Completely
quote:
And April Gallop got summarily smacked down by the courts for failing to produce anything other than murky conspiracy theories and zero evidence to back up her claims. Her attorneys got sanctioned, fined, and ripped a new one for it too.
Let's just stop for a second and think - there are literally hundreds of eye witnesses to this event. It's not a minor detail they might be mistaken about...it was a fricking 757. A thing that big, traveling that fast and that low, with American Airlines plastered all over it is kinda hard to miss.
To poo poo hundreds of people who saw it with their own eyes is...well...that's a strategy alright.
Posted on 10/15/25 at 8:06 pm to AUstar
quote:
I agree with Tuck on a lot of shite, but not this. 911 was done by Muslims, period. I hate these conspiracies because it takes the focus off of those actually responsible.
There is nothing weird about tower 7. If you watch home videos taken that day, you will see close-up shots of tower 7 with massive fires inside shortly after the big towers fell. People pretend that tower 7 was untouched and just fell mysteriously. bullshite. News networks were reporting that tower 7 was getting ready to fall. Firefighters were on camera saying they weren't going to send men inside there because it wasn't salvageable.
Buildings do not collapse due to fire, they don't make them out of wood.
They certainly do not fall all at once either.
Posted on 10/15/25 at 8:27 pm to 3down10
quote:
Buildings do not collapse due to fire, they don't make them out of wood. They certainly do not fall all at once either.
What?
There are videos of tall buildings of all sorts on fire and collapsing straight down. The São Paulo apartment building fire and collapse immediately comes to mind.
Jesus dude....this is what I'm talking about why nobody takes y'all seriously. Never once trying refute facts with facts, just making up shite and running with it. Because nebulous reasoning is cool, I guess?
Posted on 10/15/25 at 8:33 pm to olemc999
Posted on 10/15/25 at 8:35 pm to 3down10
quote:
Cancelled
This is Beverly Eckert, co-chair for families of 9/11, meeting with Obama in a plea for a real investigation into 9/11. Six days later she was killed in a plane crash of Colgan Air Flight 3407.
Posted on 10/15/25 at 8:43 pm to Mister Completely
quote:
What?
There are videos of tall buildings of all sorts on fire and collapsing straight down. The São Paulo apartment building fire and collapse immediately comes to mind.
Jesus dude....this is what I'm talking about why nobody takes y'all seriously. Never once trying refute facts with facts, just making up shite and running with it. Because nebulous reasoning is cool, I guess?
It was not a steel building, it was a concrete building and concrete has elements that start melting at a much lower temperature than steel.
This is the building you are citing, it had only 4 main concrete cores based on the information I could find. It did NOT collapse all at once, it feel quickly - but in sections.
Nobody reported it fell 30 minutes before it happened.
Furthermore, the entire thing was on fire front to back and all over, not a small fire on a few floors.
Feel free to try again.
This post was edited on 10/15/25 at 8:52 pm
Posted on 10/15/25 at 8:56 pm to 3down10
quote:
It was not a steel building, it was a concrete building and concrete has elements that start melting at a much lower temperature than steel
Furthermore, the entire thing was on fire front to back and all over, not a small fire on a few floors.
Steel doesn't have to melt to cause the collapse. Good God. You have done zero reading or research into the physics and engineering of all the 9/11 crashes and collapses. If you would have, you'd know this has been explained perfectly, 100% factually, for close to 20 years now.
Small fire over a few floors? That's what you're going to call the WTC fires? Really? At this point, you most certainly have to be trolling. Nobody is this dumb.
If you're legitimately interested in fact finding and the "why" behind the building collapses, read the NIST report or the Popular Mechanics story. It's all laid out in detail, completely explained, the physics made so simple for you. It's not difficult to understand.
Posted on 10/15/25 at 9:07 pm to Mister Completely
quote:
Steel doesn't have to melt to cause the collapse. Good God. You have done zero reading or research into the physics and engineering of all the 9/11 crashes and collapses. If you would have, you'd know this has been explained perfectly, 100% factually, for close to 20 years now.
Small fire over a few floors? That's what you're going to call the WTC fires? Really? At this point, you most certainly have to be trolling. Nobody is this dumb.
If you're legitimately interested in fact finding and the "why" behind the building collapses, read the NIST report or the Popular Mechanics story. It's all laid out in detail, completely explained, the physics made so simple for you. It's not difficult to understand.
There was no fire remotely hot enough to reach the temperatures required to do what you are talking.
WT7 was NOT hit by a plane, there was no jet fuel or anything else you can cite as a fuel source to reach the temperatures required to melt steel.
Especially across the entire building which would be required to make it collapse like that.
Posted on 10/15/25 at 9:08 pm to TFH
quote:
For the undying 9/11 moronic jet fuel argument
WTC7 was not hit by a plane and had no jet fuel in it's fire.
Also, any video that turns off comments likely has no credibility.
This post was edited on 10/15/25 at 9:09 pm
Posted on 10/15/25 at 9:15 pm to 3down10
quote:
WTC7 was not hit by a plane and had no jet fuel in it's fire. Also, any video that turns off comments likely has no credibility.
Building fires reach 1500° even without jet fuel and steel fails at 1100.
And I’d turn off comments, too, if I were dealing with morons who think the buildings weren’t brought down by fire
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News