# Which 9-11 theory you believe?



## Freeman (Sep 13, 2010)

there are  different theories about 9-11, you should surely adopt one or changed your opinion after scientists discovered nano thermites bombs in the dust .


----------



## Big Black Dog (Sep 13, 2010)

Let me see if I can get this straight...  Two different airplanes fly into both of the World Trade Center buildings at different times.  In the mass confusion and hysteria, someone ran into both of the buildings and planted enough bombs to bring them both down to the ground.

Do you have any idea about how fucking foolish this sounds?  I don't buy it for a minute.  Get a grip on reality.


----------



## Freeman (Sep 13, 2010)

poll's options posted.


----------



## kwc57 (Sep 13, 2010)

Count Dracula said:


> Let me see if I can get this straight...  Two different airplanes fly into both of the World Trade Center buildings at different times.  In the mass confusion and hysteria, someone ran into both of the buildings and planted enough bombs to bring them both down to the ground.
> 
> Do you have any idea about how fucking foolish this sounds?  I don't buy it for a minute.  Get a grip on reality.



Don't be silly.  Crews spent months accessing the building and prepping it for the demolition charges.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Sep 13, 2010)

kwc57 said:


> Count Dracula said:
> 
> 
> > Let me see if I can get this straight...  Two different airplanes fly into both of the World Trade Center buildings at different times.  In the mass confusion and hysteria, someone ran into both of the buildings and planted enough bombs to bring them both down to the ground.
> ...



Yeah.  I guess you're right...  How could I have over looked that important element?  Sorry.


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 13, 2010)

I don't see an option for what I consider the most likely theory.


----------



## Kalam (Sep 13, 2010)

Nor do I. I acknowledge that the act was perpetrated by al-Qa'idah but absolutely believe that the US government "let it happen" in some sense.


----------



## Hot Wire (Sep 13, 2010)

Count Dracula said:


> Let me see if I can get this straight...  Two different airplanes fly into both of the World Trade Center buildings at different times.  In the mass confusion and hysteria, someone ran into both of the buildings and planted enough bombs to bring them both down to the ground.
> 
> Do you have any idea about how fucking foolish this sounds?  I don't buy it for a minute.  Get a grip on reality.



These flat earthers are total idiots.The same people who said we never landed on the moon.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 13, 2010)

Kalam said:


> Nor do I. I acknowledge that the act was perpetrated by al-Qa'idah but absolutely believe that the US government "let it happen" in some sense.


I agree with you,

And some way, some how, Mossad was involved and helped plan the event.


----------



## blu (Sep 13, 2010)

Kalam said:


> Nor do I. I acknowledge that the act was perpetrated by al-Qa'idah but absolutely believe that the US government "let it happen" in some sense.



indeed, too much to be gained to stop it


----------



## Kalam (Sep 13, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Nor do I. I acknowledge that the act was perpetrated by al-Qa'idah but absolutely believe that the US government "let it happen" in some sense.
> ...



Several foreign governments knew and apparently warned the US before it happened; Israel may have been one of them. They obviously benefited from it...


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 13, 2010)

Kalam said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...


Israel is the ONLY nation who benefited from 9/11


----------



## blu (Sep 13, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



so did iran and saudi arabi


----------



## daveman (Sep 13, 2010)

I believe the theory that doesn't violate the laws of physics or rely on irrational hatred as "proof".  And so far in the polling, 2 people prefer the violations of natural laws and irrational hatred.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 13, 2010)

blu said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...


Yes, the Saudi's made money.

But what did Iran gain?


Israel got their enemy Iraq defeated. 

Can now do anything they want to Gaza and the Palestinan people.

And basically have a free hand in the Middle East to do what they want via Big Brother (the U.S.)

Plus they made boat loads of cash and were given even more weapons thanks to the American government.


----------



## Freeman (Sep 13, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Nor do I. I acknowledge that the act was perpetrated by al-Qa'idah but absolutely believe that the US government "let it happen" in some sense.
> ...



Do you think that 19 men alone have put nano-thermites in WTC7 and the towers collapsed in few seconds alone?


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 13, 2010)

daveman said:


> I believe the theory that doesn't violate the laws of physics or rely on irrational hatred as "proof".  And so far in the polling, 2 people prefer the violations of natural laws and irrational hatred.


Thanks for the info Daveman

I will file it under "Retards Opinion"


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 13, 2010)

Freeman said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...


Nope


----------



## Kalam (Sep 13, 2010)

blu said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Nor do I. I acknowledge that the act was perpetrated by al-Qa'idah but absolutely believe that the US government "let it happen" in some sense.
> ...



I only wonder how much they knew...


----------



## Toro (Sep 13, 2010)

Freeman said:


> there are  different theories about 9-11, you should surely adopt one or changed your opinion after scientists discovered nano thermites bombs in the dust .



What, run out of Joos operating ponzi schemes?  Off to the next anti-Semite topic du jour?


----------



## Toro (Sep 13, 2010)

Kalam said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...



Nothing.  They were too worried about Russia.  They were stuck in the 80s looking at their old arch-nemesis.  Cheney wore leg warmers around the White House.


----------



## blu (Sep 13, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



iraq was the only country stopping iran from becoming what is now and the super power it will be in the next few years


----------



## Kalam (Sep 13, 2010)

Toro said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...


_"Among other things, the report says that leaders of the F.A.A. received 52 intelligence reports from their security branch that mentioned Mr. bin Laden or Al Qaeda from April to Sept. 10, 2001. That represented half of all the intelligence summaries in that time."​_
That's what _wasn't_ redacted. They knew.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/politics/10terror.html


----------



## daveman (Sep 13, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the theory that doesn't violate the laws of physics or rely on irrational hatred as "proof".  And so far in the polling, 2 people prefer the violations of natural laws and irrational hatred.
> ...


Jews are gonna GITCHA!!  Booga booga!!


----------



## L.K.Eder (Sep 13, 2010)

the bourbons just outnumbered and outgunned the defenders of barcelona.


----------



## Sheldon (Sep 13, 2010)

I believe the US government provided aid to the Taliban in the 1980s to fight against the invading Soviet Army.
I believe Osama bin Laden benefited from that aid.
I believe 19 fuckwads from al-Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks.
I believe 4 commercial airliners where hijacked by these fuckwads.
I believe 2 planes flew into and collapsed the Twin Towers, one flew into the Pentagon, and the last into a rural Pennsylvania field.
I believe the government had the intel--scattered around as it may have been--to prevent this attack.
I believe the inaction on that intelligence played a collective psychological role at the White House when assessing and ultimately acting on the intelligence of "the WMD threat" in Iraq.
I believe, since this option isn't in the poll, that the poll is an accurate reflection on the OP's high level of mental retardation.


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2010)

daveman said:


> I believe the theory that doesn't violate the laws of physics or rely on irrational hatred as "proof".  And so far in the polling, 2 people prefer the violations of natural laws and irrational hatred.



but then you know jack shit about the physics of the official story..you are not even well versed in the official explanation you claim to support


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2010)

daveman said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



hey Dave enlighten us all and explain how the knowledge that explosives can bring down a building violates the laws of physics...this should be interesting


----------



## konradv (Sep 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I don't see an option for what I consider the most likely theory.



Care to enlighten us as to what that theory would be?


----------



## ConHog (Sep 13, 2010)

silkyeggsalad said:


> I believe the US government provided aid to the Taliban in the 1980s to fight against the invading Soviet Army.
> I believe Osama bin Laden benefited from that aid.
> I believe 19 fuckwads from al-Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks.
> I believe 4 commercial airliners where hijacked by these fuckwads.
> ...



This thread shows a LOT of retardation.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 13, 2010)

kwc57 said:


> Count Dracula said:
> 
> 
> > Let me see if I can get this straight...  Two different airplanes fly into both of the World Trade Center buildings at different times.  In the mass confusion and hysteria, someone ran into both of the buildings and planted enough bombs to bring them both down to the ground.
> ...



Indeed.Thats a fact that the coincidence theorists-the official conspiracy theory apologists cant get around is they planned it for months ahead of time.Thats why the OCTA'S here defend the official theory to know end that muslins were behind the attacks and that the fires caused the towers to collapse no matter how absurd it is in the fact it violated the laws of physics scientists have gone by for thousands of years. They defend that theory instead of acknowleding that explosives brought the towers down because then they have to admit it was an inside job because Al-queda could not have got past the security and planted the bombs especially with Bush's cousin and brother in charge of the security.

It was actually a joint CIA/MOSSAD operation so i put no vote in since that is not an option there.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 13, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the theory that doesn't violate the laws of physics or rely on irrational hatred as "proof".  And so far in the polling, 2 people prefer the violations of natural laws and irrational hatred.
> ...



 Dunceman obviously slept in third grade science classes obviously because the governments "theory" DOES violate the laws of physics


----------



## jillian (Sep 13, 2010)

kwc57 said:


> Don't be silly.  Crews spent months accessing the building and prepping it for the demolition charges.



ya... cause people wiring towers in the middle of one of the most congested areas in the world would be sure to go unnoticed... 

the planes flying overhead must have been figments of our imaginations. \


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 13, 2010)

Kalam said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...


do you have any clue how vague those were?


----------



## Kalam (Sep 13, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Did you have any examples in mind? The US government has done far more with far less.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 13, 2010)

Here is the funny part.

"The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe *conclusively shows the presence of unignited aluminothermic* explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers"

Explosive Residues: Energetic Materials and the World Trade Center Destruction

Now, un-ignited? Think about this. These people would have us believe that thermite was used to make the fires hot enough to melt steel yet it did not ignite some of this nano thermite. And if I remember the story right this dust was collected four months after the attack. I could be wrong about that I was laughing rather hard while trying to read these reports....

Fact is that there has been no physical evidence presented to disprove any of the major points of the 911CR.

Oh and thermite? Not much more than aluminum and rust....Bet you can find these trace amounts in any collapsed office building.....


----------



## Toro (Sep 13, 2010)

kwc57 said:


> Count Dracula said:
> 
> 
> > Let me see if I can get this straight...  Two different airplanes fly into both of the World Trade Center buildings at different times.  In the mass confusion and hysteria, someone ran into both of the buildings and planted enough bombs to bring them both down to the ground.
> ...



rofl


----------



## Toro (Sep 13, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



That's right!  And if you started worrying about the murderers Bush/Cheney/Joos walking free instead of little things like "your children," you'd know that!


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2010)

_Listen up idiot ..no one is saying planes did not hit the towers..and as far as planting explosives in a building goes dont pretend that could not be done covertly..when those with intimate knowledge and experience in covert operations do not see this as an impossibility...the evidence is in the nature of these collapses the probability of these three buildings collapsing in the manner they did ..  primarily from fire is the impossibility.. not planting charges covertly_


*Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng &#8211; Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center.  Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden.  Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988*).  Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986).  Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000.  Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers.  Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology.  37 year NASA career.
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

*
"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Cente*r]."  AE911Truth.org





*William Christison (1928 - 2010) &#8211; Joined the CIA in 1950, and served on the analysis side of the Agency for 28 years. From the early 1970s he served as National Intelligence Officer (principal adviser to the Director of Central Intelligence on certain areas) for, at various times, Southeast Asia, South Asia and Africa. Before he retired in 1979 he was Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, a 250-person unit responsible for political analysis of every country and region in the worl*d.
Endorsement of Debunking 9/11 Debunking 3/30/07:  

"David Ray Griffin&#8217;s Debunking 9/11 Debunking is a superb compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies.  Tragically, the entire course of U.S. foreign and domestic policies since that date has grown out of these almost certain falsehoods.  This single book could (and should) provide the basis for the United Nations&#8218; International Court of Justice, or some specially constituted global body (independent of the U.S.) to investigate with highest priority, and publicly report its findings about, the charge that unknown elements within the U.S. Government, and possibly some individuals elsewhere closely allied to the U.S., caused or contributed to causing the events of September 11 to happen." 
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report



Essay Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11  8/14/06:


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Here is the funny part.
> 
> "The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe *conclusively shows the presence of unignited aluminothermic* explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers"
> 
> ...



you cant find what you never look for and when there is a rush to destroy all evidence..the evidence is in the nature of the collapse


----------



## daveman (Sep 13, 2010)

eots said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the theory that doesn't violate the laws of physics or rely on irrational hatred as "proof".  And so far in the polling, 2 people prefer the violations of natural laws and irrational hatred.
> ...


But given the fact that you're a Troofer, your judgement is seriously flawed...so your analysis is screwed.


----------



## daveman (Sep 13, 2010)

eots said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


Where did I say that?

Oh, that's right -- I didn't.  Dumbass.


----------



## daveman (Sep 13, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Ummm...no, it doesn't.  Dumbass.


----------



## daveman (Sep 13, 2010)

Toro said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2010)

daveman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



you stated  as one of the reason for rejection the controlled demolition theory is because it violated the laws of physics.. repeatedly,..but hopefully this will put a end to that


----------



## Big Black Dog (Sep 13, 2010)

Hot Wire said:


> Count Dracula said:
> 
> 
> > Let me see if I can get this straight...  Two different airplanes fly into both of the World Trade Center buildings at different times.  In the mass confusion and hysteria, someone ran into both of the buildings and planted enough bombs to bring them both down to the ground.
> ...



I think you're off either your medication or your rocker or possibly both.


----------



## Mini 14 (Sep 13, 2010)

troofers are the looniest of the loons.


----------



## daveman (Sep 13, 2010)

eots said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


You're going to have to link that.  But you won't because that's not what I said.


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2010)

daveman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



wow you really are retarded..

"I believe the theory that doesn't violate the laws of physics or rely on irrational hatred as "proof". And so far in the polling, 2 people prefer the violations of natural laws and irrational hatred."


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFvHEXMxrrA&feature=related]YouTube - Crickets[/ame]


----------



## daveman (Sep 13, 2010)

eots said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


Yeah?  And?  Dumbass, did I say controlled demo violates the laws of physics?  No,  dumbass.  The "evidence" you manufacture to "prove" controlled demolitions does, however, dumbass.  

And did I mention you're a dumbass?


----------



## daveman (Sep 13, 2010)

eots said:


> YouTube - Crickets


It's funny how you think you ran me off, you







  Dumbass.


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2010)

]





daveman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...




well actually, Dave.. you said *nothing of the sort*. you said *"I believe the theory that doesn't violate the laws of physics* "but fine..lets break this down Dave..how does the evidence  I  manufacture to prove controlled demolition violate the laws of physics ?


----------



## daveman (Sep 13, 2010)

eots said:


> ]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Y'know, if you didn't think your ludicrous theories really do violate the laws of physics, you wouldn't be wetting your pants so much now.  Dumbass.  

As for explaining it to you, all you will respond with is "Nuh-UH!!", so I really don't see any need to spend time trying to convince you of something when you've made it quite clear your mind is closed.  Other people have presented you with facts and logic, and you want nothing to do with them.

Enjoy your delusions.  Dumbass.


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2010)

daveman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > ]
> ...



So you have nothing..you cant offer one tiny example ? 




hello ?


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQFEY9RIRJA]YouTube - Cricket Chirping[/ame]


----------



## eots (Sep 17, 2010)

hellloooo ????


----------



## Jeremy (Sep 17, 2010)

You forgot the fifth theory.
AIDS infested leprechauns suffering from Tourettes syndrome let loose in the buildings the night before to help with an out of control infestation of rabid spider monkeys.


----------



## eots (Sep 17, 2010)

Jeremy said:


> You forgot the fifth theory.
> AIDS infested leprechauns suffering from Tourettes syndrome let loose in the buildings the night before to help with an out of control infestation of rabid spider monkeys.



you really think thats funny ? must suck to be you.....still waiting dave


----------



## Jeremy (Sep 17, 2010)

eots said:


> Jeremy said:
> 
> 
> > You forgot the fifth theory.
> ...



What? I think it fits right in.


----------



## eots (Sep 17, 2010)

Jeremy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Jeremy said:
> ...



well you may think that but you are of very limited intelligence so opinions like these are to be expected.. along with the drooling


----------



## Jeremy (Sep 17, 2010)

eots said:


> Jeremy said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I think you're finally catching on.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 17, 2010)

eots said:


> Jeremy said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


LOL
talk about "limited intelligence"

go smoke another joint and burn out a few more brain cells while convincing yourself you are battling lung cancer


----------



## eots (Sep 17, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Jeremy said:
> ...



burn out brain cells ?? where do you get this shit ?..go take your meds and convince your self pieces of debris equals a aircraft


----------



## Jeremy (Sep 17, 2010)

Truthers are so cute. I want one as a pet.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 17, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


you are the one that is fucking delusional
its not my fault you dont understand that parts of an airplane going all the way through a building is the same as saying the plane went all the way through


----------



## eots (Sep 17, 2010)

divecon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...



really ? To the linguistically challenged ..perhaps it does


----------



## Jeremy (Sep 17, 2010)

I still think the leprechauns did it.


----------



## eots (Sep 17, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Jeremy said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QviG1NLbd0A&feature=related]YouTube - Marijuana Helps Grow Brain Cells[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 17, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


not by SMOKING IT you fucking moron


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 17, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



The Saudi's may have benefitted, but only for "compensation" for "using" mostly Saudi's as perpatraitors. Anyone ever hear of The Carlysle Group and "who" was involved??

It has been Israel's goal, from day ONE, to create hatred toward Muslim and Arabic people. 911 certainly gave this "goal" quite a leg-up, don't you think??

Of course the US government was in on the plot, but I think they were told what was going to happen and not given much time to do anything about it. If anyone has the video of Card telling Bush that "America was under attack", look at his face. He knew. 

Remember the "Dancing Israeli's" on the roof top in NYC? They were dancing and cheering while filming. FYI: They were ALL Mossad Agents. Then after they were arrested and sent back to Israel, they went on an Israeli TV talk show saying, That " We only wanted to document the event". Now just HOW do you document an event that supposedly NO ONE knew was going to happen?

It just goes on and on.

WE HAVE BEEN HAD AMERICA!! WAKE UP!!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 17, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...



well said.Unfortunately the OCTA'S-the official conspiracy theory apologists only see what they want to see and wont read your post,they want to stay asleep and contiue living in denial.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 17, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Hollybaere said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


i read her post
and its still utter bullshit

but here you are again playing CHEERLEADER


----------



## Jeremy (Sep 17, 2010)

*New reputation! *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, you have received -52 reputation points from eots.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
LOSER

Regards,
eots

Note: This is an automated message.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 17, 2010)

Jeremy said:


> *New reputation! *
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


LOL
got ya covered


----------



## eots (Sep 17, 2010)

divecon said:


> jeremy said:
> 
> 
> > *new reputation! *
> ...



with what ? An idiot blanket


----------



## eots (Sep 17, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrjOmGlmWBA&feature=related]YouTube - A Culture in Denial[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 17, 2010)

eots said:


> divecon said:
> 
> 
> > jeremy said:
> ...


i wouldnt want to deprive you of yours


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 17, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> i read her post
> and its still utter bullshit
> 
> but here you are again playing CHEERLEADER



And yet...........you did EXACTLY what he said you would do.

Keep living in your dreamworld, Hon. If everyone still believed the world was flat, you wouldn't be here!

There is far too much evidence that disputes your "head in the sand" theory. 

Keep sleeping.........


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 17, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > i read her post
> ...


except you are one of the modern day "flat earthers"

you actually believe 9/11 was an inside job?
you are FUCKING INSANE

just another fucking troofer moron


----------



## Jeremy (Sep 17, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > i read her post
> ...


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 17, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> except you are one of the modern day "flat earthers"
> 
> you actually believe 9/11 was an inside job?
> you are FUCKING INSANE
> ...



Fine then...............

*PROVE ME WRONG!!*

Go for it!! Bring it on!!

BTW: Don't go for that stupid article in Popular Mechanics that "proves" The "Fairy Tale" Pan-cake theory of the collapse. 

It might behoove you to actually READ my signature line.


----------



## daveman (Sep 17, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > except you are one of the modern day "flat earthers"
> ...



Impossible.  You don't want to be proven wrong, so you ignore anything that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 17, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > except you are one of the modern day "flat earthers"
> ...


you have been proven wrong THOUSANDS of times yet you stupid fucking morons persist

i have no patience for fools like you delusional troofer morons
facts don't mean shit to you idiots


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 17, 2010)

daveman said:


> Impossible.  You don't want to be proven wrong, so you ignore anything that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions.



And just when you think you have heard every excuse..............

"Preconceived notions"?

No, I agree with the TRUTH, backed by scientific observations, testing and FACTS.

Why don't you just admit that YOU CAN'T prove me wrong, instead of making yourself look like a foolish ASS??


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 17, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> you have been proven wrong THOUSANDS of times yet you stupid fucking morons persist
> 
> i have no patience for fools like you delusional troofer morons
> facts don't mean shit to you idiots



REALLY???

*Show me! Show me! Show me!!*

Your fat mouth flapping doesn't prove a thing!!

No patience?? Then go away Little Man and let the truth take hold!


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 17, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > you have been proven wrong THOUSANDS of times yet you stupid fucking morons persist
> ...


you've already rejected the PM coverage
you show you are beyond being shown
you are a fucking MORON


----------



## eots (Sep 18, 2010)

dwivecon does not attempt to debunk
he is a_ debwunker'_
he simply says you are WRONG
you LIE but if asked to offer details 
he will claim he or someone else already did


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 18, 2010)

eots said:


> dwivecon does not attempt to debunk
> he is a_ debwunker'_
> he simply says you are WRONG
> you LIE but if asked to offer details
> he will claim he or someone else already did


I have never claimed to be a debunker you fucking LIAR
but i have posted evidence that debunks your bullshit several times YEARS ago
you rejected the facts, you are a fucking moronic IDIOT"
Id-Eots


----------



## R.C. Christian (Sep 18, 2010)

First of all, you people would do well to realize the fact that Bin Laden plainly stated that he had no hand in 9-11. Furthermore, that incriminating video that was supposedly his admission was, obviously, a cleverly manufactured fake. 

The only thing you do know is that 2 planes and no explosives brought down those 2 towers. To suggest otherwise is assinine.

To truly understand 9-11 you people should consider how U.S. foreign policy shapes the world we live in, with respect to the methods that are undertaken to maintain the dominance that that keeps the world from falling apart. With so much to be lost and yet so much to be gained it will become clearer to you the things people are capable of when so much is at stake.


----------



## eots (Sep 18, 2010)

told ya


----------



## eots (Sep 18, 2010)

R.C. Christian said:


> First of all, you people would do well to realize the fact that Bin Laden plainly stated that he had no hand in 9-11. Furthermore, that incriminating video that was supposedly his admission was, obviously, a cleverly manufactured fake.
> 
> The only thing you do know is that 2 planes and no explosives brought down *those 2 towers*. To suggest otherwise is assinine.
> 
> To truly understand 9-11 you people should consider how U.S. foreign policy shapes the world we live in, with respect to the methods that are undertaken to maintain the dominance that that keeps the world from falling apart. With so much to be lost and yet so much to be gained it will become clearer to you the things people are capable of when so much is at stake.



*you forgot this one*


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A]YouTube - wtc 7 collapse[/ame]


----------



## R.C. Christian (Sep 18, 2010)

eots said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, you people would do well to realize the fact that Bin Laden plainly stated that he had no hand in 9-11. Furthermore, that incriminating video that was supposedly his admission was, obviously, a cleverly manufactured fake.
> ...



No, I did not.


----------



## daveman (Sep 18, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Impossible.  You don't want to be proven wrong, so you ignore anything that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions.
> ...


I already have admitted I can't prove you wrong, but it's through no failing of mine.

I've seen what Troofers use instead of TRUTH, scientific observations, testing, and FACTS.
It usually boils down to I HAVE AN IRRATIONAL HATRED OF GEORGE BUSH.


----------



## eots (Sep 18, 2010)

daveman said:


> Hollybaere said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



*nonsense*


----------



## eots (Sep 18, 2010)

R.C. Christian said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > R.C. Christian said:
> ...



so whats your explanation for the third skyscraper collapsing


----------



## daveman (Sep 18, 2010)

R.C. Christian said:


> First of all, you people would do well to realize the fact that Bin Laden plainly stated that he had no hand in 9-11.









It's a shame that Bin Laden himself disagrees with you.

Dumbass.


----------



## daveman (Sep 18, 2010)

eots said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Hollybaere said:
> ...


Some of you are driven by a hatred of America, too.  And some of you are just plain crazy.


----------



## eots (Sep 18, 2010)

daveman said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, you people would do well to realize the fact that Bin Laden plainly stated that he had no hand in 9-11.
> ...



CIA Admits To Making Fake Bin Laden Videos!!
Submitted by legalizeliberty on Wed, 05/26/2010 - 19:59


A little-noticed blog post by a veteran intelligence reporter averred Tuesday that the CIA's Iraq Operations Group weighed a plan prior to the 2003 Iraq invasion that sought to discredit Saddam Hussein by portraying him as gay.

According to Jeff Stein, a longtime intelligence reporter who first revealed that FBI officials had eavesdropped on a sitting Democratic congresswoman, the CIA's Iraq Operations Group considered creating a video that would the then-Iraqi leader having intercourse with a teenage boy.

&#8220;It would look like it was taken by a hidden camera,&#8221; a former CIA official purportedly told Stein. &#8220;Very grainy, like it was a secret videotaping of a sex session.&#8221;


CIA Admits To Making Fake Bin Laden Videos!! | Ron Paul 2012 | Campaign for Liberty at the Daily Paul


----------



## R.C. Christian (Sep 18, 2010)

daveman said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, you people would do well to realize the fact that Bin Laden plainly stated that he had no hand in 9-11.
> ...



You are way out of your league here, but carry on with your limited world view and I'll just sit back and laugh accordingly.


----------



## daveman (Sep 18, 2010)

eots said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > R.C. Christian said:
> ...


  yes, PBS is nothing but reich-wing GOP propaganda, isn't it?


----------



## daveman (Sep 18, 2010)

R.C. Christian said:


> You are way out of your league here, but carry on with your limited world view and I'll just sit back and laugh accordingly.


  You're wrong, kid.  Time to grow up and accept it.

Or you can continue as you are.  I bet the latter.


----------



## R.C. Christian (Sep 18, 2010)

eots said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I don't need an explanation. You're treating this like a crime scene, and judging this empirically, but in doing so you're also missing the bigger picture.


----------



## R.C. Christian (Sep 18, 2010)

daveman said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> > You are way out of your league here, but carry on with your limited world view and I'll just sit back and laugh accordingly.
> ...



What is that you would like me to accept?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 18, 2010)

R.C. Christian said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > R.C. Christian said:
> ...


oh please do extrapolate on "the bigger picture"


----------



## eots (Sep 18, 2010)

R.C. Christian said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > R.C. Christian said:
> ...



It is a crime scene..that is just a fact and a proper investigation of a crime scene in no way distracts from the big picture


----------



## R.C. Christian (Sep 18, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



The bigger picture is simply control of central asia, or what you would call the middle east. When I say control you'll be taken affront, because we have been raised to believe that America is not an empire, but in essence it is, and american foreign policy is centered on central asia and has been since the end of the cold war. It doesn't matter who financed or orchestrated 9-11 because the end goal has always been the same: To "control" the middle east. Our inability or unwillingness to do so would only reduce the world to chaos as other nations aligned to fill the vaccuum left in our absence. Unfortunately, liberal democracies are resistant to the idea of empire at the core and rightfully so. Whomever radicalized Mohammed Atta and his merry men did so with the purpose to further that goal. And in order to do that it was completely necessary to win the hearts and minds of the passive sheep or to give you a boogeyman. And it's been a full court press ever since to achieve that strategic goal.


----------



## eots (Sep 18, 2010)

Regardless a crime has been committed and the perpetrators need to be exposed..the truth needs to be told


----------



## R.C. Christian (Sep 18, 2010)

```

```



eots said:


> Regardless a crime has been committed and the perpetrators need to be exposed..the truth needs to be told



Of that I have no doubt.


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 18, 2010)

R.C. Christian said:


> First of all, you people would do well to realize the fact that Bin Laden plainly stated that he had no hand in 9-11. Furthermore, that incriminating video that was supposedly his admission was, obviously, a cleverly manufactured fake.



Also, you need to know that Bin Laden DIED on December 26, 2001. The Bush family were close friends  with the Bin Laden family AND Bin Laden himself was a former CIA Agent (Tim Osman). Bin Laden was not a well man when 911 happened. See: Osama bin Laden - a dead nemesis perpetuated by the US government



R.C. Christian said:


> The only thing you do know is that 2 planes and no explosives brought down those 2 towers. To suggest otherwise is assinine.



If "no explosives brought down those 2 towers", please explain the EYEWITNESSES who heard and saw explosions as they were running for their lives??

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64]YouTube - FDNY describe the bombs planted in the World Trade Center[/ame]



R.C. Christian said:


> To truly understand 9-11 you people should consider how U.S. foreign policy shapes the world we live in, with respect to the methods that are undertaken to maintain the dominance that that keeps the world from falling apart. With so much to be lost and yet so much to be gained it will become clearer to you the things people are capable of when so much is at stake.



You need to realise that Israeli control of the US government shapes US foriegn policy. Promoting hatred of Muslims and Arabic people has been their goal. 911 gave Israel all the leeway it needs to "reshape" the Middle East and carry out Operation Shekinah.
Operation Shekhinah, Israel Plans Blitzkrieg to Capture Arab Oil Fields

Does " Shock and Awe" sound familiar here??

Don't go off half-cocked here R.C., if you are going to tell the truth you might as well go whole hog.


----------



## R.C. Christian (Sep 18, 2010)

I can't tell you something I don't believe. For example, I do believe that Israel had knowledge of the inpending attacks, and so did we, but for whatever reason it was ignored. Just because I believe that Israel knew beforehand, doesn't mean Israel is complicit. The strategic foreign policy goal of the United States is uniquely American eventhough it also benefits Israel. Do jewish power brokers in the U.S. government have influence on the executive branch? Absolutely, but that does not make them responsible.


----------



## Fizz (Sep 18, 2010)

eots said:


> Regardless a crime has been committed and the perpetrators need to be exposed..the truth needs to be told



ok... then let's expose the perpetrators. the truth is THEY FLEW FUCKING PLANES INTO BUILDINGS!! 

here they are:


----------



## psikeyhackr (Sep 18, 2010)

I don't give a damn about any conspiracy theory.

I am not interested in BELIEVING anything.  BELIEVE means to accept something as true (or false) without sufficient evidence.

After seven years I no longer cared who did it.

The laws of physics do not give a damn about the United States or Islam or Christianity.

But skyscrapers must hold themselves up against gravity.  That means the designers had to figure out how much steel to put where because the farther down you go the more weight a given level must support.  So how can there be any kind of scientific investigation regardless of what destroyed the buildings without accurate information about the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the towers.

Try finding that discussed on the website for AE911Truth.  I asked Richard Gage about that in Chicago in May of 2008.  He said the NIST wasn't releasing accurate blue prints.  Gage CLAIMS to be an architect.  He CLAIMS to have engineers in his organization.  How much has computing power increased since the WTC was designed in the early 60s.  Has the way gravity works changed since then?  They should be able to come up with some pretty close estimates from scratch.  They know how many columns were where.  It is not like they would have to design the buildings totally from scratch.

We are being handed  bunch of crap from both sides of the issue.  Strictly on the basis of Newtonian physics it should have been determined within SIX MONTHS whether or not airliners could do that IF WE HAD ACCURATE DATA on the towers.

So why aren't all of the so called EXPERTS demanding accurate data after NINE YEARS.  Is it because they would have to explain not demanding it NINE YEARS AGO?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caATBZEKL4c]YouTube - Gravitational Collapse onto Cumulative Supports[/ame]

This is the Piltdown Man Incident of the 21st century.

I am sick of all of the conspiracy theorists with their emotional bullshit.

psik


----------



## daveman (Sep 18, 2010)

R.C. Christian said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > R.C. Christian said:
> ...



That you're wrong.


----------



## daveman (Sep 18, 2010)

psikeyhackr said:


> I don't give a damn about any conspiracy theory.
> 
> I am not interested in BELIEVING anything.  BELIEVE means to accept something as true (or false) without sufficient evidence.
> 
> ...



Oh.  My.  Achin'.  _Pancreas_.  

Paper and washers?  That's as retarded as the chicken wire and kerosene experiment.  

Oh, wait, I forgot...you're the "expert" whose training consists solely of _watching a building being built_.


----------



## rikules (Sep 18, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I don't see an option for what I consider the most likely theory.



God did it because America has become too liberal and threw him out of schools?


----------



## Naz1Mick (Sep 18, 2010)

Israel was behind 9/11!


----------



## psikeyhackr (Sep 18, 2010)

daveman said:


> Oh.  My.  Achin'.  _Pancreas_.
> 
> Paper and washers?  That's as retarded as the chicken wire and kerosene experiment.
> 
> Oh, wait, I forgot...you're the "expert" whose training consists solely of _watching a building being built_.



And you think I give a damn about ridicule from morons.

Washers have mass.  Therefore they have weight and inertia.

The paper loops provide as little support to the static load as I can devise.  The kinetic energy of the falling mass is STOPPED by the inertia and the crush resistance of the supports.

Tell us what is stopping you from building a model that can be completely crushed by 12% of its own mass.

Haven't you heard there is a 10,000 Euro reward to anyone that can do it?  Let's see you put your money where your mouth is.

The Heiwa Challenge

psik


----------



## eots (Sep 18, 2010)

I agree with your physics and if  correct then  the next logical conclusion is an inside job and ensuing cover -up, a conspiracy


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 18, 2010)

psikeyhackr said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Oh.  My.  Achin'.  _Pancreas_.
> ...



Got any video or AUDIO of the controlled explosions going off? I didn't think so.


----------



## eots (Sep 18, 2010)

Yes there are videos of explosions and testimony from first responders you chose to ignore because nist chose to ignore


----------



## daveman (Sep 18, 2010)

psikeyhackr said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Oh.  My.  Achin'.  _Pancreas_.
> ...


  That's too precious.  Ain't you just all _serious!_


----------



## daveman (Sep 18, 2010)

eots said:


> I agree with your physics and if  correct then  the next logical conclusion is an inside job and ensuing cover -up, a conspiracy


Indeed.  I propose Congress pass legislation that henceforth all buildings be constructed out of paper rings and washers.


----------



## eots (Sep 18, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGx7ci-9KiU]YouTube - 9/11 - Explosion witness Compilation[/ame]


----------



## hortysir (Sep 18, 2010)

Freeman said:


> there are  different theories about 9-11, you should surely adopt one or changed your opinion after _*scientists discovered nano thermites bombs in the dust*_ .


Link?
Proof?


----------



## eots (Sep 18, 2010)

daveman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > i agree with your physics and if  correct then  the next logical conclusion is an inside job and ensuing cover -up, a conspiracy
> ...



so dave what changes where made to building codes as a result of the global collapse of the wtc 7...please share your knowleadge


----------



## candycorn (Sep 18, 2010)

A message for Eots:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PaHcZUHI00]YouTube - Shut the fuck up.[/ame]


----------



## eots (Sep 18, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d32w2wRx8DI&feature=related]YouTube - "I Don't Like Candycorn"[/ame]


----------



## daveman (Sep 18, 2010)

eots said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


Sadly, the blind ignorant sheeple engineers insist on continuing to use the same weak and dangerous materials:  steel and concrete.  

Did you know the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids out of paper and washers?  True story.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 18, 2010)

eots said:


> Yes there are videos of explosions and testimony from first responders you chose to ignore because nist chose to ignore



No, eots, because they are not the sound of controlled demo. Some of us can hear the difference, which is what you ignore.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 18, 2010)

wow, a video starring Id eots.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 18, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless a crime has been committed and the perpetrators need to be exposed..the truth needs to be told
> ...



sorry moron disinfo agent,but as you already know,some of those people have come forward and said they are alive. the real perpetraters are Bush,Cheney,Rumsfield,Rice,Clinton,Guliani,Silverstein,Powell,Chertoff,ect ect.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 18, 2010)

psikeyhackr said:


> I don't give a damn about any conspiracy theory.
> 
> I am not interested in BELIEVING anything.  BELIEVE means to accept something as true (or false) without sufficient evidence.
> 
> ...



so your sick of the conspiracy theorists like fizz and candycorn with their emotional bullshit that 19 muslins were behind the attacks? join the club,so am I.


----------



## eots (Sep 18, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Yes there are videos of explosions and testimony from first responders you chose to ignore because nist chose to ignore
> ...



how do you know ..you were not there do you think first responders never heard secondary explosions before ??


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 18, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Yes they heard them that day, probably a hundred or more of them. They were going off sporadically most of the day actually. The key word here is sporadically.  I bet there were even some from the rubble. But there were none that were timed in a sequence that could have been called a controlled demo.


----------



## eots (Sep 18, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



but according to NIST only a few key columns needed to be weakened to cause a global collapse so you disagree with this conclusion ?? do you not see the possibility of non-conventional demolition techniques being employed


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 18, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



After 9 years and seeing nearly all the videos, no, I do not see that possibility.


----------



## Fizz (Sep 18, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> sorry moron disinfo agent,but as you already know,some of those people have come forward and said they are alive. the real perpetraters are Bush,Cheney,Rumsfield,Rice,Clinton,Guliani,Silverstein,Powell,Chertoff,ect ect.



so you should have no problem posting a pic of one after 9/11 since they have come forward. 

stupid fucking twoofers believe ANY fucking rumor that comes along that blaimes the USA isntead of the fucking muslim assholes that really did it.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 18, 2010)

Fizz said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > sorry moron disinfo agent,but as you already know,some of those people have come forward and said they are alive. the real perpetraters are Bush,Cheney,Rumsfield,Rice,Clinton,Guliani,Silverstein,Powell,Chertoff,ect ect.
> ...



James Smith is alive too. In nearly every city in the country.....LOL


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 18, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...


and town
LOL


----------



## Obamerican (Sep 18, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


You're an idiot.................ETC, ETC!!!!

NOT ect, you moron.


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 18, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Got any video or AUDIO of the controlled explosions going off? I didn't think so.




Oh?? Think again!!



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhGcBxONSvc&feature=related]YouTube - 9/11 Absolute Evidence Of Massive Explosions in Basement of WTC Long Before Collapse MUST SEE!!!!!![/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM&feature=related]YouTube - World Trade Center on 9/11 - Sounds of Explosions[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6XqXj8S4Tc&feature=related]YouTube - explosions can be seen coming from lower floors of WTC[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&feature=related]YouTube - 9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings![/ame]

And there are plenty more!!

BTW: What planet are you living on??


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 18, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Got any video or AUDIO of the controlled explosions going off? I didn't think so.
> ...


clearly not the planet you fucking morons are on
we are on Earth


----------



## eots (Sep 18, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc4zi6epQfI&feature=related]YouTube - What really happened at WTC 7? Barry Jennings[/ame]


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 18, 2010)

Fizz said:


> so you should have no problem posting a pic of one after 9/11 since they have come forward.
> 
> stupid fucking twoofers believe ANY fucking rumor that comes along that blaimes the USA isntead of the fucking muslim assholes that really did it.



Sorry............you are*..........WRONG!!*

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Hijack 'suspects' alive and well

At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive


Never forget 9/11


Be careful what you ask for, Hon. You just might get it!!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 18, 2010)

This is what a controlled demo sounds like.

BTW I am from earth and all your videos have been debunked. Many many times.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ]YouTube - Landmark Implosion[/ame]


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 18, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> clearly not the planet you fucking morons are on
> we are on Earth





It is YOU who believe in Fairy Tales over truth.

I'm sorry Little Man, your Government LIED to you. I know you are having a hard time with this FACT, but calling me a moron isn't going to make your Fairy Tales become real.


----------



## eots (Sep 18, 2010)

IS IS WHAT A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION LOOKS LIKE

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A]YouTube - wtc 7 collapse[/ame]

THIS IS WHAT FULLY ENGAGED  SKYSCRAPER FIRES LOOK LIKE

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]YouTube - Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!![/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 18, 2010)

ya gotta wonder, why is it that the truther sites never show the actual beginning of the collapse? You know where the one penthouse caves into the interior of the building first...


----------



## eots (Sep 18, 2010)

sfc ollie said:


> ya gotta wonder, why is it that the truther sites never show the actual beginning of the collapse? You know where the one penthouse caves into the interior of the building first...



you got to wonder how thats all liil ollie can dream up


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 18, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > clearly not the planet you fucking morons are on
> ...


you are pathetic


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 18, 2010)

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > ya gotta wonder, why is it that the truther sites never show the actual beginning of the collapse? You know where the one penthouse caves into the interior of the building first...
> ...


what he said was thew truth
deal with it you fucking moron


----------



## eots (Sep 18, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo]YouTube - WTC7 controlled demolition, side-by-side video[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 18, 2010)

Yawn.....


----------



## Fizz (Sep 19, 2010)

eots said:


> IS IS WHAT A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION LOOKS LIKE
> 
> YouTube - wtc 7 collapse
> 
> ...



not the same construction and designed AFTER the lessons learned from 9/11, you fucking moron. 

find any explosive demolitions yet?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > IS IS WHAT A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION LOOKS LIKE
> ...


you cant expect honesty and truth from a paranoid delusional troofer moron


----------



## Fizz (Sep 19, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > so you should have no problem posting a pic of one after 9/11 since they have come forward.
> ...



so why dont you post the results of the people that were "found alive" then?!! 
for instance, the person claiming to be one of the named suspects actual name was "Walid al-Shri" not "Waleed Alshehri" and was obviously NOT the same person...

another fucking twoofer moron that just believes ANYTHING as long as it blames america.... 

here is the BBC's (your source) clarification on the reports http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Hollybaere said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


i bet she is a chronic pot smoker too


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 19, 2010)

freeman said:


> after scientists discovered nano thermites bombs in the dust .



lol


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > IS IS WHAT A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION LOOKS LIKE
> ...



there are several building fires in this video  are you claiming they are all of significantly different design than both  the towers and wtc 7 ? and that those designs are inherently more susceptible to global collapse in a fire ?


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > Hollybaere said:
> ...



I bet.. you are on some form of psychiatric medications


----------



## Fizz (Sep 19, 2010)

eots said:


> there are several building fires in this video  are you claiming they are all of significantly different design than both  the towers and wtc 7 ? and that those designs are inherently more susceptible to global collapse in a fire ?



you tell me!!! it's YOUR EVIDENCE.

lazy ass MF'er.

are all the buildings steel framed buildings with no structural concrete support or not?


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > there are several building fires in this video  are you claiming they are all of significantly different design than both  the towers and wtc 7 ? and that those designs are inherently more susceptible to global collapse in a fire ?
> ...



so you have no idea..despite the implication of your statement


----------



## Fizz (Sep 19, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



oh, i have an idea. but why should i do your work for you. its YOUR EVIDENCE. whats wrong? can't back it up?

so tell us, jackass, what type of core did the mandarin hotel have? when was it designed?


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



*There are more similarities than differences between the uncontrolled fires that burned in WTC 7 and those that occurred in the following buildings: First Interstate Bank Building (1988), One Meridian Plaza Building (1981), One New York Plaza (1970), *
The following factors describe the fire events that occurred in both WTC 7 and the referenced buildings: 1) the fuel for the fires was ordinary office combustibles at ordinary combustible load levels; 2) there was no use of accelerants; 3) the spread of fire from combustible to combustible was governed by ordinary fire physics; 4) fire-induced window breakage provided ventilation for continued fire spread and growth; 5) there were simultaneous fires on multiple floors; 6) the fires on each floor occupied a substantial portion of the floor; 7) the fires on each floor had passed the point of flashover and the structure was subjected to typical post-flashover temperatures; 8) the sprinklers were inoperative or ineffective; and 9) the fires burned for sufficient time to cause significant distortion and/or failure to the building structure.*While the partial or total collapse of a tall building due to fires is a rare event, NIST strongly urges building owners, operators, and designers to evaluate buildings to ensure the adequate fire performance of structural systems.* Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following characteristics: long-span floor systems, connections that cannot accommodate thermal effects, floor framing that induces asymmetric forces on girders, and composite floor systems, whose shear studs could fail due to differential thermal expansion (i.e., heat-induced expansion of material at different rates). *Engineers should be able to design cost-effective fixes to address any areas of concern identified by such evaluations.*

NIST and the World Trade Center : Fact Sheets


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7U22m9xLrQ]YouTube - EMERGENCY WARNING FOR OFFICE WORKERS (NIST WTC7)[/ame]


----------



## Fizz (Sep 19, 2010)

eots said:


> [
> *There are more similarities than differences between the uncontrolled fires that burned in WTC 7 and those that occurred in the following buildings: First Interstate Bank Building (1988), One Meridian Plaza Building (1981), One New York Plaza (1970), *
> The following factors describe the fire events that occurred in both WTC 7 and the referenced buildings: 1) the fuel for the fires was ordinary office combustibles at ordinary combustible load levels; 2) there was no use of accelerants; 3) the spread of fire from combustible to combustible was governed by ordinary fire physics; 4) fire-induced window breakage provided ventilation for continued fire spread and growth; 5) there were simultaneous fires on multiple floors; 6) the fires on each floor occupied a substantial portion of the floor; 7) the fires on each floor had passed the point of flashover and the structure was subjected to typical post-flashover temperatures; 8) the sprinklers were inoperative or ineffective; and 9) the fires burned for sufficient time to cause significant distortion and/or failure to the building structure.*While the partial or total collapse of a tall building due to fires is a rare event, NIST strongly urges building owners, operators, and designers to evaluate buildings to ensure the adequate fire performance of structural systems.* Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following characteristics: long-span floor systems, connections that cannot accommodate thermal effects, floor framing that induces asymmetric forces on girders, and composite floor systems, whose shear studs could fail due to differential thermal expansion (i.e., heat-induced expansion of material at different rates). *Engineers should be able to design cost-effective fixes to address any areas of concern identified by such evaluations.*
> 
> NIST and the World Trade Center : Fact Sheets



english isnt your strong point, i see.

what you just compared were the FIRES not the BUILDINGS!!! 

so back to the beginning...... 

....again....

tell us how the buildings in your video are of the same type of construction.


----------



## daveman (Sep 19, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


I bet you should be but aren't.


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 19, 2010)

Fizz said:


> so why dont you post the results of the people that were "found alive" then?!!
> for instance, the person claiming to be one of the named suspects actual name was "Walid al-Shri" not "Waleed Alshehri" and was obviously NOT the same person...
> 
> another fucking twoofer moron that just believes ANYTHING as long as it blames america....
> ...



Considering WHO owns the MSM, stories can  be manipulated and changed after the fact.

It is amazing to me that you still buy Fairy Tales, when ALL of the evidence is against what you claim. And then you have the sheer audacity to call people wh promote the truth "twoofer morons".  Scientific evidence, conducted by experts in their fields, certainly take presidence over Fairy Tale impossibilities. If you cannot recognise the difference, then it is YOU who IS the moron.

Hijackers Alive and Well - 9/11

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rqe3WeSyN0]YouTube - 9/11 Suicide Hijackers Alive and Well![/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ixuf236Dk&feature=related]YouTube - 9/11 Hijackers ALIVE![/ame]

9/11 Airport Surveillance Video - What's the Time?

http://newcrisispapers.com/noevidence.pdf

And while I am at it, I might as well put some jam on it for you : NILA SAGADEVAN: 9/11-The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training : Veterans Today


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 19, 2010)

Now explain to us why someone like Jones hasn't traveled to Saudi Arabia and interviewed these people. Seems like the best and simplest way to prove they were not on those planes. Or is it just easier to believe what someone tells you?


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 19, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Now explain to us why someone like Jones hasn't traveled to Saudi Arabia and interviewed these people. Seems like the best and simplest way to prove they were not on those planes. Or is it just easier to believe what someone tells you?



What "someone tells me"?? I certainly don't call scientific evidence conducted by experts, "what someone tells me". 

Maybe then YOU can explain why there have been NO parts of the 9/11 planes recovered
that were identified positively.

Or, why no Arab DNA was ever found at the Pentagon

Or, why none of the hijackers names ever showed up on the passenger lists. (You have seen the video footage of Atta and ect. going through airport security, meaning they must have had tickets)

Or, why cell phones do not work at 35,000 ft, yet it is claimed that people on the hijacked planes supposedly made calls from cell phones.

Or why it is rarely mentioned that Bush has a LONG history with the Bin Laden family.

Also, did you know that  5 of the "Hijackers" trained at U.S. military installations.

Hijackers-UsAirBaseConnections - 9/11Encyclopedia

**********************************************************

Speaking of "what someone tells you", YOU prefere to believe in Fairy Tales simply because "someone told you" to.


----------



## Godboy (Sep 19, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Now explain to us why someone like Jones hasn't traveled to Saudi Arabia and interviewed these people. Seems like the best and simplest way to prove they were not on those planes. Or is it just easier to believe what someone tells you?
> ...



Holy fuck youre stupid. Literally every question you just asked is fucking retarded. If you werent bat shit crazy, you would feel shame for that post.


----------



## daveman (Sep 19, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> Maybe then YOU can explain why there have been NO parts of the 9/11 planes recovered
> that were identified positively.


I can't tell you why -- because that's simply not true.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2010)

daveman said:


> Hollybaere said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe then YOU can explain why there have been NO parts of the 9/11 planes recovered
> ...


troofers know so many things that just arent true


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

positively identified means serial numbers and parts confirmed to come from the aircraft in question..not seat cushions and random debris


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2010)

eots said:


> positively identified means serial numbers and parts confirmed to come from the aircraft in question..not seat cushions and random debris


only to a paranoid delusional troofer


----------



## daveman (Sep 19, 2010)

eots said:


> positively identified means serial numbers and parts confirmed to come from the aircraft in question..not seat cushions and random debris



And if parts with serial numbers were found, you'd claim they were faked.

Thanks for proving my point:  The only conclusion you'll accept is "George W. Bush did it!"

Curiously, though, as of 9/11/2002, 33 passengers from Flight 11 and 12 from Flight 175 were identified by DNA evidence.

What bit of lunacy do you have to explain that away?


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

daveman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > positively identified means serial numbers and parts confirmed to come from the aircraft in question..not seat cushions and random debris
> ...



*no bodies just claimed dna*


Houston Crime Lab's Fake Results May Undermine Prosecutors
Houston Crime Lab&#39;s Fake Results May Undermine Prosecutors - Bloomberg


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2010)

eots said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


yeah, it was all faked, there are no families missing fathers, mothers, daughters and sons that were on those planes


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



who said that ?


----------



## daveman (Sep 19, 2010)

eots said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


"George W Bush did it!!!'


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


YOU
you are claiming the DNA evidence was faked


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

daveman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Really ? I dont think he has the brains for it...


----------



## Fizz (Sep 19, 2010)

eots said:


> Really ? I dont think he has the brains for it...



you must be embarrassed that someone as dumb as GWB is more logical than you.

then again, maybe you are too stupid to be embarrassed.


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 19, 2010)

daveman said:


> Hollybaere said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe then YOU can explain why there have been NO parts of the 9/11 planes recovered
> ...



Aparently you only read things to fit your needs.

Of course there were plane parts found at the Towers, *but they weren't positively identified as coming from those particular planes*. Why??
Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001

No one was allowed to get close enough to investigate the crime scene properly and all of the evidence was wisked away A.S.A.P. Thanx to Rudy Giuliani.

And why were neither of the black boxes recovered, yet Mahammed Atta's passport came out of the wreckage unscathed??

Oh, and where were all the plane parts, baggage, seats, wings, tail section, engines, etc. from the Pentagon site and Shanksville, PA??

How were people able to make cell phone calls, when it has been proven that these phones don't work at those speeds and altitudes??

Fairy Tales can come true, it can happen to you........


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 19, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Now explain to us why someone like Jones hasn't traveled to Saudi Arabia and interviewed these people. Seems like the best and simplest way to prove they were not on those planes. Or is it just easier to believe what someone tells you?
> ...



Have you graduated 4th Grade yet?

From your own link:

"a bizarre twist, the Air Force confirmed on September 16th, "that three people named by the FBI as suspects in the hijackings have names similar to three non-Americans who attended U.S. military schools. The names are Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz Alomari and Alghamdi,Saeed, the Air Force said. It added, *however, that discrepancies in their biographical information, such as birthdates, make it unlikely that they are the same three named by the FBI.* One of the three attended the Defense Language Institute at Monterey (->), Calif., and the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.; one attended just the language institute, and one the Aerospace Medical School, the Air Force said..." 

And I haven't even tried to verify where this information originated. But why bother? You have already decided that it is factual, even though *unlikely* according to  your own link.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 19, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Hollybaere said:
> ...



Excuse me, but I was a platoon Sergeant whose platoon set up and ran the first military cellular Phone network before you knew what a cellular phone was. They can work at that altitude and speed means nothing unless of course it is faster than the speed of light.

And the debris was there. the FBI reported that 95% of the plane at Shanksville was recovered. Of course you will now tell me that the FBI lied....


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

sfc ollie said:


> hollybaere said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



so there identity is clear as mud..


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 19, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Strawman alert, Id eots link has nothing to do with 911.


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

sfc ollie said:


> divecon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



it speaks to the ease with which dna evidence can be faked but it is some what irrelevant  as dna does nothing to explain the collapse of the three wtc buildings


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2010)

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...


now its up to you to prove it was faked

btw, that adds more people into the conspiracy


----------



## Fizz (Sep 19, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Hollybaere said:
> ...



all this crap has has been debunked already. same shit over and over again.....

Investigators were allowed to investigate the crime scene. i dont know if a cleanup that lasted almost a year can be categorized as "whisked away". Atta's passport was not found. cell phones were not proven not to work at the speeds and altitudes the planes were at when the calls were made...... blah blah blah....

come on little twoofer..... stop reading the same old tired bullshit that reinforces your preconceived conclusion that america is to blame for 9/11 and instead look at REAL web sites not written by whackos.


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

No its not I only need to show there is a reasonable doubt..and furthermore it is not relevant to the near free fall collapses of the towers and wtc 7


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Hollybaere said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...




*well we got fizzles opinion !....*


*lets see what first responders have to say...*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rov_A5bSsug]YouTube - U.S. GOVT. DESTROYED 9-11 CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE - 343 MURDERED FIREFIGHTERS CRY FOR JUSTICE[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2010)

OOOOOHHHH a youtube video

must be true, right?


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> OOOOOHHHH a youtube video
> 
> must be true, right?



someone is a complete asshole ..the 9/11 first responder with 22years experience or you...and I think it would be clear to any rational person.. who is who


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

it is another dwiveconspiracy theory.. the video and web site of 9/11 first responders is fake, they have fraudulently stolen the identify of 9/11 first responders in a conspiracy to device the nation and put it out on the internet...wow!! you should break that story to the NY times dwive...


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > OOOOOHHHH a youtube video
> ...


neither of those two
its YOU


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



but you just implied he was a liar or a fake dwive..so now he is legit ?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


no, i didnt
dipshit
i was mocking YOU
you fucking moronic Id-eots


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



really so you find him and his information to be credible then ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rov_A5bSsug]YouTube - U.S. GOVT. DESTROYED 9-11 CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE - 343 MURDERED FIREFIGHTERS CRY FOR JUSTICE[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


i didnt even watch it
as i dont really care what he said
the evidence doesnt support you


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



why are you afraid to listen to the first responders because they will shatter your delusions ?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


nope, just dont want to waste any time on a video you post as most of the time they are either total bullshit, or they dont support what you are actually claiming


----------



## daveman (Sep 19, 2010)

eots said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


Who do you think did it?


----------



## daveman (Sep 19, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Hollybaere said:
> ...


Enjoy your delusion.


----------



## Fizz (Sep 19, 2010)

eots said:


> why are you afraid to listen to the first responders because they will shatter your delusions ?



because anything that starts out with the first frame saying "1000 architects and engineers agree" but includes people like Christophera as one of there architects and engineers is just a bunch of silly horseshit that isnt the least bit credible.


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




The psychology of denial...WHAT KIND OF MORON GIVES OPINIONS ON SOMETHING HE HAS NOT EVEN SEEN AND WILL SPEND ALL DAY POSTING IDIOTIC RESPONSES OF DENIAL BUT THEN CLAIM HE DOESN'T HAVE THE TIME TO WASTE LISTENING TO A 9/11 FIRST RESPONDER...FUCK OFF


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


i never made an opinion on the video, dipshit
my opinion was of YOU

you paranoid delusional freak


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I simply concur with the 9/11 first responders you disagree with


----------



## Fizz (Sep 19, 2010)

eots said:


> I simply concur with the 9/11 first responders you disagree with



no jackass. you posted the video in response to me saying:
"Investigators were allowed to investigate the crime scene. i dont know if a cleanup that lasted almost a year can be categorized as "whisked away". Atta's passport was not found. cell phones were not proven not to work at the speeds and altitudes the planes were at when the calls were made...... blah blah blah...."

so please tell me how your video shows that investigators were not allowed to investigate the crime scene. this guy is a first responder not an investigator, correct?


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > I simply concur with the 9/11 first responders you disagree with
> ...



listen to the man himself tell you how fire investigation protocols were violated


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 19, 2010)

Fizz said:


> all this crap has has been debunked already. same shit over and over again.....
> 
> Investigators were allowed to investigate the crime scene. i dont know if a cleanup that lasted almost a year can be categorized as "whisked away". Atta's passport was not found. cell phones were not proven not to work at the speeds and altitudes the planes were at when the calls were made...... blah blah blah....
> 
> come on little twoofer..... stop reading the same old tired bullshit that reinforces your preconceived conclusion that america is to blame for 9/11 and instead look at REAL web sites not written by whackos.



First of all, a crime as massive as 911 would have been investigated far longer than "almost a year" as you claim. Also, explain why many private investigators were kept away from the crime scene.

So it wasn't Atta's passport, but it was a passport from one of the "suspected hijackers" from flight 11, this still doesn't explain why these hijackers were supposedly filemd going through airport security, but none of their names appeared on the flight lists on any of the 4 planes.

Real web-sites?? Like what? Popular Mechanics with the NIST FAKED evidence?? Or The 911 Commission Report, with the Fairy Tale version of 911, which YOU subscribe to? Or maybe the web-site with the FAKED videos of Bin Laden claiming his involvement??

Also: "Wireless communications networks weren't designed for ground-to-air communication. Cellular experts privately admit that they're surprised the calls were able to be placed from the hijacked planes, and that they lasted as long as they did. They speculate that the only reason that the calls went through in the first place is that the aircraft were flying so close to the ground ( Page not found 

Expert opinion within the wireless telecom industry casts serious doubt on "the findings" of the 9/11 Commission. According to Alexa Graf, a spokesman of AT&T, commenting in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks:

"it was almost a fluke that the [9/11] calls reached their destinations... From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude" ( Final Contact 

Strange case of 9-11 cell phone calls

***********************************************************

YOUR shit has been debunked over and over again.

All you have to do is see WHO had the most benifit from 911. It certainly wasn't Arabs or Muslims. It was Israel. 

You seem to have tons of time to go after the Fairy Tale bullshit. Go to this web-site, look around, do some reading, then come back with seroius FACTS to debunk what is said there.
9/11 Cui Bono: Who Benefits?

I am quite sure you can't.

Plus, there are still many issues that I brought up that you conveniently skated over and ignored. I wonder why?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2010)

not a single reliable site
LOL


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 19, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> not a single reliable site
> LOL



OK "Mr. Expert"............Name some  "reliable sites". 

Hurry up!! I haven't got all day!


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > not a single reliable site
> ...


i have no doubts you would reject them \as they are not moronic troofer bullshit
'


----------



## daveman (Sep 19, 2010)

Ahhh.  So Hallebaere thinks it was the


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Hollybaere said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



The only site dwivecon considers credible is popular mechanics he even rejects the NIST report because it deviates from the popular mechanics narrative


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Hollybaere said:
> ...


the PM page was done before the NIST report came out

and i dont agree with everything on the NIST report and its clear you dont either
so why you keep pushing that bullshit is beyond me'


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



yes it was yet you still like to to propagate the myths they told..which NIST could not get away with..so turned to new theories and tweaked , unverified computer models to try create the illusion these towers could fall from plane impacts and fire


----------



## Father Time (Sep 19, 2010)

What about this theory?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


you still dont get it
it wasnt an inside job, there is ZERO evidence of explosives
there is ZERO evidence of prior knowledge


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

divecon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...



your denial does not make that so


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2010)

eots said:


> divecon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


then show the evidence


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aaf6NuKRHE]YouTube - 9 11 Prior Knowledge Using Planes As Weapons Compilation of Clips cut from Core of Corruption[/ame]


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enp-rT67B-w]YouTube - John Oneil PBS Frontline 1[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVrZLDBM4I4]YouTube - John Oneil PBS Frontline 2[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJvABLaMUT8&feature=related]YouTube - 9 11 Prior Knowledge Able Danger Hearing for Lt Col Anthony Shaffer in Congress C SPAN[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-5PKQTUz5o]YouTube - 911truthseattle.org meets Norm Mineta[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGI5BmNd7AE]YouTube - Mineta and the secret orders of Cheney[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2010)

all bullshit and all debunked


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

divecon said:


> all bullshit and all debunked



you mean debwunked ..loser


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2010)

eots said:


> divecon said:
> 
> 
> > all bullshit and all debunked
> ...


no, i mean debunked
as bullshit like everything you p[ost you fucking delusional parnoid dipshit'


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...



Debunking requires one to disprove
using facts FACTS
NOT empty insults
YOU are a debwunker and dwiveconspiracy theorist


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 19, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


you are a FUCKING PARANOID DELUSIONAL MORON


----------



## eots (Sep 20, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Oh my..was I just debwunked ?...lol


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 20, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


moron


----------



## Fizz (Sep 20, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> First of all, a crime as massive as 911 would have been investigated far longer than "almost a year" as you claim. Also, explain why many private investigators were kept away from the crime scene.
> 
> So it wasn't Atta's passport, but it was a passport from one of the "suspected hijackers" from flight 11, this still doesn't explain why these hijackers were supposedly filemd going through airport security, but none of their names appeared on the flight lists on any of the 4 planes.
> 
> ...



your entire post is flawed on so many levels its ridiculous. 

first, YOU claimed the evidence was "whisked away" by guliani. face it. you lied. it wasnt "whisked away". 

then you lie and say i claimed the *investigation* was "almost a year" (or some other dumb crap). i claimed that whisking something away doesnt take a year. perhaps you need to look in a dictionary before you use big words.

you said Atta's passport was found. you lied.

where is the proof of your FAKED EVIDENCE you claim the NIST made?

as far as the phone calls go, are you going to be stupid enough to claim they didnt take place or not? because if they took place the phones worked. if they didnt take place i will be looking for your evidence to support your claim that family members of the victims are lying about their last conversations with their loved ones.

and then you are stupid enough to make this statement, which is the most ridiculous of all:
"All you have to do is see WHO had the most benifit from 911. It certainly wasn't Arabs or Muslims. It was Israel. "

so tell me little twoofer......
who benefits from a suicide? it must not ever happen in your world because there can never be a suicide. the victim surely doesnt benefit from it therefore it never happened. it must be israel's fault. 

even if israel did benefit from 9/11 it doesnt mean they were behind it. your logic (if you have any at all) is EXTREMELY flawed. 

the philippines eventually won their independence as a result of the spanish-american war. this would certainly qualify them as gaining more than both america and spain. it doesnt mean they started the war!!!


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 20, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> i have no doubts you would reject them \as they are not moronic troofer bullshit
> '



Which REALLY means: " I don't have any!". 

Seeing that my sites use factual scientific evidence, conducted by experts and yours rely on Fairy Tales and sheer impossibilities, I'd say yours would be bullshit.


----------



## Fizz (Sep 20, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > i have no doubts you would reject them \as they are not moronic troofer bullshit
> ...



factual scientific evidence like Atta's passport being found?!!


----------



## eots (Sep 20, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Hollybaere said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



no, that is called... _planted evidence_


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 20, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Hollybaere said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Oh, so that's what you are going to dwell on? But, I guess that's all you have.

No matter who's passport was found, it was still PLANTED, as eots said.

Now then, I will offer help to you again. ONLY because I am a nice person. 

READ this: http://www.journalof911studies.com/...rldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

I'm sorry that it is quite lengthy, but this scientific PROOF cannot be said in a couple of paragraphs. It makes far more sense as to what happened to the towers than your "911 Commission Fairy Tale Bullshit Pancake Theory".

Oh and here: 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3151MqXu52s]YouTube - Fire Weakens Steel but not Woman Waving in WTC North Tower[/ame]

Tell me why Edna Cintron and several other people were able to stand in the impact hole and wave for help if the fire was so intense that it collapsed these buildings. 

Or keep dreaming.................


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 20, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > Hollybaere said:
> ...


if you look at the direction of the smoke, you will notice it is blowing away from her
the fires were deeper in than where she was standing
but its clear that troofer morons like you have no clue about science


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 20, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > i have no doubts you would reject them \as they are not moronic troofer bullshit
> ...



that pretty much says it all in a nutshell right there.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 20, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > Hollybaere said:
> ...



oh heavens no,the OCTA's WILL never consider the thought that we got corrupt government officials that would plant evidence. congress and the president are all looking out for the people.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 20, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Hollybaere said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


i could, and i have in the past
but i found it is a waste of time with delusional fuckers like you


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 20, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > Hollybaere said:
> ...



thats what cracks me up about the OCTA'S logic that the fires weakened the steel causing it to collapse is that those fires were oxygen startved as the black smoke proves and the facts they were able to stand so close to the fires and the firemen are heard in a recordings saying the fires are not tense and they should have them put out very soon before they collapsed.as you just proved,those fires werent even hot enough to melt a marshmellow,let alone weaken steel.: that one makes me roll on the floor with laughter everytime.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 20, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Hollybaere said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



There was one fireman who made it to some level where there was some fire. He said something along the lines of "we can put it down with 2 lines. What he didn't see was the other floors that were burning. How could he? If he could put down all of the fire with two lines, then, more people would have been able to come down from the upper floors. Because the fire wasn't so bad; right?

 WRONG!







You fools really need to use some common sense here.


----------



## Fizz (Sep 20, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> No matter who's passport was found, it was still PLANTED, as eots said.



and your proof it was planted? 

oh thats right. your a twoofer. you can just jump to wild and absurd conclusions based on absolutely no evidence and blame the government. you dont need ACTUAL evidence. you can just make it up.

you claim it was planted so let's see your proof. 

then after that we can talk about WHO planted it and what proof you have of that..... once again, it will be another wild conclusion drawn without any evidence. maybe you are going to claim the hijacker travelled to new york and planted his passport on the street before hijacking the plane......

but then again that doesnt fit into your whole "blame the government" agenda.


----------



## eots (Sep 20, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Hollybaere said:
> ...



he was on the 72 floor


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 20, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...


and the worst fires were above him


----------



## eots (Sep 20, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



maybe..but the woman may indicate maybe not...but regardless why would this cause the entire structure beneath it to fall at near free fall speed into a pile of beams, rubble and dust ?


----------



## eots (Sep 20, 2010)

I can see the terrorist plotting now...no need for hijackings or suicide missions..we will get access to a building, disable the sprinkler system,light some office fires and bring this sucker down to a pile of rubble !!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A]YouTube - wtc 7 collapse[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 20, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Yet we have seen the video with pieces falling well ahead of the main collapse.

And in case you haven't seen it for yourself.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed[/ame]

OOpps, there goes that near free fall shit.....


----------



## eots (Sep 20, 2010)

NIST describes the collapse as" at near free fall speed " lil Ollie ..once again the debwunkers and dwiveconspirators..show the dont even know the official story they claim to support


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 20, 2010)

eots said:


> NIST describes the collapse as" at near free fall speed " lil Ollie ..once again the debwunkers and dwiveconspirators..show the dont even know the official story they claim to support



But i showed you a video and everything.... Doesn't that make it right?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 20, 2010)

eots said:


> NIST describes the collapse as" at near free fall speed " lil Ollie ..once again the debwunkers and dwiveconspirators..show the dont even know the official story they claim to support


wasnt that only for a small point of the WTC7 collapse?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 20, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > NIST describes the collapse as" at near free fall speed " lil Ollie ..once again the debwunkers and dwiveconspirators..show the dont even know the official story they claim to support
> ...



We must remember that the NIST is correct only when Id eots says they are. And when it is within his context.


----------



## eots (Sep 20, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > NIST describes the collapse as" at near free fall speed " lil Ollie ..once again the debwunkers and dwiveconspirators..show the dont even know the official story they claim to support
> ...



No Ollie it does not..youtube videos ,news articles,books etc are simply ways of communicating information..that information can be relevant and factual such as my statement that NIST describes the collapse as"at near free fall".. conversely it can be irrelevant and misleading such as your youtube video


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 20, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


but what was the context of the "near free fall"


----------



## eots (Sep 20, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > NIST describes the collapse as" at near free fall speed " lil Ollie ..once again the debwunkers and dwiveconspirators..show the dont even know the official story they claim to support
> ...



NIST admits total free fall for a portion of the wtc 7 collapse but describes the collapse of the twin towers as at near free fall speed which it clearly is we are talking a matter of secs


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 20, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


so, free fall speed is aprox 9 sec
is 15 seconds "near" or 22 sec?
would 30 sec still be NEAR?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 20, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I would love to see where NIST actually said that; for context, so we can understand exactly what they were talking about.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 20, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


i might be remembering wrong, but i believe they were badgered into saying it was near free fall by troofer morons screaming it over and over

that they admitted the "near" to shut them the fuck up

but typical for most of the things done under the Bush administration, that failed too


----------



## eots (Sep 20, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Yes, this is true almost ever revision in the theories original put forth by fema and NISTand propagated through popular mechanics came from toofers relentlessly pointing out  the absurdity of the claims,many of which debwunkers repeat till this day


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 20, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


you just prove you are a fucking delusional moron over and over
but dont stop smoking that pot


----------



## eots (Sep 20, 2010)

divecon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...



ya....sure....ok


----------



## daveman (Sep 20, 2010)

eots said:


> I can see the terrorist plotting now...no need for hijackings or suicide missions..we will get access to a building, disable the sprinkler system,light some office fires and bring this sucker down to a pile of rubble !!
> 
> YouTube - wtc 7 collapse



Well, if helps if you can arrange for debris from another collapsing building to hit it.


----------



## eots (Sep 21, 2010)

daveman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > I can see the terrorist plotting now...no need for hijackings or suicide missions..we will get access to a building, disable the sprinkler system,light some office fires and bring this sucker down to a pile of rubble !!
> ...



Once again the debwunker proves he is not  even aware of the official story he claims to support...NIST determine that damage from debris played *"no significant role*" in the collapse of wtc 7 and the NIST collapse scenario would occurred with *fire alone*


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 21, 2010)

eots said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


doesnt say NO ROLE
and you left out the word "have" in the "would have occurred"
which changes the actual meaning into it would have but there was SOME role caused by the damage
its your paranoid delusions that cause you to not understand it


----------



## eots (Sep 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Dive that was a total delusional rant..you understand nothing..the only role they attribute to the falling debris is igniting the fires...you see thinking folk realized if this damage played a significant role in the collapse like  the popular mechanics novel stated that area would become the path of least resistance and the collapse would not of been symmetrical or at near free fall speed, so NIST was forced to spend the next 7 years coming up with a computer generated  model that might attempt to explain the unexplainable but failed


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 21, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


you are a fucking idiot
that was not a rant


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 21, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> You fools really need to use some common sense here.



Common sense?? Black smoke = NO OXYGEN. No oxygen = NO FIRE. 

I know, I know, it is a bit above your head, but use some common sense here!

Figure it this way, Edna Cintron and others had to have come from the interior of the building to get to the hole. They weren't burned there either, or they would not be alive and waving from the impact hole, now would they?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 21, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > You fools really need to use some common sense here.
> ...



So it doesn't matter what might be burning?  If it causes black smoke then it must be oxygen starved? So plastics and other petroleum based product don't produce black smoke? Really? That's what you want to go with?

And you have no idea where those people might have been when the plane struck. they obviously were off to the side of the fireball that went through the building.


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 21, 2010)

eots said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




The first rule of Octavism:

"You are free to change or ignore any facts from any 9/11 related government report on the condition you still claim the Official Theory is true."


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




The 9E Commission Report states the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds.  Is ten seconds close to nine seconds you brokedick dumbass?


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 21, 2010)

Fizz said:


> and your proof it was planted?
> 
> oh thats right. your a twoofer. you can just jump to wild and absurd conclusions based on absolutely no evidence and blame the government. you dont need ACTUAL evidence. you can just make it up.



Talk about "jumping to wild conclusions".........YOU believe that 19 Arab/Radical-Islamic hijackers, led by some half-dead (now dead) guy (who previously worked for the CIA) in a cave in Afghanistan, manged not only to take over LARGE commercial jets with box cutters, and fly them almost precicely into buildings, (that even experienced pilots could not recreate), when instructors said they could barely fly small planes. THEN three NYC skyscrapers, that were built specifically to withstand such a breach, collapsed into dust, which NEVER had happened to any tall building in history, almost completely into their own footprints, when they were barely on fire, yet the steel melted and caused them to collapse (not tip over or break in half). THEN, two other planes, the Pentagon plane and the Shanksville plane completely disintigrated when they hit the Pentagon and ground, respectively. The only parts or the planes that were found were some random wheels and plane parts that were NEVER specifically identified as belonging to those particular planes. No seats, no luggage, nothing larger than a phone book.  

Explain The Dancing Israeli's, that claimed they were there to "document the event" that NO ONE supposedly knew was going to happen. Explain why, when they were arrested, explosives were found in their van. Explain why they were Isralei Mossad Agents.

Explain why Bush LIED about having seen the plane hit the first tower on TV, when he couldn't possibly have seen it at the school that day.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60]YouTube - Bush Caught Lying About September 11th[/ame]

Explain how by September 12, 2001, ALL of the names of ALL of the hijackers were already known by the FBI.



Fizz said:


> you claim it was planted so let's see your proof.



George Washington's Blog: Crooked Cops and 9-11



Fizz said:


> then after that we can talk about WHO planted it and what proof you have of that..... once again, it will be another wild conclusion drawn without any evidence. maybe you are going to claim the hijacker travelled to new york and planted his passport on the street before hijacking the plane......



REALLY?? Did you bother to read Dr. Jones' report, based on SCIENTIFIC evidence, facts and proof. I am quite sure you didn't bother. So, here is the link again:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...rldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

READ it, in it's entirety, THEN we will talk. Until then, you can stuff your Fairy Tale conclusions.



Fizz said:


> but then again that doesnt fit into your whole "blame the government" agenda.



I am not blaming the government entirely. There were many more forces behind just the US government. You have to understand that 911 was carried out for a certain reason and benefit, even I don't understand all of it. But, as long as you are willing to accept Fairy Tales, you will never accept reality or the truth.


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 21, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > and your proof it was planted?
> ...




Your anti-Semitism is so deeply disturbing you negate nearly any chance of sharing any valid facts with anyone.


----------



## eots (Sep 21, 2010)

yes labeling 9/11 a "Jewish conspiracy" is not helpful or logical ..all one seems to need to make something a' Jewish conspiracy' is to have anyone Jewish involved..then all of the non-Jewish perpetrators involved get labeled as "working for the Jewish conspiracy"..as opposed to a conspiracy that may have some direct or indirect Israeli interest involved


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Your anti-Semitism is so deeply disturbing you negate nearly any chance of sharing any valid facts with anyone.



Oh really?? What does questioning the Fairy Tale version of 911 have anything to do with "anti-Semetism"?? 

Was it because I mentioned "Dancing Israeli's"?? Or the FACT that these Israeli's were Mossad Agents? 

Or.............do you know something we don't know?? 

Your guilty conscience is showing!!

You do realise that one of the choices in the poll at the top of this thread is: "The Mossad plot theory"?? Now, all of a sudden I'm "anti-Semetic"?? 

It just seems that you Fairy Tale Idiots will use anything to wipe out the TRUTH.

Please do show me where I said or posted anything that was anti-Semetic.


----------



## eots (Sep 21, 2010)

if the mossad had agents involved it would appear they were invited..I do not believe bush or Cheney are Jewish


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 21, 2010)

I just love it when the conspiracy nuts start to argue amongst themselves.


----------



## eots (Sep 21, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> I just love it when the conspiracy nuts start to argue amongst themselves.



the conspiracy nut here is you lil Ollie ..that has already been determined .you support the official reports without even knowing there conclusions or how they reached them...thats nuts


----------



## Fizz (Sep 21, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> Black smoke = NO OXYGEN.


what color is the sky in your world?


----------



## Oscar Wao (Sep 21, 2010)

I believe we were attacked by terrorists but the government "let it happen" so to speak, in order to advance their agendas and garner public support for those agendas.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 21, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I just love it when the conspiracy nuts start to argue amongst themselves.
> ...



How many times must we repeat it?

 You have not disproved that any of the main points of the 911CR are wrong.

You have not one shred of Physical evidence that would hold up in a court of law that says there was any controlled Demo.

And you've got 50 different theories going at one time.

And those of us who believe that the 911 CR has it mostly right are supposed to be nuts?

I DON"T THINK SO....


----------



## eots (Sep 21, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



the NIST report and its explanation for the collapse has been shown to be scientifically unsound


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


it was WRONG


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 21, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




The 9E CR helps show why the Bush version is questionable.  Ie. The south tower came down in 10 seconds.  Do you know what the free fall time on the ST would be?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


it did not
it took 15 seconds


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



The 9E CR states it collapsed in ten seconds you dumbfuck brokedick bitch.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


i dont give a rats ass what it says
proof it took 15 sec is in this thread

you pathetic moron

and it doesnt really fucking matter how long it took
it wasnt at free fall speed


----------



## eots (Sep 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



divecon is funny constantly contradicts the official reports..and even if he was granted his few seconds it is still absurd to believe buildings of that mass could collapse in secs experiencing almost no Resistance


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 21, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


please show me one place where i have ever claimed any "official" report was 100% correct in every detail
then you MIGHT have a point in showing that i dont agree with everything in every report


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Please direct us to where the 911 CR says that the tower fell in 10 seconds.
 I am quite willing to be that would be the time from the start of the collapse to the time the first piece of Debris hit the ground. Which is not the time it took for the complete collapse.
Nice try though.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 21, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


oh damn, are they lying about that claim too


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...





DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




The first rule of Octavism:

"You are free to change or ignore any facts from any 9/11 related government report on the condition you still claim the Official Theory is true."


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


fuck off you pathetic moron


btw, it looks like you asswipes are LYING about that 10 second claim

what a SHOCK

troofer morons LIE


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 21, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




The saddest part is not how often I have to teach you basic facts but that even after you are presented with them you find some way to ignore them as you will once again prove:

"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds,
killing all civilians and "
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Shocked.  Brokedick Divecon responds with pure whining and ignoring the facts.  Again.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


fuck off moron
again, it changes NOTHING


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You say it looks like we are "LYING" and when I quote the 9E CR all you do is prove the first rule of Octavism.  Again.  Thank you.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 21, 2010)

as usual,gomer pyle and the OCTA'S  ignore the fact that the black smoke emitting proves it was oxygen starved and hardly hot enough to melt a marshmellow.let along weaken steel.keep grasping  at straws OCTA'S.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 21, 2010)

eots said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Dunceman and the OCTA'S get taken to school by you again.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 21, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > You fools really need to use some common sense here.
> ...



yep,your making way too much sense for the OCTA'S to comprehend.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 21, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > and your proof it was planted?
> ...



 It was so great watching you take the OCTA'S to school just then and watch them fling shit in defeat.I always get great entertainment out of watching them grasp at straws and make up crap to try and save face in their posts when you point out to them that the philadelphia skyrise fire in 97 or so unlike the twin towers,was lit up like a torch,with huge fireballs everywhere not oxygen starved lacking black smoke because it was so intense and burned 18 hours on end and did not collapse.The OCTA'S cant get around that one.never have been able to.:lol


----------



## candycorn (Sep 21, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> Hollybaere said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



For the millionth time; if you've got the proof, file suit in court.

If not, shut the fuck up.


----------



## Fizz (Sep 21, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > you claim it was planted so let's see your proof.
> ...



HAHAHAhahahahaha!!!!! thats it?!!! 

thats your proof? 

some error filled blog?!!

what a fucking idiot you are!!!!


----------



## R.C. Christian (Sep 21, 2010)

ConHog said:


> silkyeggsalad said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the US government provided aid to the Taliban in the 1980s to fight against the invading Soviet Army.
> ...



Oh do tell.


----------



## R.C. Christian (Sep 21, 2010)

It's really sad when this many people are so hideously stupid.


----------



## eots (Sep 21, 2010)

candycorn said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Hollybaere said:
> ...



fiuck off douche


----------



## eots (Sep 21, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Hollybaere said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



and the proof of your _fire did it_ theory is what ?"


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 21, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > Hollybaere said:
> ...



Proof? How about the actual investigation? You know the one done by real investigators and scientists.

"NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NISTs dedicated Web site, NIST and the World Trade Center. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical expertsincluding about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academiareviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse. "

NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster - Frequently Asked Questions


----------



## eots (Sep 21, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



and the only "proof" they have of this is a computer generated model...thats it

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=related]YouTube - WTC 7 NIST Model vs. Reality[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V0WQFztLyg&feature=related]YouTube - Why the NIST report on WTC7 is unscientific and false[/ame]


----------



## R.C. Christian (Sep 21, 2010)

OMG who cares. "It was thermite, no it was jet fuel, no, it was a mini-nuke and the joooooz, oh wait the NIST report indicated it wa the TWOOF FERRY!"


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 21, 2010)

*Some 200 technical experts*including about *85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia*reviewed* tens of thousands of documents*, interviewed* more than 1,000 people*, reviewed* 7,000 segments of video footage* and *7,000 photographs,* analyzed *236 pieces of steel *from the wreckage, *performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events* that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse. "

And all IDeots sees is a computer simulation.


----------



## blu (Sep 21, 2010)




----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 21, 2010)

Fizz said:


> HAHAHAhahahahaha!!!!! thats it?!!!
> 
> thats your proof?
> 
> ...



Uh, where is YOUR proof that this blog is "error filled". Seems you got alot of accusations, but are pitifully deficient of proving yourself. Typical.....

A Lotta Yadda Yadda and NOTHING else!!


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 21, 2010)

R.C. Christian said:


> It's really sad when this many people are so hideously stupid.



So............STOP it then!!


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 21, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> It was so great watching you take the OCTA'S to school just then and watch them fling shit in defeat.I always get great entertainment out of watching them grasp at straws and make up crap to try and save face in their posts when you point out to them that the philadelphia skyrise fire in 97 or so unlike the twin towers,was lit up like a torch,with huge fireballs everywhere not oxygen starved lacking black smoke because it was so intense and burned 18 hours on end and did not collapse.The OCTA'S cant get around that one.never have been able to.:lol



Thank you, thank you!!

Other than Fairy Tales, shit is all they got!

As soon as they start flinging, you know you got them by the balls.

They got nothing and they know it. It's just hard for some people to accept that their government could lie to and deceive them so badly. 

I wonder where that Curvelight person is that accused my of being anit-Semetic for question the Fairy Tale version of 911??


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 21, 2010)

eots said:


> if the mossad had agents involved it would appear they were invited..I do not believe bush or Cheney are Jewish



No, Cheney and Bush aren't Jewish, but they all belong to the same Zionist club.


----------



## R.C. Christian (Sep 21, 2010)

To suggest that Israel doesn't have an impact on American foreign policy is just beyond the bounds of mental retardation. Half the Obama Administration is jewish or Israeli dual national. Their true loyalties are sometimes questionable based on their actions (see the useless Joe Lieberman for your prime example). 

Waiting for the first knuckle dragger to yell "anti-semite" now for telling it the way it is.


----------



## R.C. Christian (Sep 21, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> > It's really sad when this many people are so hideously stupid.
> ...



What would be the point? No issue besides abortion divides simpletons into such clearly defined ranks. It's more useful to simply sit back and be entertained by the low IQ fools as they chase their tails waxing paranoid about boogeymen that mostly exist in their feeble minds.


----------



## eots (Sep 21, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > if the mossad had agents involved it would appear they were invited..I do not believe bush or Cheney are Jewish
> ...



and the Zionist elite belong to the same occult club as the Nazis do,the royals  and American blue bloods , if you want to go all the way down the rabbit hole

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCDs9Vs2iYM]YouTube - 1981 News report about Bohemian grove[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHFoUZEjuNM]YouTube - Alex Jones asks David Gergen about Bohemian Grove Rituals[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mMdnxVUnc8]YouTube - Ronald Reagan, Astrology Buff[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPh7sUvhZ3E]YouTube - George Bush and John Kerry Skull and Bones members 322[/ame]


----------



## R.C. Christian (Sep 21, 2010)

Eot's you are all over the board with this conpiracy stuff. My friendly advice is to find something your knowledgable about and stick with it. Skull and Bones, bohemian grove have nothing to do with 9-11.


----------



## Fizz (Sep 22, 2010)

eots said:


> and the proof of your _fire did it_ theory is what ?"



show me where i have a fire theory, you fucking ignorant moron!!


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 22, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> *Some 200 technical experts*including about *85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia*reviewed* tens of thousands of documents*, interviewed* more than 1,000 people*, reviewed* 7,000 segments of video footage* and *7,000 photographs,* analyzed *236 pieces of steel *from the wreckage, *performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events* that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse. "
> 
> And all IDeots sees is a computer simulation.




Second Rule of Octavism:

"Citing experts to support the Official version is sufficient but citing experts to question the Official version is unacceptable."


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 22, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > It was so great watching you take the OCTA'S to school just then and watch them fling shit in defeat.I always get great entertainment out of watching them grasp at straws and make up crap to try and save face in their posts when you point out to them that the philadelphia skyrise fire in 97 or so unlike the twin towers,was lit up like a torch,with huge fireballs everywhere not oxygen starved lacking black smoke because it was so intense and burned 18 hours on end and did not collapse.The OCTA'S cant get around that one.never have been able to.:lol
> ...




I never said you are anti-Semitic for questioning the official version you dumb fucking anti-Semitic ass zit.


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 22, 2010)

R.C. Christian said:


> To suggest that Israel doesn't have an impact on American foreign policy is just beyond the bounds of mental retardation. Half the Obama Administration is jewish or Israeli dual national. Their true loyalties are sometimes questionable based on their actions (see the useless Joe Lieberman for your prime example).
> 
> Waiting for the first knuckle dragger to yell "anti-semite" now for telling it the way it is.



What you said was not anti-Semitic.  It was fucking backwoods West Virginian outhouse ignorant.


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 22, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > if the mossad had agents involved it would appear they were invited..I do not believe bush or Cheney are Jewish
> ...



Did they actually approve their membership in the Hollybaere Helluva Hilarious Dumbass Division or are they simply honorary members by your arbitrary assignment?


----------



## candycorn (Sep 22, 2010)

Makes you laugh...does it not?


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 22, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> *Some 200 technical experts*including about *85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia*reviewed* tens of thousands of documents*, interviewed* more than 1,000 people*, reviewed* 7,000 segments of video footage* and *7,000 photographs,* analyzed *236 pieces of steel *from the wreckage, *performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events* that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse. "
> 
> And all IDeots sees is a computer simulation.




Speaking of "seeing" something, did you see my post that quoted the CR on the ten second collapse time of the South Tower?

It's funny I was accused of lying by others for pointing out that is what the Report said because after I proved it is in the Report it suddenly became irrelevent.  If it didn't matter when dumbasses thought it was a "lie" then why care about it enough to demand a link or make the accusations?

It would take nine seconds for a brick to free fall 1000 feet with absolutely nothing under it and the CR states the South Tower fell in ten seconds.  How could it be anything other than a free fall?

One more point about the Towers.  OCTAs have a rubber stamp response to the question of comparing other skyscrapers that sustained massive damage without collapsing by citing the unique design of the Towers and that in and of itself renders any comparison invalid.  If that is true, why is it valid to compare professionally imploded buildings to the Towers?  Does their design suddenly become common?  If you cannot compare the Towers to question the Official version then you cannot also compare the Towers to affirm the Official version on the premise there is no way it was blown up because it would require X amount of time, planning, explosives, and execution.  That is of course unless one is romantically involved with hypocrisy and has no shame in breathing double standards.


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 22, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Makes you laugh...does it not?



I don't have time to laugh right now because the breakfast crowd is jamming my drive-thru window at McDonalds.


----------



## hipeter924 (Sep 22, 2010)

What about the "it doesn't matter what happened because people died" theory?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 22, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > *Some 200 technical experts*including about *85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia*reviewed* tens of thousands of documents*, interviewed* more than 1,000 people*, reviewed* 7,000 segments of video footage* and *7,000 photographs,* analyzed *236 pieces of steel *from the wreckage, *performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events* that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse. "
> ...



Yes I saw your post, and I asked about the context of that 10 seconds, I haven't looked it up but my best bet is it was 10 seconds from the beginning of the collapse to the time the first piece of debris hit the ground.

And the comparison of an implosion to that of the collapse of the towers is usually done to show the audio of the controlled demo that is absent at the WTC.


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 22, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




Are you fucking kidding?  I quoted directly from the Report and gave the link and you are still trying to invent context fantasies in the face of the clear statement?  Let me help you out some more.


"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a numberof individuals-both first responders and civilians-in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets. The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a massive debris cloud. The Marriott hotel suffered significant damage as a result of the collapse of the South Tower."

So let's see how you fit your "first piece that hit the ground" excuse into the paragraph.  The context is fucking clear and you only embarrass yourself by trying to deny what the Report states.  In case you didn't know, the MO of OCTAs habitually ignoring obvious facts is one reason why people question the Official version.  If the strongest defenders are too timid to address the facts head on it means the conclusion's premise is severely compromised.

Your "audio" dodge on implosion comparison fails for two obvious reasons:

Incindiery devices do not require a loud ass "Bang!" like a grenade or other munitions.

At a professionally planned implosion you generally don't have thousands of rescue vehicles, first responders, and utter chaos of thousands of people trying to stay alive.  Do you have any idea how fucking noisy that was?  If you took the time to compare the decible ratings you would understand why your "audio" excuse is deaf to reason and common sense.

You're also ignoring the fact there are many first responders who witnessed explosions just prior to the collapse.  You reallly wanna try your "normal explosions in an office fire" bullshit again?


----------



## parentrap (Sep 22, 2010)

control demolition- DUH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 22, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



OH Bull Shit, I'll have to go re-read that paragraph in the book, but if you are correct here then that is one of the minor details that the 911CR got wrong. I posted a video in this thread that showed the collapse of both towers with the time. 15 seconds and 22 seconds. I still bet it was 10 seconds for the first piece to hit the ground.

And in all that hustle and bustle you would have heard the explosions, and while you are correct in that most  incendiary devices do not explode (so to speak) they also do not cut through steel beams sideways. 

Yes first responders heard explosions, but not controlled demo explosions. BTW either they were explosionless or not, you can't have it both ways, or maybe *you* can.


----------



## eots (Sep 22, 2010)

so nist lied when they said they had NO REPORTS OF EXPLOSIONS ?...and by there own admission if the failure of a  a few critical columns could cause the collapse they had to considered explosives..but...there were where no explosions so they looked no further...(there where explosions or there were not you cant have it both ways Ollie or maybe YOU can)


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 22, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I quoted the Report verbatim and you respond with "bullshit?"

The nail in the coffin is you trying to claim the stated collapse time from the 9E Commission Report is a "minor" issue.  Whatever shred of respect I had for you has been diveconned into the abyss of jawdropping dishonesty.

Third Rule of Octavism:

"Regardless of the issue, if it is admitted the 9E CR made a factual error it will be excused as minor and inconsequential."


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 22, 2010)

Yes a minor error in that they did not explain the time they were talking about.

Once again, a minor error on their part. As we can all see.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed[/ame]


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 22, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Yes first responders heard explosions, but not controlled demo explosions. BTW either they were explosionless or not, you can't have it both ways, or maybe *you* can.




Many first responders specifically described the explosions as sounding like demolitions used on professional implosion charges. But you completely ignore that. 

Fourth Rule of Octavism:

"The only valid eyewitness accounts are those that can be used to defend the Official version."


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 22, 2010)

Nope i don't ignore what they said, but I do disagree with what they heard. Because we've all heard the audio. Hours of tape. from many different sources. And not one shows anything like the sounds of a controlled demo.


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 22, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Yes a minor error in that they did not explain the time they were talking about.
> 
> Once again, a minor error on their part. As we can all see.
> 
> YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed



They did explain it by saying in that ten second collapse everyone inside was killed.  I know some part of your conscience is slightly knawing at you for this ridiculous display of outright hacking.  Vets know each other in a way civilians cannot understand.


----------



## eots (Sep 22, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Nope i don't ignore what they said, but I do disagree with what they heard. Because we've all heard the audio. Hours of tape. from many different sources. And not one shows anything like the sounds of a controlled demo.



hours of tape ?..thats not even remotely close to true the collapses lasted seconds and were capture by only a few sources were do you get hours of tape


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 22, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Nope i don't ignore what they said, but I do disagree with what they heard. Because we've all heard the audio. Hours of tape. from many different sources. And not one shows anything like the sounds of a controlled demo.



We've already covered this.  Your premise is bullshit because there is no universal sound necessary for incindiery devices and like I said, do you have any fucking clue how noisy it was?  Do you have any idea how much noise audio recorders would have to cut through to pick up internal core explosions?  We aren't talking about a fucking bologna sammich Kentucky treehouse.  These were two of the. biggest buildings in the entire world.


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 22, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Nope i don't ignore what they said, but I do disagree with what they heard. Because we've all heard the audio. Hours of tape. from many different sources. And not one shows anything like the sounds of a controlled demo.
> ...



He went to Walmart and bought a case of Scotch Guard. Where else do you think he can come up with actual evidence of "hours of tape?"


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 22, 2010)

Really, only captured by a few sources? Every camera available in NYC was pointed at those towers, and the audio from all the first responders was recorded. Now I don't know exactly how many actually were there and neither do you, but please, you guys have shown us hundreds of videos, how is "hours" stretching anything?

The fact is I just showed you a video that counted down the collapse and you both ignored the facts right in front of your face. Which is what I expected from truther idiots.

When you fools can accept the facts let me know and I'll attempt to teach you some more. Maybe we'll start with something easy like 1 + 1 = 2.....


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 22, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I never said you are anti-Semitic for questioning the official version you dumb fucking anti-Semitic ass zit.



Oh really?? Then why did you say that? As far as the eye can see on this thread, that is what the conversation was about, diesputing the Fairy Tale version of 911. 

Now then, you can argue all damn day as to what actually happened and just how those towers were brought down, what actually hit the Pentagon, and where the Shanksville plane went to, BUT..............If you are not going to point the finger of blame at the ACTUAL PERPATRATORS (the actual people who benefitted from 911), then you might as well subscribe along with the OCTA Fairy Tale people.

And let me tell you this Curvelight, as far as I recall, as of September 22, 2010 there is still the right of FREEDOM OF SPEECH in the USA. I call em as I see em!! You don't like it?? TOUGH!!

IF you attack me again the manner you did in this last reply I will report you and have you banned form this forum!! Don't think I can't do it!

I am a Lady, and I deserve your respect that you would give anyone here, no matter what my opinion is!


----------



## eots (Sep 22, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I never said you are anti-Semitic for questioning the official version you dumb fucking anti-Semitic ass zit.
> ...



 ya good luck trying to get someone banned for disagreeing with or insulting you..lol.....many people benefited from 9/11


----------



## eots (Sep 22, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Really, only captured by a few sources? Every camera available in NYC was pointed at those towers, and the audio from all the first responders was recorded. Now I don't know exactly how many actually were there and neither do you, but please, you guys have shown us hundreds of videos, how is "hours" stretching anything?
> 
> The fact is I just showed you a video that counted down the collapse and you both ignored the facts right in front of your face. Which is what I expected from truther idiots.
> 
> When you fools can accept the facts let me know and I'll attempt to teach you some more. Maybe we'll start with something easy like 1 + 1 = 2.....



your video is inaccurate and not ever camera in NY was filming the towers asshat  there are many youtube videos featuring the collapse but they are of the same half dozen videos captured of the collapse...not many people carried video cameras or had them on their phones at that time


----------



## eots (Sep 22, 2010)

r.c. Christian said:


> eot's you are all over the board with this conpiracy stuff. My friendly advice is to find something your knowledgable about and stick with it. Skull and bones, bohemian grove have nothing to do with 9-11.



says you...


----------



## eots (Sep 22, 2010)

sfc ollie said:


> *some 200 technical experts*including about *85 career nist experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia*reviewed* tens of thousands of documents*, interviewed* more than 1,000 people*, reviewed* 7,000 segments of video footage* and *7,000 photographs,* analyzed *236 pieces of steel *from the wreckage, *performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events* that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse. "
> 
> and all ideots sees is a computer simulation.



yes none of the steel showed the temperature required for failure in forensic testing they do not mention that they simply say they examined them ..this equals* no evidence*..the 125 experts did not sign off on the final report..so it means nothing..the interviewed people but claim there are no reports of  explosions or molten metal ...this is a lie...preformed lab test / what kind ? What were  the results ?...all you are left with is...  A uncorroborated computer model... Thats it


----------



## eots (Sep 22, 2010)

And after all this they could not even get the collapse time right...according to ollie


----------



## Fizz (Sep 22, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> If you are not going to point the finger of blame at the ACTUAL PERPATRATORS (the actual people who benefitted from 911)


and there is the major flaw in your premise. even if israel did benefit (thats debatable but let's jsut assume for now) it doesnt mean they were the perpetrators. your logic is EXTREMELY flawed.

put it this way, a gangster steals your purse for the $20 in nickels you got from working the streets all night. he gets stabbed in the process and he shoots you in your head and manages to actually hit the little speck inside you use for a brain. you die. he dies. your deadbeat husband collects one million in life insurance.

so does that mean your deadbeat husband commited the crime? clearly he is the one to benefit from it.




Hollybaere said:


> And let me tell you this Curvelight, as far as I recall, as of September 22, 2010 there is still the right of FREEDOM OF SPEECH in the USA. I call em as I see em!!



you are free to to speak your mind and show us all how defective it is.


----------



## Fizz (Sep 22, 2010)

eots said:


> but claim there are no reports of  explosions or molten metal ...this is a lie...



source please. this is my second request. you ignored the last time when you made this statement and i wanted to see where this claim was made.


----------



## eots (Sep 23, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg]YouTube - 9/11: NIST engineer John Gross denies WTC molten steel (extended)[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoj6Z3X0Rlw&NR=1]YouTube - NIST WTC Response 1[/ame]


"as loud as a gun shot blast"
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVE34kMwn0U]YouTube - NIST WTC Response 2: Thermate[/ame]


----------



## Fizz (Sep 23, 2010)

eots said:


> YouTube - 9/11: NIST engineer John Gross denies WTC molten steel (extended)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



blah blah blah... you cant even get your own videos right.

again i ask you.... where does the NIST say there was no molten metal. you claimed they said no molten metal. you linked to a video saying no molten steel. thats not the same thing. where does it say no molten metal like you claim they say?


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 23, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I never said you are anti-Semitic for questioning the official version you dumb fucking anti-Semitic ass zit.
> ...




You're using 9E to promote your anti-Semitism like Stormfront uses every single fucking thing possible to promote their racism.  I don't give a fuck what your gender is because being a bitch isn't dependent upon anatomy.  I give respect where it is earned and right now you're so fucking bankrupt you make the US economy look like Bill Gates' bank account.


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 23, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Really, only captured by a few sources? Every camera available in NYC was pointed at those towers, and the audio from all the first responders was recorded. Now I don't know exactly how many actually were there and neither do you, but please, you guys have shown us hundreds of videos, how is "hours" stretching anything?
> 
> The fact is I just showed you a video that counted down the collapse and you both ignored the facts right in front of your face. Which is what I expected from truther idiots.
> 
> When you fools can accept the facts let me know and I'll attempt to teach you some more. Maybe we'll start with something easy like 1 + 1 = 2.....



More hypocrisy and outright dishonesty.  You link a fucking OCTA blog video and that trumps the 9E CR?  How many times have you fucking dumbasses laughed at people who cite truther blogs over the CR?  Yet, it's okay for you to cite bowlshit sources when you need some type of fantasy to avoid the facts stated in the CR.  Keep proving to be a dishonest bitch.


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 23, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > YouTube - 9/11: NIST engineer John Gross denies WTC molten steel (extended)
> ...




Nist claimed there was no evidence of explosions and when it was pointed out over 100 firefighters reported the explosions then nist responded with:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/
NISTresponseToRequestForCorrectionGourleyEtal2.pdf


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 23, 2010)

Well, let's see just how deep the Rabbit Hole of OCTA Denial goes.  Even NIST states the towers came down in essentially free fall speed.  The collapse time they state for the South Tower is........nine seconds.

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation
provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos."
NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster - Frequently Asked Questions

This will provide for an anchor link example of the ridiculous double standards OCTAs live by.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Well, let's see just how deep the Rabbit Hole of OCTA Denial goes.  Even NIST states the towers came down in essentially free fall speed.  The collapse time they state for the South Tower is........nine seconds.
> 
> "Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation
> provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos."
> ...



Great Link, did you by any chance read it? It proves exactly what I said bout the first pieces of debris hitting the ground. Thank you for seeing the light and agreeing to the truth for a change.

"NIST estimated the *elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground *after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A). "


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 23, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Well, let's see just how deep the Rabbit Hole of OCTA Denial goes.  Even NIST states the towers came down in essentially free fall speed.  The collapse time they state for the South Tower is........nine seconds.
> ...




Oh man you are fucking stoopid beyond belief.  The first panels to hit the ground were the top floors of the Towers you dumbfuck.  Since the towers imploded in their own footprints it means the collapses were essentially at freefall speed as stated by NIST.  One more attempt to get your tunnel vision syndrome corrected:

"....the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos."

NIST is point blank saying the BUILDING came down at essentially free fall speed.  Keep embarrassing yourself......


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 23, 2010)

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

It's there in black and white dumb ass, don't try to make shit up to fit into your world, just accept the facts. There was no implosion. More from your link:

"From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely."

"In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view."


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> You're using 9E to promote your anti-Semitism like Stormfront uses every single fucking thing possible to promote their racism.  I don't give a fuck what your gender is because being a bitch isn't dependent upon anatomy.  I give respect where it is earned and right now you're so fucking bankrupt you make the US economy look like Bill Gates' bank account.



I am not using 911 to promote anything other than the Fairy Tale version is totally incorrect, proven by use of scientific evidence and fact. I am also giving a perspective on WHO actually carried out 911 and who actually reaped the benefits from 911, based on factual evidence. If you find that racist, that is just to bad. 

FYI: I do not participate on Stromfront, never have and never will. 

Questioning Israeli involvement in 911 IS NOT anti-Semetic. Especially when it comes to the Dancing Israeli's, The Urban Moving Systems, Odego, the Israeli Art Students who lived next door to Mohammed Atta and co., and Atta's involvement with Abramoff etc, etc.

To bad if you don't like the TRUTH! Instead of swinging around your rubber sword called "anti-Semetism, you might try using FACTUAL evidence to prove me wrong. So far all I see is swearing and insults.  


As I said, as soon as the shit starts bein flung, you know you have told the truth!!


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 23, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> None are so blind as those who refuse to see.
> 
> It's there in black and white dumb ass, don't try to make shit up to fit into your world, just accept the facts. There was no implosion. More from your link:
> 
> ...




You've completely ignored the fact nist said the top section fell at essentially free fall speed.  Think about it dumbfuck.  The top section fell directly down on the rest of the tower so if the top section fell at free fall it means nothing below it could have fallen slower.  You ignore that but call others blind..........


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 23, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You're using 9E to promote your anti-Semitism like Stormfront uses every single fucking thing possible to promote their racism.  I don't give a fuck what your gender is because being a bitch isn't dependent upon anatomy.  I give respect where it is earned and right now you're so fucking bankrupt you make the US economy look like Bill Gates' bank account.
> ...



You aren't "questioning" Israeli involvement you dishonest fatass bitch.  You are the anti-Semitic version of Stormfront.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Sep 23, 2010)

I do not buy Loose Change's controlled demolition theory, or MIHOP. But I do adhere to "Let it Happen on Purpose" , which is far more court-admissible and convincing. Attempting to dismiss the vast array of overlapping "coincidences" is akin to being dealt a pocket pair 100 times in a row, and insisting it's totally plausible.

In order to support the official version of the 911 attacks, one must - by necessity - find a way in which to dismiss as irrelevant, explain, excuse or be unaware of each the following aspects of the mass murder that changed the world:

That numerous, high-level failures to heed repeated warnings of an unprecedented, impending terrorist attack on American soil from a bevy of reliable intelligence sources - including eleven foreign State Security services - was either a breakdown of the system or as a result of "warnings fatigue".

With a US intelligence system "blinking red as never before", according to CIA director George Tenet in the months and weeks preceding the 911 attacks, the entire Bush inner circle had reason to dismiss no less than forty Daily Presidential Briefs that specifically addressed an impending, large-scale attack by al Qaeda and/or Osama bin laden affiliated operatives on American soil - and were not considered important or specific enough to act upon.

That chief anti-terrorism expert Richard Clarke, working closely with three previous US presidents, was removed from president Bush's inner circle only months before the 911 attacks by national Security Advisor Condalezza Rice, and was merely an unfortunate coincidence.

That the often repeated claim, immediately following the 911 attacks, that "no one could have anticipated such an attack" by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Fleisher and other top administration officials was understandable - even though the US military and intelligence services had recently anticipated exactly such an attack, specifically at the Pentagon and at the World Trade Center complex - and was meaningless because these drills were conducted during the previous administration.

That several key investigations into suspicious Muslim men taking flight training, "but not particularily interested in learning to land and take off", were hindered by mid and upper FBI level field managers out of fear of being accused of "racial profiling".

That an extensive intelligence operation dubbed 'Able Danger', that had gathered broad information on those men than would later become hijackers on 911, was discontinued and the files destroyed before the attacks, (with no explanation offered, and US intelligence agents involved not called to testify), was but a coincidence - or was of no importance.

That vice president Cheney being charged with command and control of all US air defense training and coordination, (an unprecedent assignment of official power a US vice president), four months before the 911 attacks was simply a coincidence.

That the long-established protocols for intecepting errant aircraft over US soil were subtly changed three months before the 911 attacks and was but an unfortunate coincidence.

That the air defense training drills that were in progress on 911, (critical in the failures to mount a military response to the attacks), being originally scheduled for October of 2001 but re-scheduled for the week of 9-10-2001 was merely a coincidence and bad timing.

That of the six major, extensive air training drills that were in progress far from Washington and NYC, only one was briefly mentioned in a footnote in the 911 Commission's final report and was either perfectly appropriate or a careless oversight.

That air drills in progress hundreds of miles from Washington and NYC required the injection of hundreds of phantom radar blips into the civilian radar network, (that made locating the hijacked airliners impossible), was but an unforunate coincidence.

That with an unprecedent number of intellience warnings about an impending terrorist attack on American soil - many that were specific enough to mention potential hijackings - the US air defense drills that left the nation's capital and the Northeast United States vulnerable to air attack went ahead, and were as a result of poor planning - and another unfortunate coincidence.

That (former) National Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta's testimony before the 911 Commission, that sharply contradicted vice president Cheney's version of the critical timetable that day, was of no imortance - and therefore, was appropriate to delete from the transcript, the 911 Commission's final report and video archives.

That the three and a half hour testimony by fired FBI translator Sibel Edmunds before the 911 Commission, detailing a deep culture of corruption and widespread intelligence manipulation in the FBI, (and the fact that she was gagged by a federal court order), was of no consequence.

That the well-confirmed $100,000 wire transfer to lead hijacker Mohammad Atta, only days before the 911 attacks, authorized by Pakistan's intelligence chief General Mahmoud Ahmed was of no importance to US law-enforcement officials, intelligence agencies, the Bush administration or the 911 Commission in it's final report.

That for fourteen months, president Bush and his inner circle strenuously objected to, and did everything possible to prevent an independent investigation into the sequence of events and failures surrounding the 911 attacks because it would be a distraction, or according to Bush, "may reveal too many national security secrets".

That a twenty-eight page report detailing the decades long business and family ties between the Bush family and the Saudi Arabian Royal family, (who's country, fifteen of the nineteen hijackers originated), and the bin Laden family, (the accused in the 911 attacks), was of no relevance and merited no mention in the 911 Commission's final report.

That a phone call to (then) democratic congressional leader senator Tom Dashle from president Bush, warning that the congressional investigation into the 911 attacks could become a major distraction with upcoming elections, was of no consequence.

That another call, several days later, by vice president Dick Cheney to Senator Tom Dashle, (overheard by a local reporter on the speakerphone), warning the senator that the democratic party would "pay a high price" if the congressional investigation into the 911 attacks was "of too much depth", was of no significance and politics as usual.

That an initial three million dollar appropriation, (later, reluctantly raised to fifteen million dollars), to finance the 911 Commission, (when the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster and investigation of Clinton wrongdoing in 1996 were both in excess of fifty million dollars each), and that these amounts were appropriate considering the breadth and importance of each investigation.

That a large, lumbering passanger jet reversed course, (after it was confirmed to have been hijacked and after both towers of the World Trade Center had been struck by airliners), and flew for over 275 miles and 35 minutes directly toward the nation's capital with no military response and crashed into likely the most defended building in the United States, the Pentagon., but was an unfortunate breakdown of procedures and communications.

That the geopolitical objectives and philosophy laid out in the PNAC document titled, "Rebuilding America's Defenses"(signed and endorsed by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and other key, top-level officials), along with the 'Defense Planning Guidance', (or Wolfowitz Doctrine), co-written with former US defense secretary Dick Cheney, that espoused expanded US global military capabilities and ventures that have actually occured as a result of the 911 attacks was, and is, of no consequence - or mere coincidence.​
Each of these aspects before, during and following the attacks must be excused, justified or explained by those that continue to support the official US government version of the events surrounding the 911 attacks on America.


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 23, 2010)

The problem with the LHOP theory is assuming they would be confident it would happen and be successful.


----------



## Fizz (Sep 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> You've completely ignored the fact nist said the top section fell at essentially free fall speed.  Think about it dumbfuck.  The top section fell directly down on the rest of the tower so if the top section fell at free fall it means nothing below it could have fallen slower.  You ignore that but call others blind..........



where does it say the top section fell directly down on the rest of the tower and pieces didnt go over the sides?

are you saying the top section stayed intact until it hit the ground?

apparently it is YOU that needs to think about it, dumbfuck!!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 23, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> I do not buy Loose Change's controlled demolition theory, or MIHOP. But I do adhere to "Let it Happen on Purpose" , which is far more court-admissible and convincing. Attempting to dismiss the vast array of overlapping "coincidences" is akin to being dealt a pocket pair 100 times in a row, and insisting it's totally plausible.
> 
> In order to support the official version of the 911 attacks, one must - by necessity - find a way in which to dismiss as irrelevant, explain, excuse or be unaware of each the following aspects of the mass murder that changed the world:
> 
> ...



Nice story. Maybe you could do a great fiction movie.....And while you're at it show us some real proof of all this. Like how well the pentagon is so well defended.....


----------



## JiggsCasey (Sep 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> The problem with the LHOP theory is assuming they would be confident it would happen and be successful.



What's to worry about when you're suppressing and/or halting existing FBI surveillance? Again, they didn't have to DO much. Just call off the dogs, and look the other way. Further, it doesn't require that many individuals to "take the oath" of secrecy at all.

Just look at how effectively they kept things like the Manhattan Project, the stealth bomber, and, for decades, the Gulf of Tonkin incident quite secret from public consumption. I'd say precedent is quite firmly established.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Sep 23, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Nice story. Maybe you could do a great fiction movie.....And while you're at it show us some real proof of all this. Like how well the pentagon is so well defended.....



I don't really need to. The undeniable public record of LIHOP proof is all readily available for anyone to absorb, and has been for 9 years now. 

All I did was provide -- in a nice concise list -- the mind-boggling array of overlapping coincidences that coincitards all try to pass off as merely innocuous.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 23, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with the LHOP theory is assuming they would be confident it would happen and be successful.
> ...


there were reports on the stealth bomber years before it was released
the Manhattan project was not secret for very long
neither was the gulf of tonkin incident


----------



## JiggsCasey (Sep 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> there were reports on the stealth bomber years before it was released



there were reports of Islamic radicals attacking us for years before it happened.



DiveCon said:


> the Manhattan project was not secret for very long
> neither was the gulf of tonkin incident



Neither was the reality of 9/11.

What's your point?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 23, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > there were reports on the stealth bomber years before it was released
> ...


the point is, if it was "allowed" to happen on purpose
someone would know that and human nature being what it is, would talk


----------



## JiggsCasey (Sep 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> the point is, if it was "allowed" to happen on purpose
> someone would know that and human nature being what it is, would talk



I disagree. Please link to when Tonkin became accepted as full-blown fraud by the mainstream. I'd say that secret was held down for quite some time.

Regardless, the "human nature" defense would not get the relevant evidence thrown out in any court of law.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 23, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > the point is, if it was "allowed" to happen on purpose
> ...


uh, it wasn't a "full blown fraud"
but what it was was exaggerated


----------



## Fizz (Sep 24, 2010)

there's a big difference between "letting it happen on purpose" and not putting intelligence together that they probably should have.

if i was one of the "dogs that were called off" i would be spilling my guts to every reporter in the world and letting them know.

so where are all the dogs that were called off? where's you proof other than your "too many coincidences to be real" fairy tale?


----------



## eots (Sep 24, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enp-rT67B-w]YouTube - John Oneil PBS Frontline 1[/ame]

frontline: the man who knew | PBS


----------



## Douger (Sep 24, 2010)

The PNAC theory.
They created what they said they "needed".
"A new Pearl harbor"


----------



## eots (Sep 24, 2010)

Coleen Rowley &#8211; Former Special Agent and Minneapolis Division Counsel, FBI.  24-year FBI career.  Agent Rowley was selected one of Time Magazine's three 2002 Persons of the Year for revealing FBI headquarters' efforts to "throw up roadblocks and undermine" FBI field investigations of Al Qaeda operatives in the four weeks prior to 9/11.
Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller 5/21/02: Regarding FBI headquarters (FBIHQ) obstruction of terrorism investigations. "The fact is that key FBIHQ personnel whose job it was to assist and coordinate with field division agents on terrorism investigations and the obtaining and use of FISA searches (and who theoretically were privy to many more sources of intelligence information than field division agents), continued to, almost inexplicably, throw up roadblocks and undermine Minneapolis' by-now desperate efforts to obtain a FISA search warrant, long after the French intelligence service provided its information and probable cause became clear. HQ personnel brought up almost ridiculous questions in their apparent efforts to undermine the probable cause. ... 

When, in a desperate 11th hour measure to bypass the FBIHQ roadblock, the Minneapolis Division undertook to directly notify the CIA's Counter Terrorist Center (CTC), FBIHQ personnel actually chastised the Minneapolis agents for making the direct notification without their approval ... 

I know I shouldn't be flippant about this, but jokes were actually made that the key FBIHQ personnel had to be spies or moles, like Robert Hansen, who were actually working for Osama Bin Laden to have so undercut Minneapolis' effort." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com


Interview 9/25/05: "And what I did was, I think, I put the first good dent in the blanket defense that for 8 and a half, 9 months, was holding - that 9/11 could not have been prevented. 

... we were all settling for, &#8216;9/11 could not have been prevented&#8217;, it was &#8216;hindsight&#8217;. Condi Rice, "Well, no one could have ever imagined that someone would fly&#8230;" and of course, when she says that, she&#8217;s disregarding a whole bunch of things. People are letting her get away with it. She&#8217;s disregarding the fact of two or three prior incidents of people trying to fly planes into buildings, attempted takeovers of cockpits&#8230;We&#8217;re also ignoring the fact that in Minneapolis [FBI office], the acting supervisor, arguing with [FBI] headquarters said, &#8216;This is a guy [Zacarias Moussaoui] that could fly a plane into the World Trade Center&#8217; on August 22nd!" http://www.nowpubli


Editor's note: Despite Agent Rowley's high-profile revelations and intimate knowledge of FBI headquarter's efforts to obstruct investigations of Al Qaeda-related terrorist activities in the four weeks prior to 9/11, the 9/11 Commission never interviewed her.  The 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." contains no mention of her allegations that FBI headquarters "continued to, almost inexplicably, throw up roadblocks and undermine" FBI field agent counterterrorism efforts.  The Commission Report only obliquely mentions Agent Rowley in a single footnote.  See also Special Agent Robert Wright and Special 

Agent Harry Samit.Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## eots (Sep 24, 2010)

Sibel D. Edmonds &#8211; Witness before the 9/11 Commission.  Former Language Translation Specialist, performing translations for counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations, FBI.
Letter to 9/11 Commission 8/1/04 : "I find your report seriously flawed in its failure to address serious intelligence issues that I am aware of, which have been confirmed, and which as a witness to the commission, I made you aware of. Thus, I must assume that other serious issues that I am not aware of were in the same manner omitted from your report. These omissions cast doubt on the validity of your report and therefore on its conclusions and recommendations." 


Article 7/22/04: "My translations of the 9/11 intercepts included [terrorist] money laundering, detailed and date-specific information ... if they were to do real investigations, we would see several significant high-level criminal prosecutions in this country [the US] ... and believe me, they will do everything to cover this up." Latest news, comment and reviews from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> You aren't "questioning" Israeli involvement you dishonest fatass bitch.  You are the anti-Semitic version of Stormfront.



Why would I "question" something that is so blatanly obvious?? As I said, I can't help it if you don't like the TRUTH.

9/11: THE TRUTH COMES OUT

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVKGRB3cygg&feature=related]YouTube - Why The Military Knows Israel Did 9/11[/ame]

Israel and 9/11 - Index of What Really Happened

And here is how Fairy Tales get started and promoted:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwq04_KhCeI&feature=related]YouTube - 911 Clues EVERYONE MISSED[/ame]

BTW: Dear Curvelight, I will give you one more chance to talk to me in a civil manner.......OR suffer the consequences. Thank you.


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 24, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You aren't "questioning" Israeli involvement you dishonest fatass bitch.  You are the anti-Semitic version of Stormfront.
> ...




Dumbasses like you reject the very idea of civility by your anti-Semitism.  You're probably way too self absorbed to comprehend the meaning.


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




You want to explain 9E with outhouse backwoods mountain piss quality psychology but dismiss analysis from experts who question 9E????? Lol!


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 24, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You've completely ignored the fact nist said the top section fell at essentially free fall speed.  Think about it dumbfuck.  The top section fell directly down on the rest of the tower so if the top section fell at free fall it means nothing below it could have fallen slower.  You ignore that but call others blind..........
> ...




It's almost cute how OCTAs will try to help bail each other out but it also shows how fucking dishonest and collectively stoopid they are.  Of course, in their world they see themselves as little einsteins so it's a moot point.

I've already linked the text showing it said the top section came straight down on the rest of the Tower. Do you need fucking tutored again on the Official version?


----------



## Fizz (Sep 24, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You aren't "questioning" Israeli involvement you dishonest fatass bitch.  You are the anti-Semitic version of Stormfront.
> ...



cant speak for curvelight but as far as i am concerned you can take your silly anti-israeli propaganda and shove it up your ass.

are you also working to free the innocent Khalid Sheikh Mohammed since he was framed?


----------



## Fizz (Sep 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I've already linked the text showing it said the top section came straight down on the rest of the Tower. Do you need fucking tutored again on the Official version?



and where did you expect it to go? sideways?

so are you claiming the top section stayed intact or not? if its not intact then why would you think parts of it didnt fall down the sides and hit the ground at almost free fall speeds?

its your fucking silly logic. explain.


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 24, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Hollybaere said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




In principle you are Halle's mirror because just as that dumbass blames everything on Jews you always say Israel is innocent even when guilty of murdering unarmed civilians.


----------



## Fizz (Sep 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> In principle you are Halle's mirror because just as that dumbass blames everything on Jews you always say Israel is innocent even when guilty of murdering unarmed civilians.



fucking liar.

where did i "always" say this?


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 24, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I've already linked the text showing it said the top section came straight down on the rest of the Tower. Do you need fucking tutored again on the Official version?
> ...



How is NIST's report "my silly logic?"  Nist stated the top section fell at free fall speed down on the rest of the tower.  Maybe you should do something wild like learning Official version 101 before continuing to show how ignorant you are?  Naw.....you're way too arrogant.


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 24, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > In principle you are Halle's mirror because just as that dumbass blames everything on Jews you always say Israel is innocent even when guilty of murdering unarmed civilians.
> ...




Every single issue on Israel you find a way to make Israel the innocent virgin while charging anyone who presents a valid criticism as being anti-Semitic.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Sep 24, 2010)

Fizz said:


> there's a big difference between "letting it happen on purpose" and not putting intelligence together that they probably should have.
> 
> *if i was one of the "dogs that were called off" i would be spilling my guts to every reporter in the world and letting them know.*
> 
> so where are all the dogs that were called off? where's you proof other than your "too many coincidences to be real" fairy tale?



yeah, ummm.... let's seeeee.... there's been Sibel Edmonds, Colleen Rowley, Kenneth Williams, Robert Wright, John O'Neill and Tyrone Powers...  just off the top of my head.

Do some "the Google" work.


----------



## Fizz (Sep 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



you are such a fucking liar!! 

AGAIN. SHOW ME WHERE I DO THIS!! 

you are a jackass. do a search and put the the word "israel" by user "Fizz" and you get a total of FOUR post by me that have the word israel in it (outside of this thread, of course). clearly i dont give a fuck about israel.


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 24, 2010)

Fizz said:


> cant speak for curvelight but as far as i am concerned you can take your silly anti-israeli propaganda and shove it up your ass.
> 
> are you also working to free the innocent Khalid Sheikh Mohammed since he was framed?



All you have to do is prove Israel is free and totally innocent of any involvement in 911. I do mean TOTALLY FREE AND CLEAR! (FYI: You can't!) But, try anyway.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was another patsy. The guy is as nutty as a fruitcake!! He would have even confessed to the Tate/LaBianca murders if they water-boarded him enough times. Since all the "hijackers" were killed, American's had to have someone to punish, so this idiot fit the bill.

Knowing that Bin Laden was dead, he would not come back to dispute all they claimed were "master-minds" of 911 or "20th Hijackers". 

It just totally amazes me how you would rather buy into, enforce and believe in Fairy Tales rather than wanting to know the TRUTH.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 24, 2010)

"Soon, you will know."

KSM


Nuff said.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Sep 24, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> I do not buy Loose Change's controlled demolition theory, or MIHOP. But I do adhere to "Let it Happen on Purpose" , which is far more court-admissible and convincing. Attempting to dismiss the vast array of overlapping "coincidences" is akin to being dealt a pocket pair 100 times in a row, and insisting it's totally plausible.
> 
> In order to support the official version of the 911 attacks, one must - by necessity - find a way in which to dismiss as irrelevant, explain, excuse or be unaware of each the following aspects of the mass murder that changed the world:
> 
> ...



*bump* for the fact that no one has offered a cohesive argument for how all those factors are innocuous...


----------



## Fizz (Sep 25, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > cant speak for curvelight but as far as i am concerned you can take your silly anti-israeli propaganda and shove it up your ass.
> ...



so you are working to free the innocent KSM then, eh? 

i will prove israel is TOTALLY FREE AND CLEAR right after you prove ME totally free and clear of any involvement. 

thats not how things work in the real world, you fucking idiot. YOU claim israel had something to do with it. its not up to me to prove you wrong. YOU NEED TO BACK UP YOUR STATEMENT.

you cant because you are a complete fucking lunatic. sit down, shut up and go back to watching jerry springer until your next welfare check arrives.


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 25, 2010)

Fizz said:


> so you are working to free the innocent KSM then, eh?
> 
> i will prove israel is TOTALLY FREE AND CLEAR right after you prove ME totally free and clear of any involvement.
> 
> ...



I not only claiming Israel's involvement in 911, I have also offered factual evidence that proves my claim.

But, you are too busy in your Fairy Tale world, you must have missed it. 

I guess you'll have to go back and read the thread over again.


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 25, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > so you are working to free the innocent KSM then, eh?
> ...




You linked op-ed bowlshit you sewer sucking jackass.


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 25, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> *bump* for the fact that no one has offered a cohesive argument for how all those factors are innocuous...



Let's check the coincidence theory for flight 77:

When the passenger list was first made public none of the hijackers listed had any flight training then the list was revised and Hani Hanjour's name suddenly appeared. 

Three weeks prior, Hanjour paid a speeding ticket by mail. Who the hell pays a speeding ticket to the nation they will die to attack?

In the six weeks prior Hanjour attempted several times to rent a single engine cessna but failed due to an inability to fly. He was so bad the instructors were convinced his pilot's license was fake.

When his name was made public some of the instructors who tried training Hanjour were shocked because "he could not fly at all."  They also pointed out the federal government sent an agent to translate for him during a training course for a commercial license.  That is unheard of because being proficient in english is a FAA requirement.

Once flight 77 went off radar nobody knew where it went and it disappeared in one of the few Blackout Zones for even Primary radar.  

When an unknown blip showed up on a Primary radar for Dulles they didn't know what it was and the Controllers did not think it was a 757 because the maneuvers were not one of a commercial jet.

In Op Northwoods one idea to publicly confirm a fake hijacking was to divert a military plane from original flight plan to do a visual on the "hijacked" aircraft.  For flight 77, a C-130 had coincidentally taken off at about 9:12 am and was diverted to do a visual on the aircraft picked up by Primary radar from Dulles.  That was one of the things used to "prove" it was flight 77.

There is no actual record of any phone call from 77.  For some strange reason the State Department was unable to trace the calls.  

The only two people from 77 reported to have made contact were both public speakers.  This is important because if one is to fake phone calls one must have a recording of the voice wished to be impersonated.  

77 hit the least populated and only newly reinforced section of the Pentagon making damage as minimal as possible.  

Cheney was giving direct military orders during the commission of 77's hijacking.  The VP is not authorized to do so when the President and you know, actual military leaders are available.

Out of numerous local video tapes none show flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.  There isn't even a single verifiable recording from any of the Pentagon's security cameras.

Less than a year before the attack the Pentagon held an exercise of being attacked by a hijacked commercial airliner.

Does all of that prove 77 was a false flag?


----------



## Fizz (Sep 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Does all of that prove 77 was a false flag?



no.

in fact, its not all even true.....


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 25, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Does all of that prove 77 was a false flag?
> ...



Now only if your opinion counted for something......someone might care what you think is true or false.


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> You linked op-ed bowlshit you sewer sucking jackass.



No matter what you call it, it is still the TRUTH!!


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 25, 2010)

Now you will discover the definitive truth about 9/11 and learn why even the most popular movies on the subject have failed to address the evidence exhaustively presented in this video.


Missing Links


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 25, 2010)

LOL Holly, I don't believe you would know truth if it bit you on the ass.


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 25, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You linked op-ed bowlshit you sewer sucking jackass.
> ...



Oh wow, that totally convinced me.  Using all caps and double exclamation points provided the needed evidence.


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 25, 2010)

9/11 Cui Bono: Who Benefits? 
Saturday, 04 September 2010 17:19 | Written by Nashid Abdul-Khaaliq |  |  |  

When a crime is committed the first thing that should be done is to investigate possible motives. Who benefited? Cui bono? Who gained the most from the crime? Throughout history, most crimes have been solved this way, but, finding out who benefited the most is not always easy to determine.  Many times, in fact, the real benefits are hidden, and it could take a long time for the real benefits to be realized, especially when the crime is well-planned and well-organized by powerful, cunning criminals.

9/11
Having people believe that a major undertaking,  such as the attacks of 9/11, was done by blind, senseless Arabs, who were bent on exercising rage against America, is a ploya ploy done to keep people from looking at the real beneficiaries of the event and, therefore, finding the real culprits.

It is amazing to observe how Americans who watch numerous movies and television programs about criminal frame-ups, could not fathom the possibility that a big one could happen right before them in real life. They seem to be oblivious to the fact that just maybe the clever culprits who pulled off the sophisticated attacks of 9/11, were able to do so, escape blame for it, and at the same time walk away with tremendous benefits. Furthermore, it never occurs to them that fake evidence  such as Qurans, Arabic flight instruction manuals, fake videos, an absolutely indestructible passport that was found in the fiery ash and rubble of the twin towers, and other "evidence" -- was concocted to make an innocent party take the blame for something that brought the devious criminals  unimaginable benefits.

Besides who gains the most, we also need to look at who has the means to commit the crime and also the resources to cover their guilt.

More at: 9/11 Cui Bono: Who Benefits?


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Hollybaere said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Yea, just like you calling me ugly names is going to stop me from posting the truth.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 25, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Hollybaere said:
> ...


when you actually start posting the truth, maybe

btw, curve is a fellow troofer moron, only he isnt quite as pathetic as you
and thats doing something


----------



## Fizz (Sep 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



tell us again how the hijackers were not on the passenger manifest. 

it was probably a list of VICTIMS, you fucking moron.


----------



## Fizz (Sep 25, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> Yea, just like you calling me ugly names is going to stop me from posting the truth.



i call you ugly names because they happen to be accurate.

nobody is trying to stop you from posting the truth. anytime you want to start then feel free....


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 25, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Hollybaere said:
> 
> 
> > Yea, just like you calling me ugly names is going to stop me from posting the truth.
> ...


actually, it was curvelight calling her that ugly names
LOL


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 25, 2010)

I still love it when the truthers can't even get the same story.


----------



## eots (Sep 25, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Hollybaere said:
> 
> 
> > Yea, just like you calling me ugly names is going to stop me from posting the truth.
> ...



The truth is office fires did not cause this


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A]YouTube - wtc 7 collapse[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 25, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > Hollybaere said:
> ...


the truth is, it did


----------



## eots (Sep 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



and your proof of this irrational assumption is ?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 25, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


the fact that the building fell, and there is ZERO proof of anything else causing it
you have proof of some other explanation?
no, didnt think you did'


----------



## eots (Sep 25, 2010)

thats it ?...you heard NIST say the excluded it simply because they had a theory it would be too loud...there is ZERO proof because the test were never done..


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 25, 2010)

eots said:


> thats it ?...you heard NIST say the excluded it simply because they had a theory it would be too loud...there is ZERO proof because the test were never done..


if you actually had some evidence, someone might actually believe your bullshit
but all you get are the paranoid delusionals


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 25, 2010)

Fact is the only official investigation that was done says it was caused by fire. Since no one can disprove that, well, there's your proof. 

Now unless you have some actual evidence other than opinion........


----------



## Fizz (Sep 26, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Now unless you have some actual evidence other than opinion........



you are joking, right? a twoofer with ACTUAL EVIDENCE?!! 

thats not how twoofers work. twoofers look to find any evidence at all to back up their preconceived notion that the government was behind the attacks and require incredible leaps of logic. it goes like this:
1. they didnt test for explosive demolitions..... soooo....
2. that means there were explosive demolitions.... soooooooo.... (you following this so far?)
3. the government planted explosive demolitions.


----------



## eots (Sep 26, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> I still love it when the truthers can't even get the same story.



there are those that have different opinions on who is responsible for 9/11 but your crew of debwunkers that claim to support the official story yet constantly contradict it are what is truly laughable


----------



## eots (Sep 26, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Fact is the only official investigation that was done says it was caused by fire. Since no one can disprove that, well, there's your proof.
> 
> Now unless you have some actual evidence other than opinion........



it is proven that NIST failed to explain the collapse with any degree of certainty
and lacks forensic evidence of temperatures required for structural failure


----------



## Fizz (Sep 26, 2010)

eots said:


> it is proven that NIST failed to explain the collapse with any degree of certainty
> and lacks forensic evidence of temperatures required for structural failure



so your claim is the building is still standing or do you have physical evidence that something other than fire was present?


----------



## eots (Sep 26, 2010)

do you have any evidence for your fire theory ?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 26, 2010)

eots said:


> do you have any evidence for your fire theory ?


yes, every expert(not counting the paranoid delusional) believes that was the cause


----------



## eots (Sep 26, 2010)

really, every expert...got a link to that ?


----------



## Fizz (Sep 26, 2010)

eots said:


> do you have any evidence for your fire theory ?









got any pictures of explosions, you fucking idiot?


----------



## eots (Sep 26, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > do you have any evidence for your fire theory ?
> ...



so thats proof that some of the floors experienced fire...what of all the testimony of explosions are you trying to claim there were no explosions now ?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 26, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


and did any of those explosion happen at a time when it could have caused the collapse?
NO
most of them were HOURS before the collapse
and in an office fire there are MANY things that could cause explosive sounds without being actual explosives


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 26, 2010)

Fizz said:


> got any pictures of explosions, you fucking idiot?



Watch this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgzREYY5iz8]YouTube - EXPLOSIONS 911 WTC BUILDING 7 BLASTS HEARD BY ALL !!! NIST PAID OFF !!![/ame]

And this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjzabZh8Gxo&feature=related]YouTube - WTC 7 vs Other Building Fires and Demolitions (sdrs85)[/ame]

And then watch this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&feature=related]YouTube - 4409 -- (Unseen Footage) Tower 7 blasted into rubble from NEW angle![/ame]

This one actually shows the explosions you were asking for!

I would say that these videos would disprove your little "NIST theory" quite nicely.


----------



## eots (Sep 26, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



You have a timeline for when explosions were heard ? ..link please...nist said the explosives required would be "as loud as a shotgun blast" but there were *no reports* or audio of any such explosions...yet first responder testimony shows that to be a false claim


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 26, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


not when those same first responders were asked to clarify what they said
thats why you guys are known as such fucking LIARS"

and those explosive sounds your talking about where heard when they were evacuating WTC7
that was at least 5 hours prior to the collapse


----------



## eots (Sep 26, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



want to provide a link to first responders saying any such thing


----------



## eots (Sep 26, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-Wrg-70HWw]YouTube - 9/11 Explosive EyeWitness Testimony[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 26, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


its been provided to you before
and you ignored it
so why bother, just stay in your paranoid delusional world


----------



## eots (Sep 26, 2010)

divecon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...



no ,you have only told this lie before..to maintain your fragile eggshell like world of denial ..put up or shut up loser


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 26, 2010)

eots said:


> divecon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


why?
so you can just ignore it again like you have every time it has been shown to you?
fuck off loser


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 26, 2010)

I think the truthers are losing, not only their minds but their support.


> PLEASE DONATE
> TODAY!
> 2010 to date:
> 
> ...


----------



## eots (Sep 26, 2010)

sfc ollie said:


> i think the truthers are losing, not only their minds but their support.
> 
> 
> > please donate
> ...



I think this is your gay attempt to distract from your lack of credible evidence to support your theory


----------



## eots (Sep 26, 2010)

divecon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...



no so you can prove you are not a lying sack of shit


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 26, 2010)

eots said:


> divecon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


you're calling me a liar?
prove it


----------



## eots (Sep 26, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...



you claim first responders reporting explosions clarify at some point , you claim you have provided evidence of this in the past you prove it... liar


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 26, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


i have, moron
which is why i wont waste my time doing it AGAIN"


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 26, 2010)

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > i think the truthers are losing, not only their minds but their support.
> ...



I don't have a theory, I believe that the only real and official investigation got it mostly right. You and your friends are yet to bring forth physical evidence to disprove that.


----------



## eots (Sep 26, 2010)

divecon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...



liar


----------



## eots (Sep 26, 2010)

sfc ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



you are not even sure of what the details of the official investigation are ...


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 26, 2010)

eots said:


> divecon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


moron


----------



## Obamerican (Sep 26, 2010)

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


Why do you idiot "truthers" think you're the only ones that come to the "right" conclusions". Egotistical individuals are what you are.


----------



## eots (Sep 26, 2010)

Obamerican said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



I am sure.. positive...you are another asshat that has no idea what the conclusion of nist or the the process by which they made these conclusions


----------



## eots (Sep 26, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



you have  belief.. a theory...


----------



## Fizz (Sep 27, 2010)

I will ask you once again....

How do explosive demolitions make a building lean noticably hours before the implosion?


----------



## eots (Sep 27, 2010)

Fizz said:


> I will ask you once again....
> 
> How do explosive demolitions make a building lean noticably hours before the implosion?



leaning noticeable for hours is not part of the  NIST model are you claiming hours before the collapse fire had weakened the structure so much it noticeable leaned in one direction  ?...may I remind you the NIST model requires that damage from debris play no significant role in the collapse ?...do you even know the official conclusions you claim to support ?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 27, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > I will ask you once again....
> ...


do you even know the difference between "no significant role" and "no role"?


----------



## eots (Sep 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



yes do you ? nist states fire alone would have initiated a global collapse the only role given to falling debris is igniting the fire..do YOU understand that or is it too hard for you


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 27, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


again, "would have" is not "did"

and its YOU thats totally fucking delusional and think it says something it DOESN'T
moron


----------



## eots (Sep 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



so this is your dwiveconpiracy ?..that damage did play a significant role in the collapse ? even though it would cause the only_ evidence_ NIST has.{.the computer model} to fail and would render the entire report invalid...dwiveconspiracist are a silly and illogical bunch


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 27, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


you are too fucking stupid for words


----------



## eots (Sep 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



you are too stupid for words..thats why you are left speechless and cant grasp basic concepts


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 27, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


MASSIVE irony alert


----------



## eots (Sep 27, 2010)

its clear you have lost the debate and can not support your claims


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 27, 2010)

eots said:


> its clear you have lost the debate and can not support your claims


there is no "debate" dipshit
LOL
you clearly cant tell the difference between ridicule and debate


----------



## eots (Sep 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > its clear you have lost the debate and can not support your claims
> ...



 No, you attempted to debate the issues but failed and now you resort to lame attempts at ridicule to try pretend otherwise


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 27, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


LOL

i havent attempted to debate with you morons in YEARS


----------



## eots (Sep 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Sure you do.. you constantly present inaccurate information that is shown to be false ..thats debate..just because you fail at it all the time does not mean it is not debate


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 27, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


no, i have never presented ANY false info
thats what YOU do


----------



## eots (Sep 27, 2010)

divecon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...



no. Thats about all you do., post information in contradiction with nist and then when busted for that..post shit like this post,you cant provide information.. So you claim you "already have" and then when all else fails you claim something like you just like to insult toofers and have no interest in debate


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 27, 2010)

eots said:


> divecon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


how many times do you have to be told, i dont give a rats ass what NIST said
they could be completely wrong and it wouldn't change a fucking thing about YOU being wrong on everything


this is why i dont waste time actually debating you morons


----------



## eots (Sep 27, 2010)

divecon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...



yes.. I know thats why you are a maverik.a dwiveconspiracy theorist   you should write your 9/11 dwiveconspiracy theory down some day and share it with the world..


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 27, 2010)

eots said:


> divecon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


wrong again, dipshit
this is something you made up yourself because i dont fall for your stupidity


----------



## Fizz (Sep 27, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > I will ask you once again....
> ...


Instead of trying to put words in my mouth by saying I support the nist report 100%, why don't you just answer the fucking question. How does explosive demolitions make a building visibly lean hours before it collapses?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 27, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


for him, everything is black or white
either you support the NIST and 9/11 CR to every minute detail or you have to agree with his delusional bullshit


----------



## eots (Sep 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



what you call minute details are the key elements necessary for the NIST computer simulation to create a global collapse due primarily  to fire


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 27, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


again, even if NIST is totally completely fucking wrong, it doesnt make it a controlled demolition


----------



## eots (Sep 27, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



any footage of this noticeable lean ?


----------



## eots (Sep 27, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY]YouTube - WTC 7 NIST Model vs. Reality[/ame]


----------



## eots (Sep 27, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PSziAiD9jM&feature=related]YouTube - Barry Jennings interview on WT7 9/11 explosions, bodies.[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 27, 2010)

eots said:


> YouTube - Barry Jennings interview on WT7 9/11 explosions, bodies.


yeah, more alex jones BS
thats is HEAVILY edited and chopped up
the last person was out of WTC7 HOURS before it fell
if the explosive sounds he heard were from a controlled demolition, why didnt the building fall BEFORE he got out?

this is why troofers are such fucking MORONS you dont use logic or common sense


----------



## eots (Sep 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > YouTube - Barry Jennings interview on WT7 9/11 explosions, bodies.
> ...



denial and unsubstantiated slander is all you have... perhaps (as NIST suggested).. explosives were used only the critical columns required to initiate a collapse and that would not necessarily all need to take place simultaneously...but the excuse for not testing any of this was "no explosions were reported"..from Jennings testimony and the testimony of many other first responders  that statement and reason offered for excluding explosives is without question untrue


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 27, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


holy shit you are an idiot
LOL
go smoke another joint and believe it will grown you new brain cells
LOL


----------



## eots (Sep 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



again you must resort to this ..to pathetically try and cover up the fact of how beat you are


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 27, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


you are too fucking stupid
you don't fucking get it
you haven't beat me at a damn thing
moron
you are pathetically unequipped to do so
'


----------



## Fizz (Sep 27, 2010)

eots said:


> any footage of this noticeable lean ?



i didnt see any. why? you calling the first responders liars?


----------



## eots (Sep 27, 2010)

fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > any footage of this noticeable lean ?
> ...



i am suspicious of the credibility of the one  clip I have  ever seen of one person claiming the building was leaning


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Sep 27, 2010)

Ok How about this one.
OK city was an inside job.
the 176 victims  never died
The bodies came from prison labs doing DNA research to turn jews into monkeys as per  the Quran.
The real OKC people were all govern folks , they planted  bombs in the WTC.
then they were put on the hijacked planes  to tie up the lose ends.

The passengers of the original flights (Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93), sent to a moon base run by crusader frank and art bell.
Where they are digging holes to bury  tea party members .


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Sep 27, 2010)

eots said:


> fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Are  you talking about building 7 ?
 If you dont know it was wrecked by falling debris, you are a much more disgusting individual than I had first thought.
the pictures of an entire corner of the building  being gone are out there, if you look.


----------



## eots (Sep 27, 2010)

mr.fitnah said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > fizz said:
> ...



go read the nist report jackass..damage from debris played no significant role in the collapse...thats 5he real problem is assholes like you with opinions that dont even know the official conclusions of the nist report...and just continue to regurgitate popular mechanics disinfo years after the official report has been relased...what a moron


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 27, 2010)

eots said:


> mr.fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Gee eots, you mean the official report that you disagree with except when someone else does?


----------



## eots (Sep 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > mr.fitnah said:
> ...



there is a profound difference between _disagreeing_ with the NIST report and being _ignorant_ of the NIST report..lil Ollie


----------



## Fizz (Sep 27, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



So you will have no problem quoting from the nist report that says "fire alone" caused the collapse.


----------



## eots (Sep 27, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSnjyZNYlW8&feature=related]YouTube - NIST WTC 7 Report - Press Briefing 8/21/08 pt 1[/ame]
*7:05*


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 27, 2010)

"Primarily due to fires" is not TOTALLY caused by fires alone


your video discredits your bullshit


----------



## Fizz (Sep 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> "Primarily due to fires" is not TOTALLY caused by fires alone
> 
> 
> your video discredits your bullshit



just as i thought. he rants and raves about people being ignorant of the report yet he is the one that is ignorant and doesnt know what it actually says.

and he posts a video from before the release of the final report to top it off!!


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

*What we found was*... that building uncontrolled fires similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings caused an extraordinary event.the collapse of World Trade Center 7.

This is the* first time *that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed *primarily due to fires
*


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

NIST states damage played "no significant role "in the collapse and that fires alone would still have initiated the collapse it was on the nist fact sheet but now it is only available on pdf and it would not cut and paste.. no mention of fizzes leaning tower however


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 28, 2010)

eots said:


> What we found was that *unbuilding controlled fires*similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings*caused an extraordinary event,* .*.the collapse of World Trade *Center 7.
> 
> This is the* first time *that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed *primarily due to fires
> *


are you dyslexic?
"uncontrolled building fires"


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 28, 2010)

eots said:


> NIST states damage played "no *significant *role "in the collapse and that fires alone *would still have* initiated the collapse it was on the nist fact sheet but now it is only available on pdf and it would not cut and paste.. no mention of fizzes leaning tower however


again, "no *significant *role" does NOT equal "no role"
you nitpick the report and try and make it say something it actually doesnt

and *"would still have"* doesnt say "did"


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > NIST states damage played "no *significant *role "in the collapse and that fires alone *would still have* initiated the collapse it was on the nist fact sheet but now it is only available on pdf and it would not cut and paste.. no mention of fizzes leaning tower however
> ...





 impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 (the south tower) hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


*moron*


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 28, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


no shit moron
what the nfuck do you think i have been saying
"WOULD HAVE" does not say "DID"


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



it means all you monkeys that like to point structural damage and urban legends of leaning towers or "110 story skyscrapers " falling on to the wtc 7 as a rebuttal to the weaknesses of the _fires did it_ theory are talking out their ass.. as it is NUSTs findings that even without the damage fire alone would have initiated a collapse and the cause of the collapse of wtc 7 was due to fire


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 28, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


dipshit
structural damage DID play a role
just not a SIGNIFICANT ROLE
you post it, but you dont COMPREHEND IT


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



and that role was ???...come on dive you can do it !  ...that role was...?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 28, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


you tell me
you are the moron that claims things that werent


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



the significance of damage from falling debris to the collapes  according to NIST is ...it is credited for starting the fires... that caused the collapse


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

divecon whats the opposite of significant ?


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

*here I will help you out*...

n·sig·nif·i·cant (&#301;n&#716;s&#301;g-n&#301;f&#712;&#301;-k&#601;nt)
adjective
Not significant, especially:
a. Lacking in importance; *trivial*.
b. Lacking power, position, or value; *worthy of little regard.*
c. Small in size or amount.
Having little or* no meaning.*

insignificant - Definition of insignificant at YourDictionary.com


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 28, 2010)

eots said:


> *here I will help you out*...
> 
> n·sig·nif·i·cant (&#301;n&#716;s&#301;g-n&#301;f&#712;&#301;-k&#601;nt)
> adjective
> ...


no shit

you are proving my point, dipshit


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

do not pretend you have a point dwivey and if you do please state it


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 28, 2010)

eots said:


> do not pretend you have a point dwivey and if you do please state it


i already have, but i will reiterate for the moronically slow(namely YOU)

the damages done by the falling of the towers to wtc7 was minimal in regards to the cause of the collapse other than to start the fires, that WOULD have caused the collapse even if there hadnt been the minor damage


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 28, 2010)

btw, this is STILL mocking you for being totally fucking STUPID


----------



## JW Frogen (Sep 28, 2010)

My theory is thus.

Superstitious assholes fly planes into buildings so Allah will love them.


----------



## JW Frogen (Sep 28, 2010)

Lack of self esteem has killed more people than conspiracies ever will.


----------



## Fizz (Sep 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> btw, this is STILL mocking you for being totally fucking STUPID


he still hasnt answered the original question....

where does the NIST say "fires alone" caused the collapse? that is his claim.

obviously he has a reading comprehension problem and cant understand anything more difficult than filling a bong. he keeps posting crap proving he is wrong. what a moron.


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > do not pretend you have a point dwivey and if you do please state it
> ...



blah blah blah blah wtf ???  is that even English ?...so does this mean you are going to stop saying stupid shit like "of course wtc 7 collapsed a 110 story building fell on it"and bullshit about so much damage was done from falling debris the building  was leaning to one side ??


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

Fizz said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > btw, this is STILL mocking you for being totally fucking STUPID
> ...



falling debris started the fires...fires alone caused the collapse..according to NIST


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 28, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


no, because it is 100% correct you fucking moron
a 110 story building DID fall into it and cause the collapse you fucking moronic asswipe

and i have NEVER Said anything about the building leaning


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

divecon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...



no to a mindless little **** it is 100% correct .. To a rational person the correct statement is.. A very small portion of a 110 story building fell into the wtc 7 igniting the fires that nist credits  for causing the collapse


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

divecon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...



yes I understand that was your boyfriend fizz


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 28, 2010)

eots said:


> divecon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


stop projecting your homosexual desires on me

what i do know is that there was a bulge in the building before the collapse
and that the building was evacuated HOURS before the collapse\
and that firefighters were talking about it collapsing well before it actually did


----------



## Fizz (Sep 28, 2010)

eots said:


> falling debris started the fires...fires alone caused the collapse..according to NIST


great.

you just ran around in a big circle and are still repeating yourself without naming your source.

where does the NIST say* fires alone* caused the collapse?

you showed a video clip showing someone that didnt say it. so where is the proof they did?


----------



## Fizz (Sep 28, 2010)

eots said:


> blah blah blah blah wtf ???  is that even English ?...so does this mean you are going to stop saying stupid shit like "of course wtc 7 collapsed a 110 story building fell on it"and bullshit about so much damage was done from falling debris the building  was leaning to one side ??



this is how fucked up you twoofers are. you cant even get something i said right!! 

i said the building was leaning noticeably before the collapse. i didnt say it was leaning to one side or two sides or any other amount of sides. you simply lied and made that shit up. i also didnt say that it was leaning because of debris falling on the building. neither did anyone else. you lied again. 

you cant even keep track of what people are saying and you start jumping to wild conclusion right away. no wonder you get stoned all the time. if i was you i would want to escape my life too....


----------



## Fizz (Sep 28, 2010)

"token error"

duplicate post


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > blah blah blah blah wtf ???  is that even English ?...so does this mean you are going to stop saying stupid shit like "of course wtc 7 collapsed a 110 story building fell on it"and bullshit about so much damage was done from falling debris the building  was leaning to one side ??
> ...



how can something lean but not lean in a direction ? you pathetic cretin


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > falling debris started the fires...fires alone caused the collapse..according to NIST
> ...



according to NIST what role did  falling debris play in the collapse sequence... fizz


----------



## Fizz (Sep 28, 2010)

eots said:


> how can something lean but not lean in a direction ? you pathetic cretin



again, your grasp of the english language fails you.

"direction" does not equal "side"


----------



## Fizz (Sep 28, 2010)

eots said:


> according to NIST what role did  falling debris play in the collapse sequence... fizz



you claim the NIST said "fires alone" caused the collapse. 

so where did they say it? i'm still waiting, you fucking liar. 

asking what role debris played isnt showing me where they said "fires alone", moron.


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > according to NIST what role did  falling debris play in the collapse sequence... fizz
> ...



leaning requires a direction..cretin...what role did damage from debris play in the collapse fizz ?


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

*
NYPD Officer Heard Building 7 Bombs*
"The whole time you're hearing boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. I think I know an explosion when I hear it"

Following our reports this week about three different ground zero rescue workers who all testified that they were told Building 7 was to be brought down, yet more revealing testimony has come to light - this time from a former NYPD officer and first responder, *who states that he clearly heard bombs tear down Building 7 as he ran away from its collapse.*

NYPD officer Craig Bartmer awoke on 9/11 to images of the World Trade Center burning. Knowing colleagues who worked inside the towers, he immediately headed for ground zero to help with the rescue efforts. He is now suffering from respiratory illnesses as a result of the toxic dust inhaled at the site. Bartmer was in the immediate vicinity of Building 7 before its collapse at approximately 5:20pm.
BARTMER: "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions.* I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did -- and a lot of guys should be saying the same thing*. I don't know what the fear is coming out and talking about it? I don't know -- but it's the truth."

[...]

BARTMER: "I walked around it (Building 7). *I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down.* And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... *Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying...* Nothing to account for what we saw... I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest."


MP3 audio clip of Bartme

http://prisonplanet.com/audio/100207bartmer.mp3


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - WTC7 - Incriminating evidence[/ame]


----------



## Fizz (Sep 28, 2010)

eots said:


> *
> NYPD Officer Heard Building 7 Bombs*
> "The whole time you're hearing boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. I think I know an explosion when I hear it"
> 
> ...



so are you saying first responders were lying when they said the building was leaning or not? 

how does explosive demolitions make a building lean hours before they are set off?


----------



## Fizz (Sep 28, 2010)

*Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years *

Boyle: ... on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all,
but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. *Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.*

... Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because *the building didn't look good.* I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, *that building doesn't look straight. *So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. *He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped.* And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had *another report of further damage either in some basements and things like tha*t, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



I said first responders were lying when they said the buildings was leaning ??
bullshit !  I asked you if you could provide a link to that and that I had suspicions about the one report from one person I ever heard state this in a popular mechanics piece   this first responder I posted reports no such lean..NIST does not report any such leaning


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Sep 28, 2010)

Freeman said:


> there are  different theories about 9-11, you should surely adopt one or changed your opinion after scientists discovered nano thermites bombs in the dust .



Mine isn't in the poll.


My theory is people get pissed and shit happens.   A bunch of crazy people perverted a religion to convince themselves and others that they were doing what their higher power wanted and attacked our weaknesses in america.

The government was asleep at the wheel....you think That Clinton with his impeachment had his eye on this ball or that Bush was capable of handling it?    I mean C'mon now.


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

Fizz said:


> *Captain Chris Boyle
> Engine 94 - 18 years *
> 
> Boyle: ... on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all,
> ...



"didn't look good " ? wtf ?? then some unnamed officer he was standing by said it "doesn't look straight"...lol..give me a break


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 28, 2010)

Almost as silly as someone saying they heard pop pop pop pop.....


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Freeman said:
> 
> 
> > there are  different theories about 9-11, you should surely adopt one or changed your opinion after scientists discovered nano thermites bombs in the dust .
> ...



None of that addresses the collapse of wtc 7


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Almost as silly as someone saying they heard pop pop pop pop.....



what the fuck are you rambling about Ollie ? the only idiot saying pop pop pop is you..


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 28, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > *Captain Chris Boyle
> ...


"unnamed"

wtf?
the names are listed in what he posted


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

Fizz said:


> *Captain Chris Boyle
> Engine 94 - 18 years *
> 
> Boyle: ... on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all,
> ...



*were is the link fucker* *??????*


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 28, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...


boom booom boom, pop pop pop

same fucking thing


----------



## Jeremy (Sep 28, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfDEyLbUSxo]YouTube - Stormtroopers reminisce about death star[/ame]


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



really ?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 28, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


the names that were needed to be were
you pathetic PoS
you troofer morons are as bad as rdean


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



no its not the same thing loser and why pick three words out of the mans testimony ?  It is not even one full sentence of his testimony with no context and then misquote him on top of it all


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



oh so now its.. the names that _needed_ to be ..I Seeee...So the name of the person who  supposedly said the building didn't look straight is not.._needed_....lol... fucking clown


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

*Comments on NIST briefing collapse WTC 7 21 aug 200*8

http://www.tvcert.com/watch/9514/


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 28, 2010)

eots said:


> *Comments on NIST briefing collapse WTC 7 21 aug 200*8
> 
> Comments on NIST briefing collapse WTC 7 21 aug 2008 - TVcert



Got any physical evidence yet?


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *Comments on NIST briefing collapse WTC 7 21 aug 200*8
> ...



ya its right here

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A]YouTube - wtc 7 collapse[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 28, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


FAIL

as always


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 28, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


yes, you are a fucking clown


----------



## slackjawed (Sep 28, 2010)

poor misguided eots


eots, based on your posts in this thread i am assuming that your crop was good this year......


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

I am comfortable with my analysis and findings that I kicked your virtual assess in this "debate"


----------



## eots (Sep 28, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> poor misguided eots
> 
> 
> eots, based on your posts in this thread i am assuming that your crop was good this year......



you are irrelevant, you bring nothing of substance  ..you are a buffoon that lacks  any sense of wit or humor, yet tries so very hard...sad but true


----------



## slackjawed (Sep 28, 2010)

eots, i am only on here tonight because I am in town. I don't have internet access where I spend the summer.

I didn't take aprt in the great debate you speak of, I only showed up just now and read the thread.



Quite entertaining, yet disturbing as well.........


----------



## slackjawed (Sep 28, 2010)

eots said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > poor misguided eots
> ...



If you come up in two weeks, you can go on my elk hunt with me, and the trout fishing should be some of the best of the year as well.


----------



## Fizz (Sep 29, 2010)

eots said:


> I am comfortable with my analysis and findings that I kicked your virtual assess in this "debate"


Still waiting for you to back up your claim that the NIST said fires alone caused the collapse. 

Or maybe you misspelled "kissed" as "kicked", you uneducated moron.


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > I am comfortable with my analysis and findings that I kicked your virtual assess in this "debate"
> ...


*
shut  the fuck up..LEANING TOWER BOY *
Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone? The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2010)

Fizz said:


> *Captain Chris Boyle
> Engine 94 - 18 years *
> 
> Boyle: ... on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all,
> ...



*link the article you stupid fuck*


----------



## Citizen Pat (Sep 29, 2010)

Too bad your survey question did not offer None of the above or Other.  I stand with evidence until new evidence disproves the provided evidence.  So far: 
1.  Oxford Encyclopedia, 1990 called the WTC was built with a concrete core; 
2. The original stamped approved structural plans were NEVER given to the law enforcement, 9/11 Commission or NIST.  Why?  
3.  Newsweek a few days after 9/11 quotes the original architect Robertson, that WTC had a tube in tube concrete core.  
4.  FEMA uses an earlier rendering without the japanese structural engineer's'recommended core construction detail, without insisting the Port Authority turn over the originally stamped approved plans.
5.  Giuliani is allowed to leave office with the original approved plans, all photos and images and turns them over to an entity.    
6.  I reviewed the Silverstein leaked plans, missing elevator construction details, and more alarmingly altered revision tables.  Would the real plans have cost him a double hit on the insurance payment.  
7.  3,000 people show death certificates for a plane hitting the building.  The real cause of death would be complete pulverization from an explosion brought on by controlled demolition and a building built to demolish.
8.  Were the tenants in either WTC ever informed they were sitting on plastic coated rebar which would pulverize in an attack?  Not sure the rents would be so high if they knew beforehand.  Moreover, Silverstein might have had to pay the victims families damages from the insurance he received, had they challenged their leases with a short term owner.

I am sure the defense lawyers for the perpetrators will delight in the official story that will not convict one person, even if arrested, arraigned and in trial.


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2010)

Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Sep 29, 2010)

Citizen Pat said:


> Too bad your survey question did not offer None of the above or Other.  I stand with evidence until new evidence disproves the provided evidence.  So far:
> 1.  Oxford Encyclopedia, 1990 called the WTC was built with a concrete core;
> 2. The original stamped approved structural plans were NEVER given to the law enforcement, 9/11 Commission or NIST.  Why?
> 3.  Newsweek a few days after 9/11 quotes the original architect Robertson, that WTC had a tube in tube concrete core.
> ...



Nice try, Goof-0-phera, but I see through your bullshit liitle name change trick.

Don't you know registering multiple accounts is a violation of the ToS?
Much like copyright violation.


----------



## Citizen Pat (Sep 29, 2010)

The concrete core with plastic explosive coated rebar explains complete pulverization.  In a court of law, if we are ever blessed by our constitution to actually get these perps into a court room, your theory of melted steel facade caused collapse could be seriously challenged by the defense by their scientific evidence in a court of law.


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *Comments on NIST briefing collapse WTC 7 21 aug 200*8
> ...



*Idiot*

Your entire investigation included no physical evidence. How can you be so sure you know what happened?
In general, much less evidence existed for WTC 7 than for the two WTC towers. The steel for WTC 1 and WTC 2 contained distinguishing characteristics that enabled it to be identified once removed from the site during recovery efforts. However, the same was not true for the WTC 7 steel. Certainly, there is a lot less visual and audio evidence of the WTC 7 collapse compared to the collapses of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 towers, which were much more widely photographed.
Nonetheless, the NIST investigation of WTC 7 is based on a huge amount of data. These data come from extensive research, interviews, and studies of the building, including audio and video recordings of the collapse. Rigorous, state-of-the-art *computer methods were designed to study and model the building's collapse*. These validated computer models produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred. In addition to using its in-house expertise, NIST relied upon private sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs and videos of this disaster; conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7 performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001, and combined the knowledge gained into *a "probable" collapse sequence.*


----------



## Citizen Pat (Sep 29, 2010)

Believe it or not, there are intelligent citizens out here that see the truth, even if you have blinders on.  I am a woman, citizen, and daughter, sister and aunt to many U.S. military men.  Do not infer something you have no idea about.  You insult my intelligence and you weaken your stature in my eyes.  I request a retraction from you.


----------



## Citizen Pat (Sep 29, 2010)

WTC 1 and 2 controlled demolition caused the greatest loss of life from a single criminal act.  If these buildings were built as the military was doing with missile silos at the same time, then they were built to come down without dropping on six acres of other buildings.  That would be an important fact to follow.


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2010)

Citizen Pat said:


> WTC 1 and 2 controlled demolition caused the greatest loss of life from a single criminal act.  If these buildings were built as the military was doing with missile silos at the same time, then they were built to come down without dropping on six acres of other buildings.  That would be an important fact to follow.



Well I see wtc 7 as the most clearly improbable of the collapses..and if you prove that the rest would follow but thats one opinion..if you think otherwise go for it ..ultimately the most critical realization is that the  commission reports and NIST are without question cover-ups designed to obscure the truth


----------



## Fizz (Sep 29, 2010)

eots said:


> shut  the fuck up.._LEANING TOWER BOY _[/B]
> Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone? The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system.
> 
> Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation



nice. you were shown that first responders said the building was leaning and your response is "shut the fuck up"!!! 

yeah.... you are REALLY seeking the truth!!! 

you see that silly thing in the silly phrase you made enormous letters of? it looks like this ---------> *?*

so you know what that is? 

of course you don't or you would understand that it is a question and not a statement. the NIST did NOT state the buildings collapsed due to FIRE ALONE!! 

you lied!! 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf7Z_I1CAZ4&feature=channel]YouTube - WTC 7's structural integrity and its footprint[/ame]


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > shut  the fuck up.._LEANING TOWER BOY _[/B]
> ...



*nist wrote the entire piece both question and answers dipshit*


----------



## Fizz (Sep 29, 2010)

looks like chris has a new fake nick name!!



Citizen Pat said:


> Too bad your survey question did not offer None of the above or Other.  I stand with evidence until new evidence disproves the provided evidence.  So far:


ok. let's see your evidence then......


Citizen Pat said:


> 1.  Oxford Encyclopedia, 1990 called the WTC was built with a concrete core;


 no. oxford used the WTC as an example of what a skyscraper is. then it is said that SKYSCRAPERS have concrete and steel cores. they are correct since the WTC has a steel core.


Citizen Pat said:


> 2. The original stamped approved structural plans were NEVER given to the law enforcement, 9/11 Commission or NIST.  Why?


 says who? show your proof/


Citizen Pat said:


> 3.  Newsweek a few days after 9/11 quotes the original architect Robertson, that WTC had a tube in tube concrete core.


 no it doesnt. the reporter said it. not robertson. robertson later clarified that the article is wrong and it has a steel core.


Citizen Pat said:


> 4.  FEMA uses an earlier rendering without the japanese structural engineer's'recommended core construction detail, without insisting the Port Authority turn over the originally stamped approved plans.


 proof please, chris.... err pat.... whatever. we keep asking for it and you never give us any documentation to back up the stupid claim.


Citizen Pat said:


> 5.  Giuliani is allowed to leave office with the original approved plans, all photos and images and turns them over to an entity.


 a complete lie and totally absurd. there is NOTHING that states guilianni EVER had the building plans.  


Citizen Pat said:


> 6.  I reviewed the Silverstein leaked plans, missing elevator construction details, and more alarmingly altered revision tables.  Would the real plans have cost him a double hit on the insurance payment.


 yawn....


Citizen Pat said:


> 7.  3,000 people show death certificates for a plane hitting the building.  The real cause of death would be complete pulverization from an explosion brought on by controlled demolition and a building built to demolish.


 no. 3000 people have HOMICIDE written on their death certificates. it doesnt say " a plane hitting the building" or any other of your stupid shit.


Citizen Pat said:


> 8.  Were the tenants in either WTC ever informed they were sitting on plastic coated rebar which would pulverize in an attack?  Not sure the rents would be so high if they knew beforehand.  Moreover, Silverstein might have had to pay the victims families damages from the insurance he received, had they challenged their leases with a short term owner.
> 
> I am sure the defense lawyers for the perpetrators will delight in the official story that will not convict one person, even if arrested, arraigned and in trial.



proof of the plastic coated rebar please. you said you follow facts. where is your proof of this claim?


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2010)

you have one firemen stating it doesn't look straight.. I have provided several that say differently and shown NIST makes no mention of a lean and in fact the success and calculations of the computer model is designed with the data there is no leaning ..so there is a real problem if the man you present is correct inst there..it would in fact invalidate the nist model and bring the entire investigation into question...btw you have still failed to provide a link to the print version of the testimony you provided...*why ?*


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2010)

Fizz said:


> *Captain Chris Boyle
> Engine 94 - 18 years *
> 
> Boyle: ... on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all,
> ...



when are you going to provide a link to where you got this ??


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 29, 2010)

Captain Chris Boyle | Firehouse.com


----------



## zzzz (Sep 29, 2010)

Eyewitness accounts are not to be taken at face value. In stressful situations human beings can imagine things and memories change over time. What apeared to be isn't what happened in reality.  So all these eyewitness statements, even from first responders have to be taken in context and with a certain degree of disbelief. 

Anytime anything happens there is always a conspiracy. At least to the paranoid ther is always a conspiracy. In reality there is nothing there but in a paranoids mind there are conspiracies all around every day, they can't help it! So do not get mad at them because they cannot control themselves. *They deserve to be pitied not scorned.*


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 29, 2010)

zzzz said:


> Eyewitness accounts are not to be taken at face value. In stressful situations human beings can imagine things and memories change over time. What apeared to be isn't what happened in reality.  So all these eyewitness statements, even from first responders have to be taken in context and with a certain degree of disbelief.
> 
> Anytime anything happens there is always a conspiracy. At least to the paranoid ther is always a conspiracy. In reality there is nothing there but in a paranoids mind there are conspiracies all around every day, they can't help it! So do not get mad at them because they cannot control themselves. *They deserve to be pitied not scorned.*



This is so very true. Ask two people who were 20 feet away from each other during a firefight and you will get two different stories about what actually happened.


----------



## GHook93 (Sep 29, 2010)

Kalam said:


> Nor do I. I acknowledge that the act was perpetrated by al-Qa'idah but absolutely believe that the US government "let it happen" in some sense.



Like Pearl Harbor huh? 

I don't buy it! Rather I think America was sleeping at the wheel. I think we saw an Islamofacist threat, but believed it was an overseas threat! But glad to see your only a half-truther, which makes you only half-retarded and not a full retard like EOTS, 9/11 Insider, Terrel, PF Titmore and Freeman!


----------



## GHook93 (Sep 29, 2010)

blu said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Nor do I. I acknowledge that the act was perpetrated by al-Qa'idah but absolutely believe that the US government "let it happen" in some sense.
> ...



Are you kidding too much to lose by letting it happen! Believe it or not I don't think America wanted to find themselves in the hell-hole called Afghanistan. I don't think they wanted the big hit to the economy immediately after the attack. 

Also if you think Bush and the Republicans wanted it to remain in power, well the Republicans lost the house, senate and Presidency!


----------



## GHook93 (Sep 29, 2010)

blu said:


> iraq was the only country stopping iran from becoming what is now and the super power it will be in the next few years


LOL Bluballs, Iraq was the only polarizing force in the middle east no doubt, but they are FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR away from becoming a super power. Do you leftist assholes even believe the shit you type?


----------



## GHook93 (Sep 29, 2010)

eots said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the theory that doesn't violate the laws of physics or rely on irrational hatred as "proof".  And so far in the polling, 2 people prefer the violations of natural laws and irrational hatred.
> ...



LOL coming from a self-proclaimed drug addict! Classic!


----------



## GHook93 (Sep 29, 2010)

It was the Martians. 
Step One: 9/11!!! 
Step Two: Come out of the ground in tripods killing everything in their path.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Sep 29, 2010)

GHook93 said:


> It was the Martians.
> Step One: 9/11!!!
> Step Two: Come out of the ground in tripods killing everything in their path.



Was Bush a martian?

Cheney, sure Cheney is a martian, or ***** Martian, as the case may be.

I love reading crap like this, you can tell who is nuts  and who isn't.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Sep 29, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



17. The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower. &#8211; Fire Captain Brenda Berkman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)

18. At that point, they said that Seven World Trade had no face and it was ready to collapse. &#8211; EMT Mercedes Rivera: (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 29)

19.  You see the white smoke, you see the thing leaning like this? It's definitely going. There's no way to stop it. 'Cause you have to go up in there to put it out, and it's already, the structural integrity is not there. &#8211;Unidentified firefighter


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Sep 29, 2010)

1.  They backed me off the rig because Seven was in dead jeopardy, so they backed everybody off and moved us to the rear end of Vesey Street. We just stood there for a half hour, 40 minutes, because Seven was in imminent collapse and finally did come down. &#8211;Firefighter Thomas Smith    
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110246.PDF

2.  Chief Nigro directed me to continue monitoring conditions at the site. Specifically to monitor number 7 World Trade Center. We were very concerned with the collapse potential there, and to do whatever I could do to ensure site safety in that no additional people became injured. &#8211;FDNY Deputy Chief Harold Meyers  http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110382.PDF

3.  We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.  So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex.  &#8211;Chief Frank Fellini http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110217.PDF

4.  We made searches. We attempted to put some of the fire out, but we had a pressure problem. I forget the name of the Deputy. Some Deputy arrived at the scene and thought that the building was too dangerous to continue with operations, so we evacuated number 7 World Trade Center. &#8211;Captain Anthony Varriale  http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF

5.  I remember him screaming about number 7, No. 7, that they wanted everybody away from 7 because 7 was definitely going to collapse, they don't know when, but it's definitely going to come down, just get the hell out of the way, everybody get away from it, make sure you're away from it, that's an order, you know, stuff like that.  &#8211;Firefighter Edward Kennedy http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110502.PDF

6.  Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area --

Q. A collapse zone?

A. Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed. They shut down the power, and when it did collapse, the things that they were concerned with would have been [sic]. That's about it. &#8211;Chief Frank Cruthers
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110179.PDF


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Sep 29, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Ok How about this one.
> OK city was an inside job.
> the 176 victims  never died
> The bodies came from prison labs doing DNA research to turn jews into monkeys as per  the Quran.
> ...



So you are saying that this is the true  theory


----------



## Jeremy (Sep 29, 2010)

Jeremy said:


> You forgot the fifth theory.
> AIDS infested leprechauns suffering from Tourettes syndrome let loose in the buildings the night before to help with an out of control infestation of rabid spider monkeys.



I still prefer this theory...


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> 1.  They backed me off the rig because Seven was in dead jeopardy, so they backed everybody off and moved us to the rear end of Vesey Street. We just stood there for a half hour, 40 minutes, because Seven was in imminent collapse and finally did come down. Firefighter Thomas Smith
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110246.PDF
> 
> 2.  Chief Nigro directed me to continue monitoring conditions at the site. Specifically to monitor number 7 World Trade Center. We were very concerned with the collapse potential there, and to do whatever I could do to ensure site safety in that no additional people became injured. FDNY Deputy Chief Harold Meyers  http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110382.PDF
> ...



there is absolutely nothing of relevance here..it is people being told the building could collapse..thats it


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2010)

mr.fitnah said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 29, 2010)

Why would eots care about a link? He won't read them anyway. Or if he does he ignores any information that doesn't fit his screwed up theories.


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Why would eots care about a link? He won't read them anyway. Or if he does he ignores any information that doesn't fit his screwed up theories.



fuck off loser..I will read them so I can note shit like.."woman near wtc." and  "unidentified firefighter".you fucks dont want to post a link because the sites are crap ..most likely popular mechanics, furthermore usmb policy is to link to copyright materials shit for brains


----------



## Jeremy (Sep 29, 2010)




----------



## Fizz (Sep 29, 2010)

eots said:


> *nist wrote the entire piece both question and answers dipshit*



great. now we are getting somewhere. now learn the difference between a question and an answer and you will see that the NIST never says wtc7 was brought down by "fire alone"

twoofers are truly fucking morons.


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *nist wrote the entire piece both question and answers dipshit*
> ...



if the only role falling debris played in the collapse of the tower is to ignite the fires then LOGICALLY any other source of ignition would create the same result as acknowledged by NIST..one could say lit matches and the issuing fires caused the collapse...not the "fire alone"...fire alone caused the collapse of wtc 7 according to NIST... structural damage played no role in the collapse other than as a source of ignition..those are the facts according to NIST no matter how you try to play with the words...BTW...when are you going to provide a link to your firefighter testimony ???


----------



## Fizz (Sep 29, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



once again....its a fucking moronic twoofer caught lying and trying to wiggle out of it. at no point does the NIST say "fires alone caused the collapse" as you claim. then you go on some rant about tower damage and igniting the fires. 

it is irrelevant to your statement. you state the NIST said fires alone caused the collapse. they didnt. *you lied.* it cant get more simple than that.


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



so what did NIST say then ?..did NIST say structural damage caused the collapse ?..no.. did nist say explosions caused the collapse ?..no did NIST say FIRE caused the collapse...yes...they used the phrase _primarily_ due to fire because the falling debris ignited the fire but acknowledge  that is the ONLY role damage played in the collapse..So answer one question fizzel what role did falling debris and damage play iin the collapse of wtc 7 and what role did fire play ??....or are you too dishonest to answer this question..and btw where is the link to your leaning tower story ?????....fucker


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2010)

Nist   clearly states the discovered an extraordinary event a fire induced progressive collapse...not a collapse induced by structural damage and fire....So according to NIST
WHAT INDUCED THE COLLAPSE FIZZ ???


----------



## Mortimer (Sep 29, 2010)

Im sure the islamists are responsible


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 29, 2010)

InquiringMind said:


> Im sure the islamists are responsible



Are you certain? I thought so too, but this martian thing has some possibilities....


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2010)

InquiringMind said:


> Im sure the islamists are responsible



the issue of who is responsible and the failure of the NIST report are separate issues


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> InquiringMind said:
> 
> 
> > Im sure the islamists are responsible
> ...



Ollie please explain your understanding of the nist final report  wtc 7


----------



## JiggsCasey (Sep 29, 2010)

Fizz said:


> twoofers are truly fucking morons.



Are you ever able to debate without going into a tarrets-laiden, hyperactive meltdown? Take your meds, and try to stop being a perpetual dick on an issue that obviously puts you on noticeable tilt.

I find you coincitards spend inordinate amounts of energy countering goofy "Loose Change" controlled demolition nonsense. Great. All you've proven is you've managed to conflate MIHOP with LIHOP. .... Yet when presented with hard, court-admissible LIHOP evidence, you stare distantly, blinking in silence, before evading the challenge. That's because you have no answer for it.

You rest entirely on "yeah but" speculation. You assert this bogus assumption that federal officials have this "sense of patriotism" and would never keep it secret. Yet you can never, NEVER counter the fact that precedent has been set (Tonkin, Manhattan Project, Northwoods, Roldos, Torrijos) for keeping secrets for decades. It is undeniable (with any semblance of a straight face) that diabolical technocrats will attempt untold evil in order to dupe Americans into accepting some nefarious geopolitical goal.

So cut the crap.  We're all painfully aware that the fake cowboy Bush Administration is/was your favorite administration of all-time. But you can never convincingly tell the other two-thirds of us that justice was served in the "investigation" into the greatest crime in U.S. history. Because it wasn't. Period.

It never followed the money trail, it never admitted FBI suppression of existing surveillance, it never demanded accountability for the fact that over a dozen foreign intelligence services warned the Bush Administration that an attack using hijacked airlines was imminent. And worst of all, it put a Bush WH, Iraq occupation policy writer in charge of steering the entire 9/11 Commission, ignoring subpoena power and firing commissioners who demanded real answers.

Your heroes were, at best, grossly negligent, and at worst, complicit in the attacks. You can not deny that the results worked out just perfect for their PRINTED goals written in their PNAC document and "The Grand Chessboard," a book written in the 90s by a man they all admired who served on the Tri-lateral Commission.


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2010)

Well there is really no question that I know more about the official explanation of the collapse than all the debunkers put together,however they are getting schooled ..it would seem that there understanding of the wtc collapses wasarrived at mainly  from the popular mechanics novel debunking 9/11 myths..which was published before the final NIST reports and contains an abundance of disinformation NIST  was forced to abandon to create a virtual collapse scenario that would appear anywhere near similar to the actual event
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY]YouTube - WTC 7 NIST Model vs. Reality[/ame]


----------



## eots (Sep 29, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > twoofers are truly fucking morons.
> ...



you should take a look at this site ,if you have not yet I am sure you would find it interesting

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## Citizen Pat (Sep 30, 2010)

The Port Authority has a duty to turn over their approved stamped and archived original plans to a federal Grand Jury.



Citizen Pat said:


> WTC 1 and 2 controlled demolition caused the greatest loss of life from a single criminal act.  If these buildings were built as the military was doing with missile silos at the same time, then they were built to come down without dropping on six acres of other buildings.  That would be an important fact to follow.


----------



## Fizz (Sep 30, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



*Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.*

so tell us all how "fire alone" creates long-span floors. 
so tell us all how "fire alone" designed structural elements that were not designed horizontal loads.  

why dont you LIE and tell us all again that the NIST said "fires alone" caused the collapse.


----------



## Fizz (Sep 30, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > twoofers are truly fucking morons.
> ...



debate? i'm not here to debate. i'm here to laugh at you fucking idiots!!


----------



## eots (Sep 30, 2010)

fizz said:


> jiggscasey said:
> 
> 
> > fizz said:
> ...



lol that is the standard line with these assholes every time they lose a debate on 9/11...


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 30, 2010)

You have no video or picture of  WTC7 "leaning". There were even claims of a bulge and a hole, but NO pics or video of any of it. 

Considering how far away building 7 was from WTC 1 and 2, there was no way that kind of damage could have occured. 









But, in the Land of Fairy Tales, in which you live Fizz, I guess anything is possible.


----------



## eots (Sep 30, 2010)

fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > fizz said:
> ...



the idiot you are here laugh at must be yourself...because you are not here to debate..so you agree structural damage and stored fuel was insignificant to the initiation of collapse...hey fizz did you the fact the building was ever built regardless of its structural design contributed to its collapse as well..lol


----------



## eots (Sep 30, 2010)

hollybaere said:


> you have no video or picture of  wtc7 "leaning". There were even claims of a bulge and a hole, but no pics or video of any of it.
> 
> Considering how far away building 7 was from wtc 1 and 2, there was no way that kind of damage could have occured.
> 
> ...



thats not true they provided an _unidentified firefighter_ who says it was not straight and a _woman near the tower _that said it was leaning...lol


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Sep 30, 2010)

eots said:


> hollybaere said:
> 
> 
> > you have no video or picture of  wtc7 "leaning". There were even claims of a bulge and a hole, but no pics or video of any of it.
> ...


Yeah, the  names of the unknown firefighters describing the  condition of WTC7 before its  predicted collapse.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2789080-post579.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2789080-post580.html


----------



## eots (Sep 30, 2010)

mr.fitnah said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > hollybaere said:
> ...



there are only a couple of qoutes there none of them say it was leaning and they only speak of how some unnamed "they" told them it was going to collapse ....*you still have not provided a link*..fail


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 30, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Yeah, the  names of the unknown firefighters describing the  condition of WTC7 before its  predicted collapse.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/2789080-post579.html
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/2789080-post580.html



Yeah and NONE of them said that building 7 was "leaning".


----------



## Hollybaere (Sep 30, 2010)

eots said:


> thats not true they provided an _unidentified firefighter_ who says it was not straight and a _woman near the tower _that said it was leaning...lol



You mean like this guy? An "unidentified witness" who turned out to be an actor.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0wHeekgPqk]YouTube - Who is this man? 9-11 official story started minutes after.[/ame]


----------



## eots (Sep 30, 2010)

yes joe 6 pack he was able minutes after the collapse to give the theory of an "extraordinary event" that nist took years to conclude


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Sep 30, 2010)

One thing is not in question about Building 7
oets cant  or will not read  . Chapter 5
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1.pdf


----------



## eots (Sep 30, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> One thing is not in question about Building 7
> oets cant  or will not read  . Chapter 5
> http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1.pdf



we have already read the report do you have a point  ?..and btw your link is fucked up


----------



## Fizz (Sep 30, 2010)

eots said:


> hey fizz did you the fact the building was ever built regardless of its structural design contributed to its collapse as well..lol



is this even in english? WTF?

you still want to stick to the lie that the NIST said "fires alone" caused the collapse or not. i'm still waiting for the link of where they said it.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Sep 30, 2010)

You have a mouse in your pocket?
the link  works fine.
The cumulus database and analysis illustrate  the debris tearing out  at least 10 floors of the south corner the floors below  floor 8 being not visible .

As to the analysis of hypothetic  blasts  they are categorically rejected in Chapter 8


----------



## Fizz (Sep 30, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > thats not true they provided an _unidentified firefighter_ who says it was not straight and a _woman near the tower _that said it was leaning...lol
> ...


oh my gosh!!! actors in new york?!! who would have guessed?!!!!

next thing you will tell me that there are also actors in los angeles!!!


----------



## eots (Sep 30, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Hollybaere said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



shut up..you are so stupid you think the fact the wtc was  built is a "cause" of its collapse ..because if it was never built ..it  never would have collapse..you are a complete idiot...


----------



## Fizz (Sep 30, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > Hollybaere said:
> ...



another fucking lie from the stoned bum.

show me where i said this, you fucking idiot!!


----------



## eots (Sep 30, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...





> so tell us all how "fire alone" creates long-span floors.
> So tell us all how "fire alone" designed structural elements that were not designed horizontal loads.
> 
> Why dont you lie and tell us all again that the nist said "fires alone" caused the collapse



according to NIST falling debris ignited and that fire that resulted in the collapse..you point to the structures that failed  due to fire  alone to try to suggest fire alone did not cause these structures to fail...you are a clown....what was the *sole cause* of these structures failing according to NIST.... fizzle ??


----------



## Fizz (Sep 30, 2010)

eots said:


> according to NIST falling debris ignited and that fire that resulted in the collapse..you point to the structures that failed  due to fire  alone to try to suggest fire alone did not cause these structures to fail...you are a clown....what was the *sole cause* of these structures failing according to NIST.... fizzle ??



no jackass. according to the NIST fire was the PRIMARY cause. why do you insist on changing what the report says to fit your own paranoid conspiracy theory? i am still waiting for you link to where the NIST stated "fires alone" caused the collapse. either post it or admit you lied and get over it. 

there was no "sole cause", moron. there were many factors involved.

_factors contributing to wtc 7's collapse included: The thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse._


----------



## JiggsCasey (Sep 30, 2010)

Fizz said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



That's about what I thought you had left if your arsenal. Out of bullets much?

When you're done masturbating over Loose Change goofiness, we'll be waiting for you over here at the real case: That your heroes let it happen on purpose, an aspect that you won't dare dispute, because you can't. ... Not with anything plausible beyond mere speculation.

Run along now, tarrets sufferer. Adults are talking.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 30, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > JiggsCasey said:
> ...



You know something as fact? Such as more than mere speculation?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Sep 30, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> You have a mouse in your pocket?
> the link  works fine.
> The cumulus database and analysis illustrate  the debris tearing out  at least 10 floors of the south corner the floors below  floor 8 being not visible .
> 
> As to the analysis of hypothetic  blasts  they are categorically rejected in Chapter 8


http://www.usmessageboard.com/2792688-post615.html


The More you read of the reports

NIST and the World Trade Center

The  more evidence there is the troofers are  new type of idiot .


----------



## eots (Sep 30, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > according to NIST falling debris ignited and that fire that resulted in the collapse..you point to the structures that failed  due to fire  alone to try to suggest fire alone did not cause these structures to fail...you are a clown....what was the *sole cause* of these structures failing according to NIST.... fizzle ??
> ...



this describes the process ( according to NIST)_and the stuctures they say failed....not the *CAUSE*..without *FIRE *there would be no collapse because fire caused the collapse and I already posted where *NIST*
used the term.. *fire alone*...but then you are not here to debate...you are just a clown


----------



## eots (Sep 30, 2010)

> mr.fitnah;2794114]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



and do you have a clue how they determined this ?...no of course you dont:




> The more you read of the reports
> 
> nist and the world trade center
> 
> the  more evidence there is the troofers are  new type of idiot


----------



## JiggsCasey (Sep 30, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> > You know something as fact? Such as more than mere speculation?
> ...


----------



## Fizz (Sep 30, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> [
> That's about what I thought you had left if your arsenal. Out of bullets much?
> 
> When you're done masturbating over Loose Change goofiness, we'll be waiting for you over here at the real case: That your heroes let it happen on purpose, an aspect that you won't dare dispute, because you can't. ... Not with anything plausible beyond mere speculation.
> ...



another fucking idiot makes claims he cant back up.....

where did you ever here me state who my heroes are? let's see you link to that post. my heroes certainly are not anyone in government. i didnt even vote for bush, if thats what you want to claim.

so let's see your "let it happen on purpose" proof. oh, thats right. you have none.

epic fail.


----------



## Fizz (Sep 30, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



you really are a fucking idiot. you posted a QUESTION, not a statement, that contained "fires alone". then it goes on to refute that. you are too stupid for words.

of course without fire there would have been no collapse.... and without the towers collapsing there would have been no fire... and without planes hitting the towers the towers wouldnt have collapsed..... so are you now going to make the fucking claim that PLANES ALONE caused wtc7 to collapse? you really are a fucking moron. the NIST report clearly states what they believe caused the collapse and it does not say it was FIRES ALONE as you claim it does. you lie. it cant get much more simple than that.


----------



## eots (Sep 30, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



no where after the" question"..they pose.. to themselves..the do not go on to refute it.. absolutely not ..they change the wording a little elaborate a little but confirm the statement


----------



## eots (Sep 30, 2010)

Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm


----------



## Fizz (Sep 30, 2010)

eots said:


> Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?
> Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation



RIGHT. because it had the same design flaws with and without the damage. it still doesnt say "fires alone" caused the collapse.

from the same link you provided....

Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building *due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building*.


----------



## eots (Sep 30, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?
> ...



once again that is describing the process of the failure...the CAUSE of the buckling they describe was...FIRE


----------



## eots (Sep 30, 2010)

fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > would wtc 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the wtc towers?
> ...



*nist never coincides  design flaws*


----------



## Fizz (Oct 1, 2010)

eots said:


> fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



and they never say "fire alone" caused the collapse. you lied. you got caught.


----------



## Fizz (Oct 1, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



uh no... once again you are wrong. the cause of the buckling was that column 79 was unsupported for nine stories due to floors 13 to 5 collapsing.

why dont you simply stick to what the NIST actually says instead of trying to spin it into your "fires alone" lie.....

for someone that claims to be an expert on wtc7 you sure do make an awful lot of fuck-ups. but i'm sure thats consistent with the rest of your life.

_Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.
The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.
_


----------



## eots (Oct 1, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



it buckled because of the_ fires_ caused other to collapse not because of structural damage from debris as you deceptively try to imply


Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.


----------



## Fizz (Oct 1, 2010)

eots said:


> it buckled because of the_ fires_ caused other to collapse not because of structural damage from debris as you deceptively try to imply
> 
> 
> Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?
> Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.



listen, idiot. you claim that the NIST said *fires alone* caused the collapse. its a lie. how far back do you wish to take the cause of the collapse? column 79 buckled because it was unsupported by floors 13 to 5. (no, the fires didnt directly cause it to buckle like you claimed earlier). the floors collapsed due to thermal expansion. the thermal expansion was caused by the fires. the fires were caused by the collapse of the towers. the collapse of the towers were caused by planes hitting them......

therefore, by your logic.... planes alone caused the collapse of WTC7!!! 

why dont you just quit lying and stick to what the NIST report ACTUALLY says instead of making shit up. fires were the primary cause of collapse along with several other factors.

the NIST does not say fires alone caused the collapse. you blatantly are lying when you say that and you know it.


----------



## eots (Oct 1, 2010)

nist did say fires alone...they wrote the NIST fact Sheet.no one else and they do not refute the question they posed, they confirm it....with the admission that similar fires ignited by any other means would of created the same result ...you continue to describe the process of failure and the structures that failed as cause


----------



## eots (Oct 1, 2010)

"This would be the first known instance of fire causing the complete collapse of a tall building "

http://wtc.nist.gov/


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 1, 2010)




----------



## eots (Oct 1, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


>



this pretty much sums up lil Ollies intellect...No wonder he took a job thats almost impossible to get fired from and they tell you how to eat ..sleep and shit


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 1, 2010)

Actually, I sent many home to mommy. I feel confident that you would have been one of them.

And the point is that those 2 words are about all the intellect that you can understand. Anything any more complicated than that you get lost on.


----------



## eots (Oct 1, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Actually, I sent many home to mommy. I feel confident that you would have been one of them.
> 
> And the point is that those 2 words are about all the intellect that you can understand. Anything any more complicated than that you get lost on.



so thats your excuse for your lack...stop projecting li Ollie...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 1, 2010)

You so funny.


I lack nothing.


----------



## Fizz (Oct 1, 2010)

eots said:


> nist did say fires alone...they wrote the NIST fact Sheet.no one else and they do not refute the question they posed, they confirm it....with the admission that similar fires ignited by any other means would of created the same result ...you continue to describe the process of failure and the structures that failed as cause



you fucking moron. go learn the difference between a QUESTION and a STATEMENT then come back and tell us all again how the NIST says "fires alone" caused the collapse.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 10, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > nist did say fires alone...they wrote the NIST fact Sheet.no one else and they do not refute the question they posed, they confirm it....with the admission that similar fires ignited by any other means would of created the same result ...you continue to describe the process of failure and the structures that failed as cause
> ...



You're calling others names when you can't comprehend basic english?  Nist said 7 would have collapsed even without any structural damage.  That means fire alone caused the collapse.  Why is it you OCTAs have to be taught the official version every single time you try to discuss the issue?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 10, 2010)

Let's see how deep the sea of OCTA stubborn stoopidity goes.

The beloved OCTA source of Popular Mechanics pointed out over two years ago:

"Fire alone brought down the building, the report concludes..."


NIST lead investigatorShyam Sunder told journalists at this morning's press conference in Gaithersburg, Md. "WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires."

So the lead NIST dude even says fire caused the collapse.
World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics

OCTAs are usually 6-8 years behind on information so maybe around 2015 they will learn the conclusion of the NIST report.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 10, 2010)

Glad to see you finally accept the truth that there was no planned demolition.....


----------



## Fizz (Oct 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Nist said 7 would have collapsed even without any structural damage.


right.


CurveLight said:


> That means fire alone caused the collapse.


wrong.


CurveLight said:


> Why is it you OCTAs have to be taught the official version every single time you try to discuss the issue?


why is it that you need to change what the NIST says? they said fire was the primary cause. they then listed other factors. so why do you keep ignoring that? you do know what "primary" means, dont ya?


by the way.... find any evidence of explosives yet?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 10, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Glad to see you finally accept the truth that there was no planned demolition.....



I never claimed there was a planned demo.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 10, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Nist said 7 would have collapsed even without any structural damage.
> ...




Let's see how deep the sea of OCTA stubborn stoopidity goes.

The beloved OCTA source of Popular Mechanics pointed out over two years ago:

"Fire alone brought down the building, the report concludes..."


NIST lead investigatorShyam Sunder told journalists at this morning's press conference in Gaithersburg, Md. "WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires."

So the lead NIST dude even says fire caused the collapse.
World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics

OCTAs are usually 6-8 years behind on information so maybe around 2015 they will learn the conclusion of the NIST report.


----------



## Fizz (Oct 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



holy fuck, you twoofers are fucking idiots!! why is this so difficult for you? what part of this are you having trouble understanding? EOTS claimed the NIST said "fires alone" caused the collapse. thats a lie.

i dont give a fuck about popular mechanics unless you are going to claim that popular mechanics is part of the NIST. 

idEOTS claimed somebody said something they didnt. he lied. end of story.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 10, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



NIST lead investigator:

"WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings."


----------



## candycorn (Oct 10, 2010)

On this topic...

I believe 180 degrees opposite of whatever curvelight (aka bent tight) believes.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 10, 2010)

Doesn't curvelight all of a sudden sound exactly like Id eots?


----------



## eots (Oct 10, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Doesn't curvelight all of a sudden sound exactly like Id eots?



says cuntycorns sock puppet


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 10, 2010)

Sure I am. What ever you want to believe.....


----------



## eots (Oct 10, 2010)

hey lil Ollie what caused the wtc 7 to collapse  ? other than the fires ??


----------



## eots (Oct 10, 2010)

hey lilollie if there was no damage to the wtc 7 and no stored fuel..if it was in pristine condition and you started the same fires  what would of happened to the building according to NIST ?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 10, 2010)

Oh just little things like 110 stories falling on it knocking out the water mains and starting the fires. You know, little shit like that. It builds up into all the little reasons that fire was able to take out a building....

For instance, if you were to sneak into the building and started a fire in an office, the building would not have fallen from that fire. Why? because you wouldn't take out the sprinklers and the water mains... For starters..... But to your way of thinking that doesn't matter..... So neither does anything else......It's OK, we understand.....


----------



## eots (Oct 10, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Oh just little things like 110 stories falling on it knocking out the water mains and starting the fires. You know, little shit like that. It builds up into all the little reasons that fire was able to take out a building....
> 
> For instance, if you were to sneak into the building and started a fire in an office, the building would not have fallen from that fire. Why? because you wouldn't take out the sprinklers and the water mains... For starters..... But to your way of thinking that doesn't matter..... So neither does anything else......It's OK, we understand.....



same fires lil olie..that means without sprinklers on several floors...what would of happened to the wtc 7 according to nist ???


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 10, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Doesn't curvelight all of a sudden sound exactly like Id eots?



Like a little bitch you ignore your own false claim and what the lead nist investigator stated.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 10, 2010)

Without any means of fighting the fire, the building would eventually come down. No matter how you want to spin it there were reasons. And none of those reasons were controlled demolition.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 10, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Oh just little things like 110 stories falling on it knocking out the water mains and starting the fires. You know, little shit like that. It builds up into all the little reasons that fire was able to take out a building....
> 
> For instance, if you were to sneak into the building and started a fire in an office, the building would not have fallen from that fire. Why? because you wouldn't take out the sprinklers and the water mains... For starters..... But to your way of thinking that doesn't matter..... So neither does anything else......It's OK, we understand.....



Nist said even without any damage from the towers collapsing that 7 still would have collapsed from the fires.  Will you ever learn the basics of your own position?


----------



## eots (Oct 10, 2010)

the reality is no one can debate the NIST report because if most of the public took the time to understand it they would reject it, to keep the 9/11 myth alive it is existential to cloak the NIST report in confusion by mixing it with the popular mechanics narrative of raging uncontrolled fires, stored fuel explosions, massive damage to the building from 110 story buildings falling on it....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 10, 2010)

My only position is that there was no controlled demolition. You see i don't have to prove how right or wrong some report might be. I agree with them that there were no planted explosives. Now if you want to disprove that, have at it. I don't give a rats ass if you think they are wrong that fires brought down WTC 7. They are right that planted explosives did not, because there were no planted explosives.

One more time.

*There was no controlled demolition of any of the WTC buildings on 9-11-01.*


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 10, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Without any means of fighting the fire, the building would eventually come down. No matter how you want to spin it there were reasons. And none of those reasons were controlled demolition.



You're such a dishonest fucking princess.


----------



## eots (Oct 10, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> My only position is that there was no controlled demolition. You see i don't have to prove how right or wrong some report might be. I agree with them that there were no planted explosives. Now if you want to disprove that, have at it. I don't give a rats ass if you think they are wrong that fires brought down WTC 7. They are right that planted explosives did not, because there were no planted explosives.
> 
> One more time.
> 
> *There was no controlled demolition of any of the WTC buildings on 9-11-01.*



so you do not care if the NIST report failed to  determine the cause of the collapse but yet accept their findings as accurate..I see

*In the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting as correct two mutually contradictory beliefs. It is related to, but distinct from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Its opposite is cognitive dissonance, where the two beliefs cause conflict in one's mind.*


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 10, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> My only position is that there was no controlled demolition. You see i don't have to prove how right or wrong some report might be. I agree with them that there were no planted explosives. Now if you want to disprove that, have at it. I don't give a rats ass if you think they are wrong that fires brought down WTC 7. They are right that planted explosives did not, because there were no planted explosives.
> 
> One more time.
> 
> *There was no controlled demolition of any of the WTC buildings on 9-11-01.*



Your only position is the one the government tells you to have.  Be good and you'll get good little boy patriotic treats later.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > My only position is that there was no controlled demolition. You see i don't have to prove how right or wrong some report might be. I agree with them that there were no planted explosives. Now if you want to disprove that, have at it. I don't give a rats ass if you think they are wrong that fires brought down WTC 7. They are right that planted explosives did not, because there were no planted explosives.
> ...



What's your position bentdick? Have you decided on one yet? Or do you still want to deny that you are just another truther stooge?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 10, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




You don't care what my position is because you don't even care what NIST's report says.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 10, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > My only position is that there was no controlled demolition. You see i don't have to prove how right or wrong some report might be. I agree with them that there were no planted explosives. Now if you want to disprove that, have at it. I don't give a rats ass if you think they are wrong that fires brought down WTC 7. They are right that planted explosives did not, because there were no planted explosives.
> ...



I don't see doublethink here.  His position is no explosives were used and N's Report says fire brought it down.  Granted, he can't claim a negative and fire along bringing down a skyscraper is something that happened only on 9E but 1984 seems to get bandied about a bit too much.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 10, 2010)

Mares eat eots  and does eat eots.
And little lambs eat ivy. A kiddle eat ivy too wouldnt  ewe?


----------



## eots (Oct 11, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Mares eat eots  and does eat eots.
> And little lambs eat ivy. A kiddle eat ivy too wouldnt  ewe?



another defeated cretin left to babble his gibberish in its last flailing attempts...


----------



## JiggsCasey (Oct 11, 2010)

Fizz said:


> another fucking idiot makes claims he cant back up.....



lol... torrets can be contained via medication. seek it.



Fizz said:


> so let's see your "let it happen on purpose" proof. oh, thats right. you have none.



you mean besides the Phoenix Memo? the ISI's wire transfer to Atta, and the wildly abnormal insider trading on affected corporations shortly before 9/11?



Fizz said:


> epic fail.



you should generally wait for an answer before declaring victory, tool box. ... else you look glucose-addled. ... Cut down on the sugar sticks, k?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Oh just little things like 110 stories falling on it knocking out the water mains and starting the fires. You know, little shit like that. It builds up into all the little reasons that fire was able to take out a building....
> ...



The fire was feed from a huge fuel tank in the basement. No sprinklers to fight it and the fire department abandoned the building and ANNOUNCED it would collapse from the fire. Pretty simple concept actually.


----------



## Fizz (Oct 11, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > another fucking idiot makes claims he cant back up.....
> ...


i dont have torrets. i dont have Turrets either. when i see a fucking idiot making stupid statements i have no problem calling them a fucking idiot. if you dont want to be called a fucking idiot then stop being one and i will stop calling you one.



JiggsCasey said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > so let's see your "let it happen on purpose" proof. oh, thats right. you have none.
> ...


somebody clearly dropped the ball. that does not equate to "letting it happen on purpose" and having clearly sinister intentions. 


JiggsCasey said:


> the ISI's wire transfer to Atta,


 so now the ISI is part of the american government?!! 


JiggsCasey said:


> and the wildly abnormal insider trading on affected corporations shortly before 9/11?


ok, now prove who did the trading. otherwise your just throwing shit against the wall hoping something sticks. 


Fizz said:


> epic fail.





JiggsCasey said:


> you should generally wait for an answer before declaring victory, tool box. ... else you look glucose-addled. ... Cut down on the sugar sticks, k?



still waiting for evidence. if this is all you got then my original FAIL assessment was correct!!


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 11, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I should start charging you dumbasses for having to teach you your own position.  NIST specifically stated the diesel tanks in the basement did not fuel the fire that caused the collapse.  

Try learning the facts of your own position before posting.  Pretty simple concept actually.

One other thing, if this "fire" causing the collapse thing is so obvious and simple, why did it take NIST over six years to state the cause?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 11, 2010)

Fizz said:


> still waiting for evidence. if this is all you got then my original FAIL assessment was correct!!



Jokes like you are pathetic.  You ignore facts then whine about "evidence."


----------



## Fizz (Oct 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > still waiting for evidence. if this is all you got then my original FAIL assessment was correct!!
> ...



asking for evidence is "whining"?!! HAHAHahahaha  

i guess when you've got no evidence at all the best you can do is call someone that asks for evidence "whining".


----------



## Hollybaere (Oct 11, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



I have seen no evidence from you thus far. You NEVER back up any of your claims either. All you seem to "contribute" is YOUR inessant whining and quoting the NIST Report like the Bible. 

It already has been proven that the NIST Report is flawed and contains out and out lies, proven by scientific fact from Dr. Steven Jones.

Here, quit your whining and inform yourself. 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFpbZ-aLDLY[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 11, 2010)

Hollybaere, 

     Nice video, too bad it is so full of inaccuracies and non factual data.

Just a for instance, if thermite had been used, it would not have left pools of molten metal for weeks after the collapses. Thermite burns rather quickly and then cools off, Just like a standard match. Once the thermite is gone it is done burning.  You really need to find real science.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 11, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Hollybaere,
> 
> Nice video, too bad it is so full of inaccuracies and non factual data.
> 
> Just a for instance, if thermite had been used, it would not have left pools of molten metal for weeks after the collapses. Thermite burns rather quickly and then cools off, Just like a standard match. Once the thermite is gone it is done burning.  You really need to find real science.


on top of the fact Jones is a nut case


----------



## candycorn (Oct 11, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Steven Jones is unemployed and a deadbeat.  He preys on the weak minded (i.e. YOU) and fact neglegent (i.e. YOU again).  

Here are some facts for you:

In the moments after the collapse and in the weeks and months after the attacks, dust supposedly containing thermite blanketed lower Manhattan island; one of the most densely populated places in the Country.  Tens of thousands inhaled the dust.  Crews worked for weeks in the dust.  Even when persons were allowed to go back to their businesses and homes in the LMD, they were finding dust in their offices and apartments, blown off of roof-tops of other buildings, in crevaces sub-grade, on cars, on benches, etc....  It was everywhere.  The total number of thermite poisonings for the hundreds of thousands of exposures that took place?  zero.  nada.  zilch.  a big fat nothing (i.e. you).    Surely if the shit can eat through metal, one wiff will kill you.  But nobody has died of it; nobody has been in the hospital due to it.  

Now you're probably going to say something stupid (imagine my shock) that the coroner's office is "in on it" or something as equally dumb.  No dice.  NYC was flooded, as always with tourists who were exposed as well as responders from all across the country and in fact, the world.  None of them have gone home and died due to thermite poisoning.  

When are you losers going to give up the thermite claim because, after all, it was invented by you retards only because there were no explosions setting off the collapse so you needed something that would not go boom.  Hence the thermite invention.  It worked as well now as it did when it was invented--nobody buys your trumped up bullshit and nobody gives a fuck what Steven Jones thinks.  

Case in point; look at this year's convention of goons you dipshits put on at ground zero this time 'round:



> WAC 9-11 Festivities Downplay Jones, Harrit and Ryan
> 
> Looks like there's a changing of the guard in the Troof Movement. The WAC-NY crew finally got off their butts and organized some festivities in NYC for the ninth anniversary celebration. But note who's highlighted at the top: Box Boy Gage, Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney, and Jason Bermas. And who comes down (faster than freefall) at the bottom: Waterboy Kevin Ryan, Steven Jones and Niels Harrit. In what they call "the big event", here are the featured speakers:
> 
> ...



You can see the itenerary here:

We Are Change|Tag Archive|NYC

Gotta love one of the last lines of the passage:



> Cant make it? No reason to be upset or to envy your activist friends who dont have work. You can watch it all live, just like Wrestle Mania.



You have to say one thing for the "organizers", they know their rank and file; wrestling fans who envy the unemployable.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 11, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Hollybaere,
> ...



An unemployed nutcase.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




Just another example of OCTAs ignoring the facts of their own position.  Once again......

NIST lead investigator:

"WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings."


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 11, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



They don't quote the nist report like the bible.  They ignore that and any other official report any time it says something they don't like.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > still waiting for evidence. if this is all you got then my original FAIL assessment was correct!!
> ...



amen to that. could not have said it better,that descibes the OCTA'S to a tee.


----------



## eots (Oct 11, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



the huge fuel tank feeding the fires is a popular mechanics myth fucktard

NIST states stored fuel played no role in the collapse...try reading it one day


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 11, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I used to laugh at Agent Fizzs spasm attacks he would have in debates when he would freak out and whine when he could not refute the evidence,fatcs or witness testimonys of myself,eots,terral and others.after a while though his name calling and insults got old when he would be losing his arguments so I got to the point where I stopped bothering with him cause as you are finding out,like you said,he incessantly whines and can never back up any of his claims like all OCTA'S here.

He isnt worth wasting your time on.none of the OCTA'S are.


----------



## Hollybaere (Oct 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> They don't quote the nist report like the bible.  They ignore that and any other official report any time it says something they don't like.



It's so amazing that you and Fizz and Candycorn and SGT and Divecon, won't hesitate for a moment to squeal about how I am wrong about FACTUAL evidence, yet they provide NO LINKS, NO PROOF of anything they claim.


How can Candycon claim to post facts for me, without any source or proof of credibility. Then have the audacity to claim that MY sources are false, and still provide no proof to their claim other than their squalking mouth.

Watch this video: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8efGoRSLUG8[/ame]

I would take an eyewitness' FIRST response to being far more truthful, than later on having time to think about what they said and change it to fit what others saw, or what they were told to say they saw.

Also, please do explain how building 7 was still standing in the back of the repoerter while BBC was taling about it already being collapsed?  Or do you only address the things you have lies to?


----------



## eots (Oct 11, 2010)

when backed into a corner they will claim they are not here to debate but just to laugh at toofer morons...if you point out the flaws of the NIST report they claim they do not care what the NIST report says..some of them like fizzle and cuntycorn  spend endless hours engage in this pursuit on multiple other boards


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 11, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > They don't quote the nist report like the bible.  They ignore that and any other official report any time it says something they don't like.
> ...



Troofers like you are an embarrassment.  I was pointing out they don't quote official reports as you claimed and you «BARF» have the audacity to put me in the same boat with them.  Fuck you.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 11, 2010)

My oh my.....


How many times must we say the same things over and over?

The official 911 commissions report got all the main points correct. You want to nit pic them go right ahead.

Yes Hollybaere, there were numerous secondary explosions. If my house burned down there would be numerous explosions. Some of them would be pretty loud, some of them may even knock a hole in a wall. Doesn't mean someone planted a destructive device in my house.........

There is no proof that there was any type of controlled demolition, and the error in reporting was just that. The NYFD had already stated they believed that WTC 7 was going to collapse. The reporters got the story wrong. Something that I'm sure has never ever happened before.....


----------



## Fizz (Oct 11, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> I used to laugh at Agent Fizzs spasm attacks he would have in debates when he would freak out and whine when he could not refute the evidence,fatcs or witness testimonys of myself,eots,terral and others.after a while though his name calling and insults got old when he would be losing his arguments so I got to the point where I stopped bothering with him cause as you are finding out,like you said,he incessantly whines and can never back up any of his claims like all OCTA'S here.
> 
> He isnt worth wasting your time on.none of the OCTA'S are.



what the fuck are you talking about?

i keep asking for evidence of explosive demolitions. the reason i cant refute your evidence is because you have none.

ANYONE FIND ANY EVIDENCE YET?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 11, 2010)

Fizz said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > I used to laugh at Agent Fizzs spasm attacks he would have in debates when he would freak out and whine when he could not refute the evidence,fatcs or witness testimonys of myself,eots,terral and others.after a while though his name calling and insults got old when he would be losing his arguments so I got to the point where I stopped bothering with him cause as you are finding out,like you said,he incessantly whines and can never back up any of his claims like all OCTA'S here.
> ...



You can't even admit the conclusion of the NIST report saying fire alone brought down wtc 7...........who the fuck is dumb enough to think you would be honest enough to address any facts when you blatantly ignore the facts of your own position?  Lol!

Funny how no other OCTAs had the balls to call you out on such an obvious fuck up or like when retiredgunnygutlesssack falsely claimed the diesel tanks helped cause the collapse.  You punks always ignore it when you fuck up because you are dishonest cowards.


----------



## Fizz (Oct 11, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> It's so amazing that you and Fizz and Candycorn and SGT and Divecon, won't hesitate for a moment to squeal about how I am wrong about FACTUAL evidence, yet they provide NO LINKS, NO PROOF of anything they claim.



you really dont get this whole "evidence" thing. if you are going to claim silly things like there was thermite, explosive demolitions, predator drones, holograms, voice morphing technology, the hijackers are still alive, WTC7 was the command bunker for remote control airplanes, flight 93 landed in ohio or any other stupid twoofer shit then YOU need to prove it with evidence.

my claim is that 19 muslim hijackers flew planes into buildings and crashed in a field in PA. the evidence is overwhelming. let me know what part of my beliefs you are having trouble with if you claim i have no factual evidence.

other than that.... ITS YOU THAT NEEDS TO PROVE YOUR CLAIMS. its not up to me to provide evidence your claims are false if you supply absolutely no evidence they are true except some stupid fucking youtube video.


----------



## Fizz (Oct 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> You can't even admit the conclusion of the NIST report saying fire alone brought down wtc 7...........who the fuck is dumb enough to think you would be honest enough to address any facts when you blatantly ignore the facts of your own position?  Lol!
> 
> Funny how no other OCTAs had the balls to call you out on such an obvious fuck up or like when retiredgunnygutlesssack falsely claimed the diesel tanks helped cause the collapse.  You punks always ignore it when you fuck up because you are dishonest cowards.



show me where the NIST reports says "fires alone" caused the collapse, you lying fucking moron.


----------



## Hollybaere (Oct 11, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Troofers like you are an embarrassment.  I was pointing out they don't quote official reports as you claimed and you «BARF» have the audacity to put me in the same boat with them.  Fuck you.



 I am not putting you "in the same boat". Somehow I clicked on the wrong section of the thread. I am quite sure the "idiots" are enjoying that also.

I know it probably won't do much good, but I apologise to you. I mistakingly included you when I should not have. 

I'm still having a hard time navigating around here.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 11, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> How can Candycon claim to post facts for me, without any source or proof of credibility. Then have the audacity to claim that MY sources are false, and still provide no proof to their claim other than their squalking mouth.



You stupid piece of shit.

The proof of thermite NOT being there is in the FACT that there were zero reports of thermite inhalation at ground zero.  Try to stretch what are I'm sure a very small number of brain cells around that truth before you embarrass yourself any further.  



Hollybaere said:


> I would take an eyewitness' FIRST response to being far more truthful, than later on having time to think about what they said and change it to fit what others saw, or what they were told to say they saw.


Yeah, I think Willie Rodriguez is a lying sack of shit too but you'd have a better take on that--being a sack of shit yourself.



Hollybaere said:


> Also, please do explain how building 7 was still standing in the back of the repoerter while BBC was taling about it already being collapsed?  Or do you only address the things you have lies to?



Gee, you think maybe in the most chaotic news day of a news reporters life they got some things wrong?  Look at you; you've been here for like what 10 posts and you haven't been right about jack shit yet.  

Look at my video:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PaHcZUHI00"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PaHcZUHI00[/ame]


----------



## eots (Oct 11, 2010)

*why does cuntycorn pretend there is but one first responder that tells willies story ??*? 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxGB2YoGV-I[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kYs4fWaMO4&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3MG5vPoV54[/ame]


----------



## JiggsCasey (Oct 12, 2010)

Fizz said:


> i dont have torrets. i dont have Turrets either. when i see a fucking idiot making stupid statements i have no problem calling them a fucking idiot. if you dont want to be called a fucking idiot then stop being one and i will stop calling you one.



I see. So anyone demanding a real investigation into the greatest crime in U.S. history, rather than one controlled by a Bush League lackey, is somehow a "fucking idiot."

Gear down, torrets sufferer. 



Fizz said:


> somebody clearly dropped the ball. that does not equate to "letting it happen on purpose" and having clearly sinister intentions.



Yes, there was an awful lot of ball-dropping by your heroes. And not a single reprimand, let alone incarceration. In fact, Frasca and Tenet got promotions! How awesome.

Any way you wanna slice it, no one was held accountable, and the Memo wasn't even addressed in the "Zelikow" report (9/11 Commission). Screams of white-washing, and you know it. 

What kind of investigation starts with "we will not be assigning blame...."?



Fizz said:


> so now the ISI is part of the american government?!!



This shows how incredibly dumb you are, despite running your mouth in this thread with such unrivaled arrogance. Why don't you read a book before pontificating? Might help you avoid looking like such as ass.

The CIA MADE the ISI. Mahmoud was IN the U.S. during the attacks. 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ISI-since-9/11-Report/articleshow/5235067.cms

How could the 9/11 Commission not even acknowledge the wire transfer to Atta? What kind of investigation into any crime doesn't even follow the money trail?



Fizz said:


> ok, now prove who did the trading. otherwise your just throwing shit against the wall hoping something sticks.



It is beyond clear you have absolutely zero idea how an investigation works, and how a team gathers circumstantial and direct evidence. You follow the money trail, and exhaust all avenues for where the information originated. That doesn't mean those responsible for the trading were "in on it," but rather that they might have information on who did.

The SEC's heavily redacted report on the matter blacks out the entire entry into who advised the put options. The 9/11 Commission, in one lame paragraph, determined essentially: "the SEC cleared their list of terrorist suspects, and said everything checked out A-OK here in the U.S., so, good enough for us."



Fizz said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> > you should generally wait for an answer before declaring victory, tool box. ... else you look glucose-addled. ... Cut down on the sugar sticks, k?
> ...



The evidence is abundant, and you've even conceded some of it.  Incompetence or willful complicity, either way, no heads rolled. Why? Because anyone who went to jail for 9/11 would have sung like a canary.

Hell, even the two co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission admitted that NORAD and the SEC were not totally honest with them during testimony. 

It is interesting that the investigation into Bill Clinton's oval office throating received three times the financing than did the "investigation" into the greatest crime in U.S. history.

Your heroes "screwed up", at best, and let it happen on purpose, at worst. You can't stand that fact, so you have an internet meltdown on a daily basis.

Come back when you garner some semblance of a clue what constitutes an indictment and subpoena power, two things the Zelikow report stonewalled against.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 12, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > i dont have torrets. i dont have Turrets either. when i see a fucking idiot making stupid statements i have no problem calling them a fucking idiot. if you dont want to be called a fucking idiot then stop being one and i will stop calling you one.
> ...



Really?  What promotion did George Tenet receive?  Come back when you feel like telling the truth for a change.


----------



## Fizz (Oct 12, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > i dont have torrets. i dont have Turrets either. when i see a fucking idiot making stupid statements i have no problem calling them a fucking idiot. if you dont want to be called a fucking idiot then stop being one and i will stop calling you one.
> ...



another fucking moron chimes in with absurd conclusions. here's a list of stupid fucking assumptions made in just this one post.

1. you wrongly assume to know who my heroes are. FAIL!
2. you assume people should be jailed over the contents of a memo. FAIL!
3. even if the CIA actually made the ISI it is a huge leap to say the cia knows every move done by the Pakistan's ISI. FAIL!
4. that the wire transfer in question actually took place, that the cia controlled the ISI to tell Ahmad to tell Sheikh to send the money to Atta. FAIL!
4. you assume that unusual trading activity before 9/11 is because of foreknowledge of 9/11 with no evidence. FAIL!

basically, your absurd theory is that the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attacks because no heads rolled. 

i have an "internet meltdown"?!! HAHAHAHahahahaa!!!1 are you fucking serious?!! you cant buy comedy as good as you twoofers provide. i laugh my ass off every day looking at you dumbfucks explain stupid shit about your absurd theories!!


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 12, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You can't even admit the conclusion of the NIST report saying fire alone brought down wtc 7...........who the fuck is dumb enough to think you would be honest enough to address any facts when you blatantly ignore the facts of your own position?  Lol!
> ...



I quoted the lead NIST investigator at least twice and both times you completely ignored it as well as the other info from the faq.  The N Report clearly says even if there was no damage from falling debris it still would have collapsed and it states the diesel tanks did not contribute to the collapse.  You ignore these basic facts and call people liars because you are a sad individual.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 12, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > They don't quote the nist report like the bible.  They ignore that and any other official report any time it says something they don't like.
> ...



How come you never addressed the points I made concerning Terral's WTC7 theory? You asked for a point by point discussion, which I gave you. You posted one thing back, changed the subject, and then never returned...

Why is that?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 12, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Troofers like you are an embarrassment.  I was pointing out they don't quote official reports as you claimed and you «BARF» have the audacity to put me in the same boat with them.  Fuck you.
> ...




Thank you and sorry I went off.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 12, 2010)

I've perused several sites speaking about WTC 7 and the most common item I saw was the narrative beginning with massive destruction from the Towers collapsing.  Passing out the info in that way misleads people into believing something other than fire alone is what caused the collapse.  

The point?  NIST's final conclusion is so fucking embarrassing almost nobody wants to own or defend it.


----------



## Fizz (Oct 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I quoted the lead NIST investigator at least twice and both times you completely ignored it as well as the other info from the faq.


and you still didnt show where in the report it says "fires alone" caused the collapse because it doesnt say that. you lied. you jsut keep repeating the same old twoofer bullshit over and over again.



CurveLight said:


> The N Report clearly says even if there was no damage from falling debris it still would have collapsed and it states the diesel tanks did not contribute to the collapse.


i'm not disputing that, jackass.  


CurveLight said:


> You ignore these basic facts and call people liars because you are a sad individual.


i'm not ignoring it at all. saying damage played no significant role other than starting the fires and that the diesel tank didnt make a significant contribution does not equate to "fires alone" caused the collapse. i dont know why you twoofers insist on changing what is actually in the NIST report.

here is what the NIST _actually_ says:

_The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down *primarily by uncontrolled fires*. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system.

*Factors contributing to WTC 7&#8217;s collapse *included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; *connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads*; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.



_


----------



## eots (Oct 12, 2010)

the last part is pure double talk it is like saying the fact it was built contributed to the collapse...no fault was found in the design of the wtc 7


----------



## eots (Oct 12, 2010)

Did WTC 7 conform to building and fire codes?


The team found that the design of WTC 7 in the 1980s was generally consistent with the New York City building code in effect at that time.
WTC 7's designers intended its stairwells to evacuate nearly 14,000 occupants, anticipated at the time to be the maximum occupancy of the building. Though the stairwell's capacity was overestimated, it was adequate for evacuating the building's actual maximum occupancy of 8,000, and more than adequate to evacuate the approximately 4,000 occupants who were in the building on Sept. 11.
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## Fizz (Oct 13, 2010)

eots said:


> the last part is pure double talk it is like saying the fact it was built contributed to the collapse...no fault was found in the design of the wtc 7


why do you feel the need to interpret what the NISt report says into something else? why do you try to make it conform to your pre-drawn conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job.

first you say that the NIST stated "fires alone" caused the collapse. thats a lie. now that i have posted what they actually say you call it "double talk".

why dont you take your absurd claims a step further and say that "planes alone" caused the collapse??.... because without the planes crashing into the towers there would have been no fire and when the towers collapsed the fires would not have spread to wtc7.

i guess the only reason you dont take your absurd assumptions to that step is it doesnt make it sound more like an "inside job" that way.

the NIST did a fine job explaining their findings. they dont need a fucking stoned twoofer to interpret the findings for them.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 13, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I quoted the lead NIST investigator at least twice and both times you completely ignored it as well as the other info from the faq.
> ...




Hahahahaha........you're such a jackass.  Nist stated even if there was no damage from debris from the towers collapsing then 7 would have still come down from the fire.  Nist also stated the diesel tanks did not cause it.  So, when you take those two items out of the picture then it is fire alone that brought it down you dumbass.  Why do you octas always have to be spoon fed taught on your own position?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 13, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > the last part is pure double talk it is like saying the fact it was built contributed to the collapse...no fault was found in the design of the wtc 7
> ...



Hahahahahaha.....he didn't say everything you posted was double talk.  He said "the last part."  Thank you for proving to everyone that since you can't read a short simple post then there is no way in hell your dumbass can understand N's Report.

It's pretty obvious the reason you're so hell bent on ignoring N's conclusion that fire alone cause the collapse is because you know it's laughable so you have to change N's conclusion to fit your pre-conceived opinions.


----------



## Fizz (Oct 13, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Hahahahaha........you're such a jackass.  Nist stated even if there was no damage from debris from the towers collapsing then 7 would have still come down from the fire.  Nist also stated the diesel tanks did not cause it.  So, when you take those two items out of the picture then it is fire alone that brought it down you dumbass.  Why do you octas always have to be spoon fed taught on your own position?



are you too fucking stupid to see the fault in your retarded twoofer logic?

so now the only three possibilities a building has of collapsing are fire, damage from failling towers or diesel tanks?

thats simply moronic. stop changing what the NIST report actually says to try to fit your own twoofer agenda. it says fire was the primary cause. it DOES NOT say fires alone caused the collapse. you are a fucking moronic liar to claim it does.


----------



## eots (Oct 13, 2010)

so name one  factor other than fire nist refers to as.. cause


----------



## Fizz (Oct 14, 2010)

eots said:


> so name one  factor other than fire nist refers to as.. cause



look up about seven posts, you stoned fucking idiot. you already replied to what the NIST report says were the causes.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 14, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Hahahahaha........you're such a jackass.  Nist stated even if there was no damage from debris from the towers collapsing then 7 would have still come down from the fire.  Nist also stated the diesel tanks did not cause it.  So, when you take those two items out of the picture then it is fire alone that brought it down you dumbass.  Why do you octas always have to be spoon fed taught on your own position?
> ...



Is this why you like the internet so much?  So you can act like a tough guy while being a completely dihonest cocksucker?  If you'll notice, even your octa buddies aren't fucking dumb enough to try and change N's Report like you are.  You repeatedly ignored what I quoted from the lead investigator because you could not spin it to your view.  You loved citing Popular Mechanics to defend the OCT but when PM says something you don't like suddenly it is not a source you care about.  I don't know how slimy butt munchers like you breathe without choking on your own shit.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 14, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > so name one  factor other than fire nist refers to as.. cause
> ...



You can't name one factor so you continue embarrassing yourself.  Here's some more for you to ignore:

Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event.  Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down. 

--NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder.


----------



## Hollybaere (Oct 14, 2010)

I think that these pages explain the truth about building 7 quite accurately, and makes the NIST version look like the Fairy Tale that it has been proven to be.



Explosive Residues: Energetic Materials and the World Trade Center Destruction


WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: What Was In Building 7?


WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: Building 7's Location


WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: The Fires in Building 7


WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: The Vertical Collapse of Building 7


WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: Building 7's Rubble Pile


_The Silence Surrounding Building 7 
The American public was treated to wall-to-wall television coverage of the September 11th attack throughout the day and for nearly the entire following week. Yet most Americans remember only two skyscrapers collapsing in Lower Manhattan on the day of the attack: the Twin Towers. The total collapse of the third huge skyscraper late in the afternoon of September 11th was reported as if it were an insignificant footnote. The television networks played video of the jets impacting the Twin Towers hundreds of times. But most people never saw video of Building 7's collapse. 

Building 7 was neither hit by an airplane nor, apparently, by heavy fallout from the collapse of either of the Twin Towers. If you believe the official story that it collapsed from fires, it would be the first case in history in which fires induced the total collapse of a steel-framed building. Shouldn't that have been newsworthy, given its implications for building safety and rescue and firefighting operations? Incredibly, it is difficult to find any mention of Building 7 in newspapers, magazines, or broadcast media reports about the September 11th attack. 

The collapse of Building 7 was reported on 9/11/2001, apparently by all or most of the television networks. These reports were so obscure that it was not until 2007 that researchers discovered that the BBC and CNN had announced the collapse before it occurred. 

Despite the enormity of this event, there is no mention of it in a timetable of press flashes, alerts, and bulletins from the day of and after the attack compiled by the Associated Press. 1_


----------



## Hollybaere (Oct 14, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> How come you never addressed the points I made concerning Terral's WTC7 theory? You asked for a point by point discussion, which I gave you. You posted one thing back, changed the subject, and then never returned...
> 
> Why is that?



You just didn't get it, and somehow I didn't think you would. The reason I asked for you to make those points was because, Fairy Tale Believers such as you, make CLAIMS that someone's post is flawed, but yet offer no proof whatsoever to back it up.

If we are required to back up what we claim, you should back up yours also.


----------



## eots (Oct 14, 2010)

fizz said:


> curvelight said:
> 
> 
> > hahahahaha........you're such a jackass.  Nist stated even if there was no damage from debris from the towers collapsing then 7 would have still come down from the fire.  Nist also stated the diesel tanks did not cause it.  So, when you take those two items out of the picture then it is fire alone that brought it down you dumbass.  Why do you octas always have to be spoon fed taught on your own position?
> ...



one could say the hijackers *contributed* to the collapse of the wtc 7..one could say that the fact that the wtc 7 was ever built is *a factor* in its collapse or gravity *played a role* in the collapse but there is one *cause* cited by NIST for the collapse..and that is fire..not damage to the building...not stored fuel ..not secondary explosions..not inherently faulty design


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 14, 2010)

eots said:


> fizz said:
> 
> 
> > curvelight said:
> ...


correction: the PRIMARY cause


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 14, 2010)

Hollybaere said:


> The reason I asked for you to make those points was because, Fairy Tale Believers such as you, *make CLAIMS that someone's post is flawed, but yet offer no proof whatsoever to back it up*.



You mean to tell me that you don't get the significance of what it means when Terral annotated a photo with text that says "THERE IS NO MELTING OR BURNING" on the beams and then turns around and says that the same damn photo is supposed to show thermite signatures such as slag and melted ends?????

Are you serious????



Wow.


----------



## eots (Oct 14, 2010)

Primary..]of first rank or importance or value;* direct and immediate*... rather than secondary



THE REST IS INDIRECT..IE;...PLANES WHERE HIJACKED..COULD BE CONSIDERED AN   INDIRECT _CAUSE_ OF THE COLLAPSE..THERE IS ONLY ONE DIRECT CAUSE CITED FOR THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7 AND THAT IS ...FIRE


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 14, 2010)

eots said:


> Primary..]of first rank or importance or value;* direct and immediate*... rather than secondary
> 
> 
> 
> THE REST IS INDIRECT..IE;...PLANES WHERE HIJACKED..COULD BE CONSIDERED AN   INDIRECT _CAUSE_ OF THE COLLAPSE..THERE IS ONLY ONE DIRECT CAUSE CITED FOR THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7 AND THAT IS ...FIRE


yes, being FIRST in rank, doesnt excuse those that are lesser in rank


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 14, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > fizz said:
> ...



More proof N's conclusion is so laughable OCTAs are afraid to openly admit without changing it.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 14, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


name the MAJOR point they got wrong


----------



## eots (Oct 14, 2010)

fire can not produce a progressive collapse of a steel framed building...this discovery of an "extraordinary event" is not based on any solid forensic evidence as is supported solely on the results of a tweaked computer simulation that does not even resemble the actual collapse


----------



## Jeremy (Oct 14, 2010)

eots said:


> fire can not produce a progressive collapse of a steel framed building...this discovery of an "extraordinary event" is not based on any solid forensic evidence as is supported solely on the results of a tweaked computer simulation that does not even resemble the actual collapse



Why did the collapse of both towers originate at the impact sites? 

The original point of structural failure is obviously the impact sites in every video and every angle.


----------



## eots (Oct 14, 2010)

wtc 7 did not collapse from the impact point


----------



## Jeremy (Oct 14, 2010)

eots said:


> wtc 7 did not collapse from the impact point



Sorry, I'm talking about 1 & 2. I know I'm off topic but I am just curious on your thoughts in regards to the collapse of the first two.


----------



## eots (Oct 14, 2010)

I think  fact the collapse occurs near the impact area does not alter the fact buildings do not collapse at the speed and in the manner that occurred with the twin towers nor does somehow suspend the moist basic laws of physics


----------



## Jeremy (Oct 14, 2010)

eots said:


> I think  fact the collapse occurs near the impact area does not alter the fact buildings do not collapse at the speed and in the manner that occurred with the twin towers nor does somehow suspend the moist basic laws of physics





Do the laws of gravity differ depending on the manner in which a building collapses?


----------



## Jeremy (Oct 14, 2010)

Or do you feel there was in no way enough falling mass from above the impact areas to precipitate the collapse of the rest of the building?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 14, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Lol......you don't get it!  FIRE is the only reason given by N's Report for the collapse but you OCTAs can't seem to accept that so you keep trying to add other reasons.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 14, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


no, it isnt
it is the PRIMARY reason
thats what you fucking morons dont get, you have to actually understand and comprehend ENGLISH first


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 14, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




N stated 7 would have fallen even with out damage from the towers and the diesel tanks had no role.  I quoted the lead investigator several times pointing this out and you ignore it.  Now go get your diaper changed you brokedick paparasite.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 14, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


yes, and "would have" will never mean the same as "DID"


----------



## Jeremy (Oct 14, 2010)

Q said x would have shit his pants but Y was fucked up on shrooms...


----------



## eots (Oct 14, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



no but it clearly defines the cause


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 14, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


the PRIMARY cause, yes
that doesnt say there werent secondary or tertiary causes


----------



## Sallow (Oct 14, 2010)

I'll go with the Bush/Cheney theory.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Oct 15, 2010)

Fizz said:


> another fucking moron chimes in with absurd conclusions. here's a list of stupid fucking assumptions made in just this one post.



I love when you tard up the thread by straw manning every sentence, interspersed with random rage-addled F-bombs of course. I feel bad for your monitor. You probably spit all over it. 

Tool.



Fizz said:


> 1. you wrongly assume to know who my heroes are. FAIL!



 Yeah, I'll admit this was a satisfying jab. Helps you tilt more. Of course I don't officially know who your literal heroes are. But I have little doubt you have a decent amount of respect for the PNAC signatories, else you wouldn't come running to their aid so consistently and desperately.



Fizz said:


> 2. you assume people should be jailed over the contents of a memo. FAIL!



That's not what I said at all. I know it's difficult for you coincitards, but try being intellectually honest. They should be jailed for the overall case, not just the memo. The memo is only a small part of building that overall case. 



Fizz said:


> 3. even if the CIA actually made the ISI it is a huge leap to say the cia knows every move done by the Pakistan's ISI. FAIL!



Hear that wishing sound? It's the sound of the point going right over your (block) head. No one said "the CIA knows every move by the ISI." Clearly, the point is that the man was identified as ISI brass , and never was detained for questioning by any U.S. entity. The 9/11 Commission could present no record of his testimony? That's a thorough investigation to you? FAIL! 



Fizz said:


> 4. that the wire transfer in question actually took place, that the cia controlled the ISI to tell Ahmad to tell Sheikh to send the money to Atta. FAIL!



My gawd, are you ever reactionary and dull. ... No one said the CIA told the ISI to tell Ahmad anything. Again, this is about identifying a suspect, and bringing him in for questioning. It was never done. The man was "forced to resign," and conveniently went away into oblivion.



Fizz said:


> 4. you assume that unusual trading activity before 9/11 is because of foreknowledge of 9/11 with no evidence. FAIL!



Yeah, genearally 5 is what comes after 4. Not another 4. 

Dude, it's a plain fact that there was unusual trading -- stock bets on the two airlines in question, the insurance companies for those airlines, in addition to US treasuries and a number of other NYSE companies affected that day. This is not in dispute by anyone.

Evidence can be circumstantial, it doesn't always have to be direct. Again, this is about bringing the stock advisor of those trades in front of the 9/11 Commission for basic questioning. It was never done, despite the fact that the companies were identified ("options Hotline" in Calif. being one of them, and the entry for it in the SEC report redacted). 

To you, the government investigating itself is all you need to rest easy on the issue. As always, "Good enough for me," is the classic rationalization of the coincitard.



Fizz said:


> basically, your absurd theory is that the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attacks because no heads rolled.



What's satisfying is that you're treading water in this exchange so desperately. You're starting to panic a little. Either that, or you're that awful combination of dumb and arrogant. You know, like George Bush. Those are the only two possibilities one can conclude due to the simple fact that, over and over again, you can't present my argument honestly or accurately.

That is not my theory you're presenting. That is a retarded mutation of what you think/want my theory to be. Heads not rolling is just one layer of the overall case of establishing means, motive and oppurtunity. That one aspect is not why the reason Bush League was complicit. 500 other examples just like it, overall, are the reason.



Fizz said:


> i have an "internet meltdown"?!! HAHAHAHahahahaa!!!1 are you fucking serious?!! you cant buy comedy as good as you twoofers provide.



Quite serious. You can pretend it's "humorous" to you all you like, cool guy, but your posting style and passion to return to the topic hour after hour shows you take it quite seriously. It's as if you're desperate to participate. You're here every day, rifling off foul, insecure, personal diatribes. That doesn't sound like a man who finds it all casually amusing. It sounds like a man obsessed.

I can at least admit I'm serious about the topic. Why can't you?



Fizz said:


> i laugh my ass off every day looking at you dumbfucks explain stupid shit about your absurd theories!!



Uh huh.. Cool story, bro.

((Divecon, your incessant requirement to flood my user profile with neg rep is a real testimony to A) your complete lack of a life, and B) your pre-occupation with our post history, which obviously puts you on full-blown tilt. I wear it as a badge of honor, so please keep them coming. Asshat.))


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 15, 2010)

eots said:


> fire can not produce a progressive collapse of a steel framed building..\



What evidence and/or information do you have to make this claim?


----------



## candycorn (Oct 15, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > another fucking moron chimes in with absurd conclusions. here's a list of stupid fucking assumptions made in just this one post.
> ...



If you're serious, you should be able to explain what you think happened on that day or where the 9/11 Commission Report is wrong.  

I'm sure you can do neither.  

Check please.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 15, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Hey Dive.

I agree with them on this point. There may have been secondary or tertiary causes, but the fact remains that the primary cause of the collapse was fire and NIST doesn't state anything else (unless I am missing something in the report). Fire changed the physical properties of the steel through expansion and contraction which weakened/severed connections to a point that caused the entire structure to collapse.

Again, I understand that NIST uses the word "primary", but they list no other causes that contributed. 

That's just my perspective.

Thoughts?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 15, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Thoughts? They are trying to base the report being false because of one word. And it's total BS and rather boring.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 15, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Ok, but that doesn't make their statement any less valid. The NIST report still only says that fire was the primary cause and they list no other secondary or tertiary cause.

Using that as a basis for the report being false is another matter entirely. Why does fire being the primary cause make it false? That's what I'd like to know from them.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 15, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



N's Report gives only cause.  Keep ignoring that.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 15, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Holy scotch pudding puffs!  That is some reeeeeally laughable dancing.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 15, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Ok Curve.

I tried this once before. Let's stop the senseless name calling and verbal darts (I admit that I  am guilty of this also) and get down to a real debate. We are never going to get anywhere unless we do this.

Agreed?

If so. The first question I would like to ask you is this. Why is fire being the primary cause for the collapse so hard to believe? If the steel structure was built in such a way that severing or weakening certain members would cause load re-distribution to all other members to a point that they can't handle the load anymore, why is that such an impossible scenario?

If heat from the sun on a hot day can cause this to happen (expansion):





what do you think would happen to steel members and connections made by bolting? Do you think bolts would resist steel expanding or do you think they would shear?

I have personally seen high pressure steam lines that sheared welded T supports from the steel they were welded to because they were placed in the wrong area. Why do you think they make expansion joints such as these to install within pipe lines?





Or why they set rollers beneath pipe lines to allow for expansion/contraction?





It's a simple fact. Expansion/contraction of steel due to heat can be devastating to a structure/ That's why they insulate the steel in the first place.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 15, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




That's what you call "kicking conspiracy theory butt?"  Lol!  Being dishonest and whining is the mariage of your brain and a computer.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 15, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



What are you talking about? I simply made a true statement. At least I have the courage and convictions to actually take a stand. Have you decided if you're a real truther yet?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 15, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




The first step is to avoid assuming what my thoughts are regarding 7.  Im a self employed in residential construction so im familiar with many basic aspects of building materials.  Here are some basic problems I have with 7:

It took seven freaking years to explain the collapse.

Never before or since that day has any skyscraper in the history of the world collapsed straight down from fire.

I don't doubt nor contest steel expansion from the heat of the fires.  My beef is the lack of explanation on how 7 collapsed straight down.  Surely you agree the fires did not heat all of the steel to the same temps across the entire building on an equitable level.  Your train track pic helpz demonstrate how unpredictable steel expansion happens.  In that example you have two consistent factors of a straight track and sunlight equally heating the rails yet the steel expanded randomly.  As steel expanded due to the fire it would have pulled and twisted in random directions making and straight down collapse impossible.  For steel structural failure strictly from fire we would see gravity contests between the heated steel and the unheated steel.  This would cause an unpredictable collapse as that contest plays out. However, NIST wants us to believe the fires somehow magically heated all the structural steel on such a level of equality that it allowed for a smooth vertical drop.

Have you ever looked at commercial or residential building fires in the aftermath?  What is noticeable?  You can see the areas of intense heat from the fires that burned inside while the other areas are somewhat in tact.  Have you ever seen a mathematical model showing how the fires in 7 burned for 7 hours demonstrating how much heat and in what areas would be necessary for a vertical collapse?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 15, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Keep telling yourself that.  My position is what it has always been and if you can't figure that out by now then...........


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 15, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Ok, A little about my construction/design background.

I worked for a couple of engineering firms. One was MK Ferguson way back when. When I worked for them, I worked on projects for clients such as Anheuser Busch and Kodak where I designed piping for both. I was onsite for both the Shell Oil chemical explosion in Belpre, OH and the IMC/Angus explosion in Sterlington, LA to do damage assessment. I also worked on numerous projects for steel mill blast furnaces, rolling mills, slab mills, etc. I worked for the Army Corp of Engineers in Tooele, Utah on the nerve gas destruction facility. I designed an oxygen pipe run for the River Rouge steel plant in Michigan. I was also the onsite construction supervisor for it. These are just a few of the jobs/projects I did.



CurveLight said:


> It took seven freaking years to explain the collapse.


What does this have to do with the fact that we are debating whether WTC7 came down because of fire?



CurveLight said:


> Never before or since that day has any skyscraper in the history of the world collapsed straight down from fire.



Ok. Show me one of those skyscrapers that was constructed similarly to WTC7 that stood after a fire like that and we'll talk.



CurveLight said:


> I don't doubt nor contest steel expansion from the heat of the fires.  My beef is the lack of explanation on how 7 collapsed straight down.  Surely you agree the fires did not heat all of the steel to the same temps across the entire building on an equitable level.  Your train track pic helpz demonstrate how unpredictable steel expansion happens.  In that example you have two consistent factors of a straight track and sunlight equally heating the rails yet the steel expanded randomly.  As steel expanded due to the fire it would have pulled and twisted in random directions making and straight down collapse impossible.  For steel structural failure strictly from fire we would see gravity contests between the heated steel and the unheated steel.  This would cause an unpredictable collapse as that contest plays out. However, NIST wants us to believe the fires somehow magically heated all the structural steel on such a level of equality that it allowed for a smooth vertical drop.



Is that why the penthouse collapsed into the building itself FIRST? What kind of damage was done to the infrastructure when that happened? Do you understand loads on a steel structure? When you remove critical components from a steel structure, the other components have to pick up the slack. If you exceed the load capacity of the reaming components, they fail.



CurveLight said:


> Have you ever looked at commercial or residential building fires in the aftermath?  What is noticeable?  You can see the areas of intense heat from the fires that burned inside while the other areas are somewhat in tact.  Have you ever seen a mathematical model showing how the fires in 7 burned for 7 hours demonstrating how much heat and in what areas would be necessary for a vertical collapse?



I thought they showed a model of the collapse?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 15, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> The first step is to avoid assuming what my thoughts are regarding 7.



Point taken.

If you don't think fire induced the collapse of WTC7, then what do you think did cause the collapse?


----------



## Jeremy (Oct 15, 2010)

Good read...

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7


----------



## froggy (Oct 15, 2010)

That George Bush, Dick Channey, and their old buddy Bin Laden were involved.


----------



## Bill Angel (Oct 15, 2010)

I pursued one discussion of the collapse of building number 7:
See: The Tidy Pile of Rubble 
According to that discussion:
"The 47-story tower was converted into a pile of rubble lying almost entirely within its footprint.
The rubble pile was less than 3 stories high.
The fall visibly damaged only one adjacent building.
Taking a building down into its footprint is the objective of controlled demolition.
It requires shattering all columns at ground level simultaneously, then marching the charge detonations up the building as it falls."

So my question is this: Did any witnesses hear, or did any of the sound tracks of the video recordings that depict the building's collapse record the sound of these purported explosive charges as they were detonated as the building was collapsing?


----------



## Jeremy (Oct 15, 2010)

Bill Angel said:


> I pursued one discussion of the collapse of building number 7:
> See: The Tidy Pile of Rubble
> According to that discussion:
> "The 47-story tower was converted into a pile of rubble lying almost entirely within its footprint.
> ...



Don't be silly. Everyone knows that the gubmint has new, silent, detonation materials that they developed at area 51 with alien technology.


----------



## eots (Oct 15, 2010)

Jeremy said:


> Good read...
> 
> Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7



yes Indeed a perfect example of how "popular mechanics" myths are still perpetuated even though they are in often  contradiction with the findings of NIST and that mountains of first responder and eyewitness testimony is all excluded in favor of the statement of Boyle and a few select others


----------



## eots (Oct 15, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY[/ame]


----------



## eots (Oct 15, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIIF6P8zBG8[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STbD9XMCOho&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 15, 2010)

This is all so funny, if it weren't so tragic.


----------



## eots (Oct 15, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> This is all so funny, if it weren't so tragic.



what your life..your denial ? the multiple witlessness to explosions NIST says doesn't exists ? or the computer simulation that doesn't resemble the reality of the collapse ?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 15, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > This is all so funny, if it weren't so tragic.
> ...



The explosions that caused the demolition that didn't exist. You have a handful of witnesses and hundreds of people who were in the area. You have reports from firefighters saying they knew the building was going to collapse.

Pete Castellano -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.), Ladder 149
We were ordered down from the tower ladder because of a possible collapse at Tower 7. 

Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.), Battalion 13
So we started heading over to where Building 7 was at and they were like Building 7 is going to collapse, you can't go over there, this and that, and there was another building that they thought was going to collapse that was like right behind the triage center, the building that we were in. 

Frank Cruthers -- Fire Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area --
...
-- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. Thre was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolands and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed.

Joseph Fortis -- E.M.T (E.M.S.), Battalion 13
When the third building came down, we were on that corner in front of the school, and everybody just stood back. They pulled us all back at the time, almost about an hour before it, because they were sure -- they knew it was going to come down, but they weren't sure. So they pulled everyone back, and everybody stood there and we actually just waited and just waited and waited until it went down, because it was unsafe. 

Ray Goldbach -- Fire Captain (F.D.N.Y.), Executive Assistant to the Fire Commissioner
There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse. 

Rudolf Weindler -- Fire Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. 

And dozens more who knew the building was coming down. You may ask them how they knew, I would guess because someone with knowledge and experience simply knew it would happen. Notice none of these reported controlled demolition explosions....


----------



## eots (Oct 15, 2010)

> > SFC Ollie said:
> >
> >
> > > eots said:
> > ...


----------



## JiggsCasey (Oct 16, 2010)

candycorn said:


> If you're serious,



There's no need for you to ever ask such a question, regarding this subject matter, anyway. Just assume it, k? Quite serious.



candycorn said:


> you should be able to explain what you think happened on that day or where the 9/11 Commission Report is wrong.
> 
> I'm sure you can do neither.
> 
> Check please.



It's amusing when cons like you present a challenge, and then go ahead and misrepresent an answer in the same breath. Followed, of course, by the declaration of some sort of smarmy "victory."

'Check', indeed.

Quite the contrary, I don't NEED to explain what happened that day. All I require of myself is that the case is made -- when presenting the evidence -- that it was never truly investigated in the first place. ... I believe that is proven beyond any reasonable doubt, as means, motive and opportunity are all well-established, yet the 9/11 Commission never came remotely close to fulfilling their mandate. Kean and Hamilton essentially ADMIT that fact in their book: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Without-Precedent-Inside-Story-Commission/dp/0307263770"]Without precedent[/ame]. NORAD lied, the White House stonewalled at every turn, and the director of the investigation was a Bush League lackey who wrote WH policy papers for the future occupation of Iraq.

But, if at knife point, you insist I offer a narrative of what I believe happened that day, very well, I will sum it up as best I can:

As spelled out in their PNAC essay "Rebuilding America's defenses" from the late 90s, and in adhering to the lessons gleaned from Tri-Lateral Commission founder and author Zbignew Brzezinsky in his book "Grand Chessboard" regarding central Asian energy reserves, I believe a cabal of the Cheney administration suppressed known intelligence and let the attacks happen for the purpose of creating, once and for all, a tangible foreign threat. This threat, real or perceived, would in all certainty galvanize America's support for retaliation, and grease the skids for expanded imperialism in largely-uptapped, liquid energy-rich nations.  It is a known fact that mankind has flat-lined on global energy production since 2004, while demand continues to skyrocket. They knew, years ago, that this was coming, including no later than 1999 in London, when Dick Cheney admitted global oil decline to the Institute of Petroleum. Something always had to give, and the Cheney gang set out to mitigate the drawdown of the American empire, at the very least. Let them (China, India) eat cake. "The American way of life is not negotiable," Dick even said it on Meet the Press.

I don't think they believed those buildings would actually collapse, but they knew an attack was coming by way of hijacked aircraft. They set about to willfully suppress known surveillance (Phoenix Memo), bury testimony (Moussaui), ignore direct warnings (Putin et al) and change safety protocol (Cheney putting himself in charge of all operational management in the event of a domestic emergency). They coordinated as many as 5 different wargame scenarios -- some involving live hijack drills -- for that very morning, pulling most fighter cover away from the northeast sector. They got no straight answers from NORAD concerning who was in charge that day, nor any accounting for their noticeable time-line discrepancies. And of course, no one could find Donald Rumsfeld for 30 crucial minutes that fateful morning, when HE was required to advocate the shootdown order. Exactly HOW does the civilian chief of our military leave his post as the nation is under attack ... and somehow not lose his job?

To use a poker probability analogy: The array of overlapping coincidences that coincitards expect Americans to believe regarding the events that unfolded that day is akin to expecting a poker player to believe a particular opponent being dealt a pair and flopping a set 25 times in a row is completely plausible, and to never question the integrity of the dealer.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 16, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> This is all so funny, if it weren't so tragic.



yeah its funny how you octa's make morons out of yourselfs in these debates dismissing physical evidence and witness testimnys and ignoring the laws of physics telling us they no longer apply anymore. "rolls on floor laughing."


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 16, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > This is all so funny, if it weren't so tragic.
> ...



could not have said it better myself.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 16, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > This is all so funny, if it weren't so tragic.
> ...


now THATS some massive irony


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 16, 2010)

Chief Frank Cruthers recalls Chief Nigro convening a meeting of fire chiefs on the subject of establishing a collapse zone.
Of primary importance early on in the operation was the structural condition of 7 World Trade Center. Assistant Chief Frank Fellini had been approached by several chiefs who were concerned about its stability. It had been heavily damaged in the collapse and was well-involved in fire. Chief Fellini had looked at it and described to us some damage to its south side; he felt that structural components of the building had been compromised. So when Chief Dan Nigro arrived at the command post, he convened a meeting of staff chiefs, and this was a major subject of the meeting. We were all in accord about the danger of 7 WTC, and we all agreed that it was not too conservative of a decision to establish a collapse zone for that building, move the firefighters out of the collapse area, and maintain that strategy.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 16, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> This is all so funny, if it weren't so tragic.



Reverse the positions of funny and tragic and that is your perfect eulogy.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 16, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Lol.




> What does this have to do with the fact that we are debating whether WTC7 came down because of fire?



This is basically where I lost most respect.  Seven fucking years to explain the collapse and you try to be coy.  Fuck you for wasting my time.  Go ahead and pretend again there is nothing suspect about it taking seven fucking years for the conclusion.





> Ok. Show me one of those skyscrapers that was constructed similarly to WTC7 that stood after a fire like that and we'll talk.


What a fucking dildo.  Pick any skyscraper in the world that suffered fire damage dumbass.  There was nothing special about 7's design. Once again you try to be coy and you just exposed your active dishonesty. 




> Is that why the penthouse collapsed into the building itself FIRST? What kind of damage was done to the infrastructure when that happened? Do you understand loads on a steel structure? When you remove critical components from a steel structure, the other components have to pick up the slack. If you exceed the load capacity of the reaming components, they fail.



You can kiss my ass you patronizing prick.  See, I honestly ignored your response instead of pretending to give one. 




> I thought they showed a model of the collapse?



That isn't what I asked you fucking reject.  

You're so clueless you asked "is that why the PH collapsed into the building first?"

Exactly which PH are you referring to?  Go learn some basic facts then come back and dazzle again.  You fucking waste of life.


----------



## eots (Oct 16, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Chief Frank Cruthers recalls Chief Nigro convening a meeting of fire chiefs on the subject of establishing a collapse zone.
> Of primary importance early on in the operation was the structural condition of 7 World Trade Center. Assistant Chief Frank Fellini had been approached by several chiefs who were concerned about its stability. It had been heavily damaged in the collapse and was well-involved in fire. Chief Fellini had looked at it and described to us some damage to its south side; he felt that structural components of the building had been compromised. So when Chief Dan Nigro arrived at the command post, he convened a meeting of staff chiefs, and this was a major subject of the meeting. We were all in accord about the danger of 7 WTC, and we all agreed that it was not too conservative of a decision to establish a collapse zone for that building, move the firefighters out of the collapse area, and maintain that strategy.



big fucking deal??  no one said they thought the entire building would symmetrical collapse at near free fall speed...just because he viewed the building as unsafe


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 16, 2010)

Big fucking deal. The experts on the ground had a first impression that the building was unsafe and would likely collapse. Maybe they got the reasons wrong, or maybe the NIST report got the reasons wrong. But one thing they got right. They knew it was coming down and they saved lives by keeping people away from it. And again, none of the Firemen Officers mention any controlled demolition. But they site the condition of the building, the damage,  and the fires.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 17, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Big fucking deal. The experts on the ground had a first impression that the building was unsafe and would likely collapse. Maybe they got the reasons wrong, or maybe the NIST report got the reasons wrong. But one thing they got right. They knew it was coming down and they saved lives by keeping people away from it. And again, none of the Firemen Officers mention any controlled demolition. But they site the condition of the building, the damage,  and the fires.



It's amazing how you ignore eyewitness testimony you don't like but cling to that which you think helps your views.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 17, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Big fucking deal. The experts on the ground had a first impression that the building was unsafe and would likely collapse. Maybe they got the reasons wrong, or maybe the NIST report got the reasons wrong. But one thing they got right. They knew it was coming down and they saved lives by keeping people away from it. And again, none of the Firemen Officers mention any controlled demolition. But they site the condition of the building, the damage,  and the fires.
> ...



I'm sorry, is there something in this statement I made that is not true? Please point it out....


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 17, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I don't know if it's true or not.

Once again dodge queen. Im pointing out how you ignore eyewitness testimony you don't like but cling to ET you think helps your position.  Try to dodge that again.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 17, 2010)

I have said it many times in many different threads. 

Talk to 3 different people after a tragic experience and you will likely get three different stories about exactly what happened.

Yes many eyewitnesses reported many different things. I tend to take Joe Blows account with a grain of salt and a Fire Chiefs account with a bit more credibility. Something wrong with that? 

I also see with my own eyes and listen with my own ears. I see no controlled demolition and I hear no controlled demolition type explosions.

We know you want to be a truther, go ahead and admit it for once.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 17, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> I have said it many times in many different threads.
> 
> Talk to 3 different people after a tragic experience and you will likely get three different stories about exactly what happened.
> 
> ...




Lol!  You just proved your hypocrisy even more!  We've all seen you ignore testimony from firefighters. Hell you've even tried to say they didn't "really" hear what they say they heard. Fucking hypocrite.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 17, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I have said it many times in many different threads.
> ...



Take a stand instead of making stupid attempts to call other people names. Don't you understand yet that your name calling hurts me about as much as a fruit fly in my neighbors house? But it sure makes you look pretty dumb. 

Now where's the Audio of the explosions that prove demolition? Have you heard them? I've heard isolated secondary explosions, as one would expect to hear. But demolitions is so much different than that. Pretty hard to hide em.


----------



## eots (Oct 17, 2010)

but...NIST said there were no explosions reported and no audio of explosions


----------



## eots (Oct 17, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> I have said it many times in many different threads.
> 
> Talk to 3 different people after a tragic experience and you will likely get three different stories about exactly what happened.
> 
> ...



Joe blows ? you mean firefighters and first responders that were in the building and immediately outside the building...those are Joe blows to you ??


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 17, 2010)

And NIST also goes into why there could not have been a controlled demolition. They have a complete section on it.

3.3 Hypothetical Blast Scenarios

Some of us have read the report. Doesn't mean we totally agree with it. But again, They have all the main points correct.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 17, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



What does this have to do with the fact you have ignored firfighter's testimonies and actually claimed they didn't really hear what they said they heard you dishonest bag of dust?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 17, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



When someone says they heard boom boom boom boom boom boom, and there is no audio of this, I tend to believe they didn't hear what they described. Or are you going to tell me with all the video and audio tapes that were in the area we missed it?

Now go away child, you bore me.


----------



## eots (Oct 17, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



you are incoherently rambling now lil Ollie


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 17, 2010)

No, you are not listening.


----------



## Fizz (Oct 18, 2010)

eots said:


> fire can not produce a progressive collapse of a steel framed building.



says who?


----------



## eots (Oct 18, 2010)

says NIST because there data tweaked computer simulation does not resemble the actual collapse


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY[/ame]


----------



## eots (Oct 18, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> No, you are not listening.



so you do coincide there where both audio of explosions at least as loud as a shotgun blast and multiple reports of explosions from first responders and eyewitnesses in contradiction with the statements of NIST that no such explosions there recorded or reported


----------



## Fizz (Oct 18, 2010)

eots said:


> says NIST because there data tweaked computer simulation does not resemble the actual collapse
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY



wow!! you really are a moron!!

now you are claiming that the NIST says "fire can not produce a progressive collapse of a steel framed building."

you are such a fucking liar!!!


----------



## eots (Oct 18, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > says NIST because there data tweaked computer simulation does not resemble the actual collapse
> ...



so you found the only working model NIST could create to support the theory
to be a reasonable depiction of the actual collapse ??


----------



## Ozmar (Oct 18, 2010)

Freeman said:


> there are  different theories about 9-11, you should surely adopt one or changed your opinion after scientists discovered nano thermites bombs in the dust .



The official story.


----------



## eots (Oct 18, 2010)

ozmar said:


> freeman said:
> 
> 
> > there are  different theories about 9-11, you should surely adopt one or changed your opinion after scientists discovered nano thermites bombs in the dust .
> ...



and the fact the computer model is a fraud ?


----------



## Ozmar (Oct 18, 2010)

eots said:


> ozmar said:
> 
> 
> > freeman said:
> ...



The only thing that is a fraud is all of your whack-job conspiracy theories trying to pose as legitimate arguments.


----------



## eots (Oct 18, 2010)

Ozmar said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > ozmar said:
> ...



so you viewed the NIST simulation and see it as reasonable representation of the actual collapse ?


----------



## Ozmar (Oct 18, 2010)

Do you think your conspiracy theories are any more reasonable than a flawed computer rendering?


----------



## eots (Oct 18, 2010)

Ozmar said:


> Do you think your conspiracy theories are any more reasonable than a flawed computer rendering?



so you agree the computer simulation is flawed..but due to the lack of physical forensic evidence..this is the only evidence NIST has to prove their theory..it is essentially the only possible sequence they could create that would cause a progressive collapse due to fire...if it does not match the reality of the collapse then the NIST theory can not be correct and other theories need to be examined


----------



## JW Frogen (Oct 18, 2010)

The only conscpiracy theory I can believe in is the one I have against myself.


----------



## eots (Oct 18, 2010)

JW Frogen said:


> The only conscpiracy theory I can believe in is the one I have against myself.



it is not a theory the computer simulation is not accurate and the investigations findings therefore void


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 18, 2010)

Ozmar said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > ozmar said:
> ...



So basically you accept the OCT out of peer pressure. You have a lot of friends you've never met.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 18, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



What does this have to do with the fact you actually claimed firefighters didn't really hear what they said they heard you fatass broke down bag of shit wrinkles?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 18, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...





Yeah. That's what I expected from you. I childish rant amounting to nothing. Did your face turn red while you were pounding your fists on the floor? How long did you hold your breath? Did you get sent to your room until you calmed down? 

Pathetic really. You are the poster child for all "thruthers". 



Oh well.

You can have your "residential construction" experience that you decided to throw out there to give creditability to your opinions and explanations. It just proves you have no clue. It's people like you that are the reason the "truth movement" will never amount to anything. You think 7 years for NIST to come out with a report is bad???? How about you folks in the "movement"? How long has it been now? 9 years and you STILL haven't moved any further along than being an internet entity. 9 years and the movement STILL doesn't have a unified theory? Everyone fighting amongst themselves to get to the top of the pile in order to say that "my theory is the only theory that works". Delusions of grandeur, nothing more.

Keep up the "good fight" though. Maybe in another 9 years you'll have a thousand more internet cult followers. Maybe somewhere in those next 9 years when you grow up, you'll look back and see what and moron you were. One could only hope.

But then again, you're beyond hope.

*welcome to ignore Curve, I should have kept you there*


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 18, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




Here is ollie actually changing what firefighters reported what they heard but just a few posts ago he said he gave more credibility to firefighters than the average joe.

It's painfully easy revealing your hypocrisy you piece of anti american shit.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 18, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Did you answer the question about which penthouse you were referring to or did you ignore that question and keep whining?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 18, 2010)




----------



## CurveLight (Oct 18, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


>




How Can you not be embarrassed?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 18, 2010)

What could I possibly be embarrassed about? I have made nothing but logical statements, and have provided links to anything that was not my own opinion.

Unlike someone who pretends they are not a truther while they actually are.

Please show the board what I have to be embarrassed about. This really should be good.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 18, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> What could I possibly be embarrassed about? I have made nothing but logical statements, and have provided links to anything that was not my own opinion.
> 
> Unlike someone who pretends they are not a truther while they actually are.
> 
> Please show the board what I have to be embarrassed about. This really should be good.



Holy shit. I posted testimonies from firefighters saying they heard explosions that sounded exactly like the ones you hear when a building is razed with a professional demo.  You responded by saying they didn't really hear what they said they heard. You then process to say you take the word of firefighters more than the average joe.  You contradicted yourself and you continue to cherry pick what eyewitness testimony is valid and what is invalid and that is based purely on which testimonies help your position.  Hypocrite.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 18, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > What could I possibly be embarrassed about? I have made nothing but logical statements, and have provided links to anything that was not my own opinion.
> ...



Excuse me? I said Fireman *Officers* I believe I had been quoting a Fire Department Chief at the time.

 DUH

Still waiting to hear those audio tapes of the Demolitions......


One more time:

*Chief *Frank Cruthers recalls *Chief* Nigro convening a meeting of *fire chiefs* on the subject of establishing a collapse zone.
Of primary importance early on in the operation was the structural condition of 7 World Trade Center. *Assistant Chief* Frank Fellini had been approached by several *chiefs* who were concerned about its stability. It had been heavily damaged in the collapse and was well-involved in fire.* Chief* Fellini had looked at it and described to us some damage to its south side; he felt that structural components of the building had been compromised. So when *Chief* Dan Nigro arrived at the command post, he convened a meeting of *staff chiefs*, and this was a major subject of the meeting. We were all in accord about the danger of 7 WTC, and we all agreed that it was not too conservative of a decision to establish a collapse zone for that building, move the firefighters out of the collapse area, and maintain that strategy.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 18, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Why keep proving your hypocrisy?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 18, 2010)

Bentdick must have forgotten that I tend to neg stupidity.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 18, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Bentdick must have forgotten that I tend to neg stupidity.




How do you neg yourself every time you get out of bed in the morning?

It's obvious you glorify testimony you like while ignoring what you don't.


----------



## eots (Oct 18, 2010)

*


SFC Ollie said:





CurveLight said:





SFC Ollie said:



			What could I possibly be embarrassed about? I have made nothing but logical statements, and have provided links to anything that was not my own opinion.

Unlike someone who pretends they are not a truther while they actually are.

Please show the board what I have to be embarrassed about. This really should be good.
		
Click to expand...


Holy shit. I posted testimonies from firefighters saying they heard explosions that sounded exactly like the ones you hear when a building is razed with a professional demo.  You responded by saying they didn't really hear what they said they heard. You then process to say you take the word of firefighters more than the average joe.  You contradicted yourself and you continue to cherry pick what eyewitness testimony is valid and what is invalid and that is based purely on which testimonies help your position.  Hypocrite.
		
Click to expand...


Excuse me? I said Fireman Officers I believe I had been quoting a Fire Department Chief at the time.

 DUH

Still waiting to hear those audio tapes of the Demolitions...


One more time:

Chief Frank Cruthers recalls Chief Nigro convening a meeting of fire chiefs on the subject of establishing a collapse zone.
Of primary importance early on in the operation was the structural condition of 7 World Trade Center. Assistant Chief Frank Fellini had been approached by several chiefs who were concerned about its stability. It had been heavily damaged in the collapse and was well-involved in fire. Chief Fellini had looked at it and described to us some damage to its south side; he felt that structural components of the building had been compromised. So when Chief Dan Nigro arrived at the command post, he convened a meeting of staff chiefs, and this was a major subject of the meeting. We were all in accord about the danger of 7 WTC, and we all agreed that it was not too conservative of a decision to establish a collapse zone for that building, move the firefighters out of the collapse area, and maintain that strategy.
		
Click to expand...


NIST concluded one blast in the key area could initiate collapse but claimed no sound as loud as a shot gun blast was heard...you know this is not accurate*


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 18, 2010)

eots said:


> *
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> ...


*

I'm not going to look it up again right now, but i believe they clarified that with girders being pre cut. And that blast would have been at the time of the collapse, Again, where's the Audio?*


----------



## eots (Oct 18, 2010)

no nothing about anything being pre-cut...and it would not necessarily need to happen at the exact moment of the collapse or be a single blast...however

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jlxw9TZ_0Cc&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 18, 2010)

Red Cross is now part of this cover up?

Count down on radios? Aren't these recorded?

So every NYC Police officer who had a radio is now in on this cover up.

More massive explosions at 9AM in Building 7? And they Killed large numbers of people. Really?

Wow a local business had one of their trucks caught on camera.....
I bet that Manhattan Demolition never has one of their trucks in Manhattan.

Another looser video.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 18, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Bentdick must have forgotten that I tend to neg stupidity.
> ...



Ollygirl's response was to say "tried to warn you" with a rep comment. He's so stoopid he keeps giving pos rep when his intent is neg rep.......lol


----------



## eots (Oct 18, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 18, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Damn you are stupid, now I owe you another neg for lying on me.


----------



## Jeremy (Oct 18, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I got 'em for ya.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 18, 2010)

Jeremy said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I'll still get him later. Can't stand people lying on me.






Looks like a negative to me... Does that look like positive rep to anyone? maybe this is why the truthers are so screwed up?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 18, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You're right and I apologize. What I meant to say was:

Ollygirl is so predictably pathetic he will point out that he did give neg rep because he is such a fucking life loser he actually thinks rep points have any meaning.  I wouldn't be surprised if that dumbass tried to use gold stars from grade school to buy ice cream.  Or maybe he just used the money he got from sucking off his neighbor's husband?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 18, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Jeremy said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Rotfl!!!!  Premeditated neg repping?  You are fucking supernova pathetic!

It's hilarious how you practice hypocrisy but get all crispy butter when you think you've been slighted.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 18, 2010)

Bentdick you have been proven to be nothing less than a pathetic little liar. Now go away you are no longer worthy of my time.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Oct 18, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > If you're serious,
> ...



So, when you guys are done bickering over MIHOP silliness that would never be court-admissible... I'll be over here with LIHOP, waiting on anyone who can explain how the Kean Commission was at all legitimate and/or why an independent and comprehensive investigation into 9/11 isn't fully warranted, WITH FULL subpoena power (from the start this time).

It's interesting that the coincitard crowd usually falls to dead silence in the face of LIHOP logic, but crows incessantly over WTC 7 speculation, the latter of which would never see the light of day in a courtroom anyway. ... For that reason, it's equally interesting that MIHOP'ers refuse to shift their admirable energies to something that would stand up in litigation. They "LET IT HAPPEN." 

You know, they got Capone on tax evasion. All that matters is that they got him.


----------



## Fizz (Oct 18, 2010)

eots said:


> *
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> ...


*

Fucking lying about what the NIST says AGAIN!!

Show us all where NIST concluded one blast could have taken out the building. You are such a fucking liar. It's pretty bad when you need to continually lie about what the NIST report actually says in order to have any argument at all against it.*


----------



## eots (Oct 18, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paF0rBNksDM&feature=related[/ame]



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcaxvQGdmtw[/ame]


----------



## candycorn (Oct 19, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > If you're serious,
> ...


Gee, you mean the investigated lied to investigators?  That almost never happens--except in every single investigation; ever.


JiggsCasey said:


> But, if at knife point, you insist I offer a narrative of what I believe happened that day, very well, I will sum it up as best I can:
> 
> As spelled out in their PNAC essay "Rebuilding America's defenses" from the late 90s, and in adhering to the lessons gleaned from Tri-Lateral Commission founder and author Zbignew Brzezinsky in his book "Grand Chessboard" regarding central Asian energy reserves, I believe a cabal of the Cheney administration suppressed known intelligence and let the attacks happen for the purpose of creating, once and for all, a tangible foreign threat. This threat, real or perceived, would in all certainty galvanize America's support for retaliation, and grease the skids for expanded imperialism in largely-uptapped, liquid energy-rich nations.


All within 81 days.  As I said, are you serious?



JiggsCasey said:


> It is a known fact that mankind has flat-lined on global energy production since 2004, while demand continues to skyrocket. They knew, years ago, that this was coming, including no later than 1999 in London, when Dick Cheney admitted global oil decline to the Institute of Petroleum. Something always had to give, and the Cheney gang set out to mitigate the drawdown of the American empire, at the very least. Let them (China, India) eat cake. "The American way of life is not negotiable," Dick even said it on Meet the Press.


So he--Cheney--did all of that but couldn't orchestrate the planting of one WMD in Iraq so he could say, "told ya so".  



JiggsCasey said:


> I don't think they believed those buildings would actually collapse, but they knew an attack was coming by way of hijacked aircraft. They set about to willfully suppress known surveillance (Phoenix Memo), bury testimony (Moussaui), ignore direct warnings (Putin et al) and change safety protocol (Cheney putting himself in charge of all operational management in the event of a domestic emergency). They coordinated as many as 5 different wargame scenarios -- some involving live hijack drills -- for that very morning, pulling most fighter cover away from the northeast sector. They got no straight answers from NORAD concerning who was in charge that day, nor any accounting for their noticeable time-line discrepancies. And of course, no one could find Donald Rumsfeld for 30 crucial minutes that fateful morning, when HE was required to advocate the shootdown order. Exactly HOW does the civilian chief of our military leave his post as the nation is under attack ... and somehow not lose his job?


Not sure what you're talking about; he was at the Pentagon.  Was mindly wounded assisting in the recovery.



JiggsCasey said:


> To use a poker probability analogy: The array of overlapping coincidences that coincitards expect Americans to believe regarding the events that unfolded that day is akin to expecting a poker player to believe a particular opponent being dealt a pair and flopping a set 25 times in a row is completely plausible, and to never question the integrity of the dealer.


When the "coincidences" are dreamed up, they lose considerable weight.  

Wake up.

Check please.


----------



## Fizz (Oct 19, 2010)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paF0rBNksDM&feature=related
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcaxvQGdmtw



Can't wAtch YouTube videos on my phone. Not that I would anyway. Why don't  you just type in the quote where the NIST says one blast could have brought down the whole building along with a link to where u got that from.


----------



## Ozmar (Oct 19, 2010)

9/11 was done by psycho Islamists.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 19, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...


*



You repeatedly ignored it every time the nist lead investigator was quoted as saying fire brought down 7.   But you want more quotes you can ignore............dumbass.*


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 19, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Bentdick you have been proven to be nothing less than a pathetic little liar. Now go away you are no longer worthy of my time.



Why are you always so concerned about the position of my dick?  Afraid some ladies you know would finally learn what it means to have an orgasm without battery powered assistance?

Have you interfaced your usercp with your alarm clock so you don't lose one single second of when you can neg rep?

The best solution would be to try and practice consistent honesty instead of your hypocrisy.  Try it at least once in your life.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 19, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Bentdick you have been proven to be nothing less than a pathetic little liar. Now go away you are no longer worthy of my time.
> ...



Shut your Lying face you worthless piece of crap. You have lost any and all credibility, and you have the nerve to talk about Honesty..

Now that's funny right there.......


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 19, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



So that's why you're always cock watching.......makes a lot of sense.

You accuse me of lying? Rotfl....you're the wrinkled up punk that ignores firefighter's testimonies when you don't like what they say but then turns around and quotes them when you like what the say.  It's pure fucking comedy you actually claimed they didn't hear what they reported they heard.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 19, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



True that although lets be honest; he never had that much credibility to start with.


----------



## eots (Oct 19, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paF0rBNksDM&feature=related
> ...



too bad go watch it on another computer


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 19, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



No good.  You should be able to provide the text.  Before I got the droid I couldn't see some vids and backing up a claim on a forum should be done with text whenever possible.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Oct 21, 2010)

Let's see if Fox follows up on this one... 

This hurts... 

FOX News EXCLUSIVE: Al Qaeda Leader Dined at the Pentagon Just Months After 9/11

Note the paragraph near the end where an official said he thought the "out reach" program luncheon originated from Rummie's office.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 21, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> Let's see if Fox follows up on this one...
> 
> This hurts...
> 
> ...


it doesnt hurt
what it does do is show that the government didnt do proper checks on him
and of course, they are going to point the finger at Rumsfeld


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> > Let's see if Fox follows up on this one...
> ...



Is the fbi the government?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 21, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> Let's see if Fox follows up on this one...
> 
> This hurts...
> 
> ...



It's fucking ridiculous our government has a kill list.  Shine on great america, shine on.

Looks like the guy pisses off the wrong people and has info that is threatening.  The only reason a story like this is leaked if to remove credibility from the target.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 21, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > JiggsCasey said:
> ...


stupid question, but you are known for that

of course the FBI is the government


----------



## eots (Oct 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> > Let's see if Fox follows up on this one...
> ...



how can you possible believe that and if you do how can you put your faith in government reports or investigations surrounding 9/11


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 21, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > JiggsCasey said:
> ...


it is things like that that show there is no way in hell the government was competent enough to pull off what you morons believe


----------



## eots (Oct 21, 2010)

but yet they can determine accurately the cause of the collapse and the intelligence operatives behind it ??..how does that work ?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 21, 2010)

eots said:


> but yet they can determine accurately the cause of the collapse and the intelligence operatives behind it ??..how does that work ?


first you will need to show where i have stated they got it 100% correct on the causes
when you do that, i will answer your question
till then its just another dishonest strawman


----------



## eots (Oct 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > but yet they can determine accurately the cause of the collapse and the intelligence operatives behind it ??..how does that work ?
> ...



so what do you believe the inaccuracy to be ?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 21, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


i'm not going through this with you AGAIN


----------



## eots (Oct 21, 2010)

divecon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...



you never have you just pretend to as a avoidance technique


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 21, 2010)

eots said:


> divecon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


i have and the liar you are will continue to deny it


----------



## eots (Oct 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...



Well i know this much
IF you did it consisted of
5 words and ALL CAPS


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 21, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


lying again

the forum software will NOT allow you to make a post in ALL caps


----------



## eots (Oct 22, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


didn't say it would

dimwit i said "consisted  of" meaning some part  of the few words would be.ALL CAPS


----------



## eots (Oct 22, 2010)

You are so stupid IF 
YOU
could post in ALL CAPS
YOU would..thats why they had to create such software
MORONS like YOU..LOL


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 22, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You said the government didn't do the proper checks yet the fbi had him pegged all along.  So your statement was pure ignorance.  I ask stupid questions for a stoopid audience. It's your native language.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 22, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I still don't know what happened but I do know that reply is ridiculous.  Suspecting an inside job does not mean the entire fucking government was involved dumbass.  More importantly, if it was in some way an inside job it wasn't successful.  You are probably incapable of comprehending why.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 22, 2010)

Just a reminder to the airheads (aka truthers--that means you);  if you're going to say that the government was responsible for 9/11 in any way, you have to come up with some sort of bullshit theory as to why the government didn't plant a single WMD in Iraq  or Afghanistan to justify the entire enterprise.  

You can't.

You won't.

I win...I always win.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 22, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Just a reminder to the airheads (aka truthers--that means you);  if you're going to say that the government was responsible for 9/11 in any way, you have to come up with some sort of bullshit theory as to why the government didn't plant a single WMD in Iraq  or Afghanistan to justify the entire enterprise.
> 
> You can't.
> 
> ...



There is an easy answer.  Planting wmd was an unnecessary risk. NBC weapons can be dated and traced through their chemical compounds so if wmd had been planted in iraq there would have been an international inspection of them and once discovered the weapons were planted, there's a whole new international nightmare of fucking public relations.

You want the absolute proof it was an unnecessary risk?  All the evidence is right there for you to see.  The bush admin admitted to the world wmd was not found.  What were the consequences of that admission?  Did anyone get charged with a crime for the invasion?  Did it force immediate withdrawal of US troops?  No. The absence of wmd did not do one single fuckig thing to impede the goals of invasion, occupation, or installation of permanent bases.

Next question.


----------



## eots (Oct 22, 2010)

candycorn said:


> just a reminder to the airheads (aka truthers--that means you);  if you're going to say that the government was responsible for 9/11 in any way, you have to come up with some sort of bullshit theory as to why the government didn't plant a single wmd in iraq  or afghanistan to justify the entire enterprise.
> 
> You can't.
> 
> ...



because it was not necessary..was it..what repercussion did anyone suffer for not finding them ??
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKX6luiMINQ[/ame]


YOU FAIL..YOU ALWAYS FAIL


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 22, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



But who made the most money?

Haliburton stock price

10.35 March 21, 2003
14.74 March 21, 2004
21.96 March 21, 2005
35.20 March 21, 2006

Dick's aid was quoted as saying "We knew attacks were coming, but we we're expecting truck bombs, nothing like this"

Was he saying the Administration was Okay with truck bombs?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 22, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Just a reminder to the airheads (aka truthers--that means you);  if you're going to say that the government was responsible for 9/11 in any way, you have to come up with some sort of bullshit theory as to why the government didn't plant a single WMD in Iraq  or Afghanistan to justify the entire enterprise.
> ...


and who would be the people DOING that dating and checking?
the government that planted them
you really are too fucking stupid for words


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 22, 2010)

BlindBoo said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...


no
it was saying the focus was on something of that nature


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 22, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I guess you missed the part of my post that pointed out there would have been an INTERNATIONAL INSPECTION TEAM.

dumbfucking divecon


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 22, 2010)

International team = USA and allies. 

Bottom line is that WMD could have been planted in a hundred different ways in Iraq. We had the trace elements found in scientists homes that could have been used. For one.  But we didn't.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 22, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> International team = USA and allies.
> 
> Bottom line is that WMD could have been planted in a hundred different ways in Iraq. We had the trace elements found in scientists homes that could have been used. For one.  But we didn't.



Given international politics at the time there would have been a big push to keep the US away from the investigation.

That said, you and divey are missing the point of my response. Nobody said wmd couldn't be planted.  The point is it would have been an unnecessary risk.....as already explained.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 22, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



100% right as per usual.

To defend everything is to defend nothing.  The modus operandi up until 9/11 was truck bomb so naturally our investigators that were privvy to the knowledge of the attack were looking at truck bomb type attacks. 

Stock price doesn't necessarily translate into a company making money; the shareholders are the ones who make the money when prices go up; the company makes the money during the initial offering.  Granted the board probably is the single largest owning entity but a little old lady in Belarus may have made the most money off of Halliburton stock.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 22, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Leave it to curvelight to swing and miss.

I'll take the ball from here. The consequences are far reaching for not finding WMDs.  Herei just one.   Okay now Iran is rattling it's saber.  Had the GOP been in office, could they come to the population and say WMD when we found none in Iraq?  No.   I mean its almost as if the twoofers have the mind capacity of a gnat; too much inhalation of the chili and frostys at Wendy's is curvelight's problem I'm guessing; that or cannabis.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 22, 2010)

candycorn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



They also tend to forget that Haliburton received it's first no bid contract under the Clinton administration.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 22, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> International team = USA and allies.
> 
> Bottom line is that WMD could have been planted in a hundred different ways in Iraq. We had the trace elements found in scientists homes that could have been used. For one.  But we didn't.



Yeah...we really listened to Hans Blix and the IAEA before going in; surely the feared "international team" would have cleaned our clock.

Curvelight is just fucking stupid.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 22, 2010)

candycorn said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > International team = USA and allies.
> ...



And a proven liar.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 22, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


and clearly you are too fucking stupid to understand that to plant them would be to also make them appear to be authentic
and if you dont think the government has the capacity to make something look and have the signatures of being authentically Iraqi, you are a bigger idiot than i already think you are


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 22, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



No,  there can't be a bigger idiot.


----------



## eots (Oct 22, 2010)

candycorn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



fucking bullshit...you fail


----------



## eots (Oct 22, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



no you forget we dont live in your false left/right paradigm...loser


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 22, 2010)

OH no, whatever shall I do, a loser like eots called me a loser.....


----------



## eots (Oct 22, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> OH no, whatever shall I do, a loser like eots called me a loser.....



try pulling your head out of your ass, taking a deep breath of fresh air and clear your head...then reexamine the situation from that new perspective


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 22, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> OH no, whatever shall I do, a loser like eots called me a loser.....


you MUST be DEVASTATED


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 22, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtiXiYMS86U[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 22, 2010)

But i still can't see the demolitions.....


----------



## Freeman (Oct 23, 2010)

Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story


----------



## candycorn (Oct 23, 2010)

Freeman said:


> Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story



Alex Jones from 2006.

Relevance...give it a try.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

candycorn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Are you fucking kidding?  You complety ignore the fact there were no negative consequences for not finding wmd and you try to invent a fantasy instead.

Guess what dumbfuck?  Your iran distraction just backfired.  Not finding wmd in iraq could be blamed on saying iran worked with saddam to move them out of iraq and into iran and now we must invade iran because they are using that wmd to proliferate their own stockpiles.

You got bitch slapped again.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

candycorn said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > International team = USA and allies.
> ...



That just further proves planting them would have been a useless risk.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Lol....when you get your ass kicked on here for your own hypocrisy and stoopidity you do nothing but whine.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I never said planting them would be impossible and I agree they could have been made to look authentic to a certain degree but that is not my argument you fucking reetawrds.

One more time.....planting them was an unnecessary risk.  Let's see how many years it takes for you dumbasses to understand.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Freeman said:
> 
> 
> > Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story
> ...



The poll isn't from jones you jackass.  Try reading something before claiming conclusions......but then that would fuck up your entire world.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 23, 2010)

WMD? I guess there are sooooo many who still haven't read the Duelfer report.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> WMD? I guess there are sooooo many who still haven't read the Duelfer report.



What?  Candycock asked why wmd wasn't planted in iraq.  The question has been answered.  Dodge some more you fucking dustball.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 23, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> WMD? I guess there are sooooo many who still haven't read the Duelfer report.



Its always easy to tell when you've nailed fry-daddy; he rants on for hours and hours convincing nobody.  You'd think he'd have better things to do with his time away from Wendy's; you'd be wrong.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

candycorn said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > WMD? I guess there are sooooo many who still haven't read the Duelfer report.
> ...



You really didn't like how I slammed your ass with your iran distraction.

You thought you had a question that was unanswerable and when it was answered with common sense it left you feeling like a jackass.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Freeman said:
> ...


the poll is from prisonplanet.com, moron, THAT is Alex Jones


----------



## eots (Oct 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



can divecon not read ??? or is he just deceptive ?


According to the new* New York Times/CBS News poll*, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks:


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



The poll is from a NYT/CBS News poll......not from prisonplanet you dumbfucking dumbass!


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



The funnier part will be watching him and candyass trying to squirm away from their fuck ups.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


you dipshits dont get it
the story is from prisonplanet and they CLAIM(without a link) that it is a NYT poll


----------



## elvis (Oct 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



careful, dive.  he'll call you "stoopid" again.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Alex Jones is like the 3rd word on the page:

Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story

Curvelight is just desperate to be heard; regardless of how stupid fry-daddy sounds.  Lunch rush should be coming by anytime now junior, get your ass back to work


----------



## elvis (Oct 23, 2010)

candycorn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



you mean "stoopid fry daddy."


----------



## eots (Oct 23, 2010)

candycorn is a vile **** that cant deal with facts and instead starts babbling fantasy of fry cooks and fast-food workers ...it is really sickening


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > WMD? I guess there are sooooo many who still haven't read the Duelfer report.
> ...



And there's one of those ones now, hasn't read the report and a liar on top of that. Still owe you a neg for that don't I?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 23, 2010)

candycorn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


you'd think these conspiracy sites would at least link to the original source for the poll if they actually wanted to be truthful


----------



## eots (Oct 23, 2010)

candycorn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



cuntycorn is also a liar...she pretends she does not understand that Alex simply reported on the polls done by other well known sources and polling companys


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 23, 2010)

eots said:


> candycorn is a vile ***** *that cant deal with facts and instead starts babbling fantasy of fry cooks and fast-food workers ...it is really sickening


VILE???

you want to talk about vile?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 23, 2010)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


you still want to talk about vile?


----------



## eots (Oct 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



you have seen the polls from there sources many times


----------



## eots (Oct 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



yes... a vile **** indeed...no amount of 4 letter words could come close to the to the filth this beast spews forth daily


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 23, 2010)

Telling the truth 16%

Some people are naive. 

Hiding something 53%

Of course they are hiding some things. It's classified

Mostly lying 28%

Then there are some nutcases.

Not sure 3%"

DUH !


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 23, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


pot, meet kettle


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 23, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Telling the truth 16%
> 
> Some people are naive.
> 
> ...


isnt there always about 3% that say "not sure" on just about every poll


----------



## candycorn (Oct 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



He can't spell "companies" properly and he expects us to take him seriously?

no family.  thanks.  ~elvis.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Squirm bitch squirm.....


----------



## elvis (Oct 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



your boyfriend tells you that a lot, doesn't he?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

elvis said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



His posts say that all the time all by themselves......


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

elvis said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Damn. You're too stoopid to know how to troll.....no wonder you made it on Staff.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


pointing out the facts is squirming to you?


btw, moron, i would have been in the 53% on that poll, because i know a lot is still CLASSIFIED


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

candycorn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



The poll itself is from a nyt/cbs poll you dumbfuck.

You shitbag octas have a neat little system of cowardice set up and you maintain it very well.

Why don't you try asking another question you think can't be answered? Lol......


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You tried to claim the poll is not from the nyt/cbs poll you dumbfuck.

Btw, you would not have been in the 53% because the poll doesn't ask anything about classified info.  How fucking dumb are you to jump on an ollygirl red herring?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Why don't you show us how the poll is from prisonplanet?  Oh, you were hoping to squirm away from another bullshit claim? Lol.....


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

Hey ollygirl...you use the rep button to call people liars with no evidence while making up your own bullshit and wholly ignoring the dishonesty from your circle jerk buddies........it's nauseating to know you ever wore a military uniform you fucking pink coward.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


no i did NOT you fucking moron

you are such a fucking idiot, i said i would have been IN the 53% BECAUSE ALL THE INFO IS not AVAILABLE YOU DISHONEST FUCKING RETARD


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


the STORY is from prisonplanet with no link to the NYT


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You said the "poll is from prisonplanet.com" you dishonest fuck.  So show us how the POLL is from pp as you claimed.


----------



## elvis (Oct 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



i knew it was only a matter of time before you'd use that "word".


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

elvis said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



You're so stoopid you don't know stoopid is a word.  What else you got dumbass?


----------



## elvis (Oct 23, 2010)

and there it is again.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


proof?
and urban dictionary or other wiki sites will not be acceptable for the proof of it being an accepted word


----------



## elvis (Oct 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



the urban one is the one he'll use.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 23, 2010)

elvis said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


which is why i put in the qualifier


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You ever going to prove your claim the poll was from prisonplanet you scurvy brokedick bitch?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



I never said it is an "accepted" word you dumbfuck.  This the best you punks can do?  Ignore your own bullshit claims and whine about a word you don't like?  Fuck.  This board is a fucking joke.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...


the linked story is from prisonplanet, where they CLAIM the NYT poll
without a link to actually back it up
you provide the link to the NYT site for that poll and i'll believe it actually is a NYT poll


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


you are a moronic dipshit
and we are making fun of your massive stupidity


----------



## candycorn (Oct 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Curvelight lamenting the "jokelike" quality of anything is ironic on so many levels.  The illiterate FW (Curvelight lingo for fuckwad) will not take a stand on any issue, has convinced nobody of anything other than his total lack of intelligence, and contributes nothing to an argument other than carbon dioxide.


----------



## elvis (Oct 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



Uh oh.  are you going to use that "word" again?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

elvis said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You suck at mind reading about as bad at trolling.  Dumbfuck:

Http://www.allwords.com/word-stoopid.html


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Hey ollygirl...you use the rep button to call people liars with no evidence while making up your own bullshit and wholly ignoring the dishonesty from your circle jerk buddies........it's nauseating to know you ever wore a military uniform you fucking pink coward.



Awe bentdick, the proof is in this thread. do you really want me to go back and find the lie for you? Everyone who has been active in this thread saw it already, Of course if you like i can make a new thread about it just for you. then even more people will know that you are a liar. 

Now anytime you want to call me a coward to my face;  I'll bet even you could find my address within minutes. Please call ahead. It takes a few minutes for the first responders to get here.

Now tell me asswipe, what have I ever made up?

And now that I know how that neg bothers you so much I might just hit you again for calling me a coward. Since that really is all anyone can do here.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



For the third time.....YOU claimed the poll is from prisonplanet.com.......you ever going to back that up?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Hey ollygirl...you use the rep button to call people liars with no evidence while making up your own bullshit and wholly ignoring the dishonesty from your circle jerk buddies........it's nauseating to know you ever wore a military uniform you fucking pink coward.
> ...




The rep button doesn't bother me you fucking pure pink coward.  I think it's both funny and embarrassing you brag so much about your service only to repeatedly prove you are a fucking punk hypocrite coward.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 23, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLJ_GoUkGy0[/ame]


----------



## elvis (Oct 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



if it doesn't bother you, you wouldn't have it turned off, now would you fuckstain?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


FAIL

Online Translation Dictionary - Allwords.com


> Dictionary content is from Wiktionary and provided here under the GNU Free Documentation License.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


and until you or someone else provides a link to that poll on the NYT site, it is still an unproven claim by Alex Jones, moron


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

elvis said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



How is it turned off if people are repping?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




For the fourth time.....YOU claimed the poll is from prisonplanet....back it up you fucking punk.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 23, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


the LINK on your link says it is, dipshit
now, provide proof it is from the NYT


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...




Rotfl!  Do you have any clue as to how words are engendered and make their way into official dictionaries you dumbass?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Im not the one that posted the link dumbfuck.

For the FIFTH time.....YOU claimed the poll was from prisonplanet so back it up or admit you fucked up and got pwned.......again.


----------



## elvis (Oct 23, 2010)

Did you find the word "pwned" in your "dictionary" as well?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 23, 2010)

elvis said:


> Did you find the word "pwned" in your "dictionary" as well?



If you're trying to prove you can be an annoying zit in pure e-style you have succeeded.  What the fuck is up with a bitch ass staff punk like you clearly trolling?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 23, 2010)

elvis said:


> Did you find the word "pwned" in your "dictionary" as well?


he's still delusional


----------



## candycorn (Oct 23, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



So after planting thermite, body parts, plane parts, evidence all over the 80 or so jurisdictions in four states; it would be risky to plant a single WMD in Iraq where we would be the only jurisdiction that matters--especially from a public opinion standpoint?  

Again, Curvelight is just fucking stupid; there is no charitable way to put it.  Wendy's needs a better screening process.


----------



## eots (Oct 24, 2010)

candycorn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



who said anything about planting body parts ? or plane parts in four states who are you speaking to ? there is no charitable way to put it you are cunntycorn..you are a irrelevant troll


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 24, 2010)

candycorn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




Since you got pwned again your only hope is to out words in others' mouths.....and the funny part?  Even in the free range of lying you still suck at debating.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Did you find the word "pwned" in your "dictionary" as well?
> ...



For the seventh time.....back up your claim the poll is from prisonplanet you diaper donning dumbass....


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 24, 2010)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



It's funny I predicted they would not understand my response to the "question that can't be answered!" for about ten years....but it's pretty silly for any of us to think any of these assholes will ever discuss the issue with any mouse level of honesty.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...


the SOURCE LINK was prisonplanet and no link to the NYT
for all we know Alex Jones made it up himself
dipshit


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


then explain HOW all the body parts and DNA got to the crash sites
dipshit


----------



## candycorn (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I'm going to lunch for a while.  Keep up the good fight.


----------



## eots (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



what body parts at which crash site ? who are you talking to ?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


any of you fucking delusional asswipe troofer morons

and yes, keep denying they found body parts


----------



## eots (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



well thats just silly...which they ? ,,which body parts...where...?  when ?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


the people doing the cleanup moron
man you are just fucking INSANE


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



For the eighth time, YOU claimed the POLL was from prisonplanet.  Prove it bitch.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


already done to those sane
you dont qualify


----------



## eots (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



blah ,blah, blah
blah blah
BLAH ?....lol...moron


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


thats all you morons got


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



For the eighth time, YOU claimed the POLL was from prisonplanet.  Prove it bitch.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



For the ninth time....prove the poll is from prisonplanet as you claimed.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You're the one that claimed the poll is from prisonplanet yet you've never backed up that claimed and you ventured into lying by saying you've already proven it....when everyone here knows you have not.  You fucking loser.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


moron, you prove it is from the NYT
the onl;y source we have is prisonplanet
so you fucking prove it


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


the only source given is prisonplanet, asswipe


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



For the eleventh time....you claimed the poll was from prisonplanet......after ten requests you can't prove your claim nor have the balls to admit you tucked up and all your little octa buddies don't have the courage to call you out....fucking major loser!


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


LOL you skipped 10
LOL
cant even fucking count


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You quoted the tenth time and you're too fucking stoopid to get it.

You're so fucking pathetic you refuse to support your own claims then call others a moron.  You being put in a wheelchair was the best gift God could have given you.


----------



## elvis (Oct 24, 2010)

There's "stoopid"  but where's "pwned" ?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


you didnt ask in that one, moron
LOL
and to all that are sane, they understand that without a link to the NYT site for that alleged poll, it is a fabrication of Alex Jones


----------



## eots (Oct 24, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9rwdu67o5Q&feature=player_embedded[/ame]


----------



## eots (Oct 24, 2010)

September 11 attacks opinion polls

September 11 attacks opinion polls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## eots (Oct 24, 2010)

Trades Hall president Kevin Bracken calls 9/11 &#039;conspiracy&#039; | The Daily Telegraph


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

eots said:


> September 11 attacks opinion polls
> 
> September 11 attacks opinion polls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


thanks
Alex Jones LIED



> 3/30-4/1/04 CBS 24% said "telling the truth", *58% said they are "mostly  telling the truth but hiding something"*, 14% said they are "mostly  lying", 4% not sure.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

so, i reiterate, i would be in the 58%


----------



## eots (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > September 11 attacks opinion polls
> ...



no you lied and picked the one poll not the new york times  that appeared more favorable to your denial


----------



## eots (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > September 11 attacks opinion polls
> ...



hiding something ?,,,what ?


----------



## eots (Oct 24, 2010)

only 24% believe the official story.. there are no half truths


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


thats CLASSIFIED


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


no, that was the poll Alex Jones was refering to


----------



## eots (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



all "mostly true" means is there are actual facts used in the scripting of the official lie


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


ROFLMAO
so when it is proven Alex Jones lied, you now change the story


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




You are one STOOPID mother fucker!  The poll jones referenced was done in 2006 and you referenced one from 2004......


----------



## elvis (Oct 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Irony.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 24, 2010)

Anyone who believes that the Pentagon and NORAD are ever going to give up what was going on behind the scenes that day is out of their minds.

Our plans and reactions to any type of attack are classified, The exercises that were going on that day and nearly every day at NORAD and within the Pentagon are again Classified.

Are we hiding something? Well yeah. DUH!

It is none of our business what, who, when, and where. We were told enough without compromising national defense.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Know what isn't classified?  Your outright dishonesty.....and you keep proving it.  I don't even care that you fucked up and wrongly claimed the poll was from pp...it was he fact you wouldn't admit it but more to he point your buddies were silent while you kept ignoring it.....you guys are beyond pathetic.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


oops, my bad, got the wrong one


brb


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


does this change it much?



> Oct 2006 responses: 16% said "telling the truth", 53% said they are * "mostly telling the truth but hiding something"*, 28% said they are  "mostly lying", 3% not sure.



the exact same wording, dipshit
Alex Jones still LIED


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


you are a fucking delusional moronic troofer
and that is proven

and btw disphit
my claim was there was no link to the NYT even though i didn't WORD it that way
you are too fucking pathetic to get it


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

*ALEX JONES LIED



*


----------



## eots (Oct 24, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Anyone who believes that the Pentagon and NORAD are ever going to give up what was going on behind the scenes that day is out of their minds.
> 
> Our plans and reactions to any type of attack are classified, The exercises that were going on that day and nearly every day at NORAD and within the Pentagon are again Classified.
> 
> ...



that is just your borg mentality army training kicking in, you're talking pure bullshit..Conrade Ollie


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 24, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Anyone who believes that the Pentagon and NORAD are ever going to give up what was going on behind the scenes that day is out of their minds.
> 
> Our plans and reactions to any type of attack are classified, The exercises that were going on that day and nearly every day at NORAD and within the Pentagon are again Classified.
> 
> ...



The poll doesn't ask if something is classified...that's common fucking knowledge you pink coward.  Are you really so stoopid you think that red herring will work?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You said the poll was from prisonplanet you dishonest brokedick bitch.

Even though you cited the wrong poll to claim jones lied you don't even give a shit because diaper dancing wheelchair bound fucks like you are so miserably self consumed the only thing you care about is you.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


i just gave the exact same poll jones claimed and he DID lie


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Oh, so you have a link to the poll jones referenced?  Surely you must have it because we All know dildodivecock wouldn't cite a poll he doesn't have a link for.

Jones didn't lie you dumbass...the poll says only 16% think we have been told the truth.  Do you actually find new ways to embarrass yourself as sort of a hobby?  Lol.......


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Let's see you dance some more bitch...how did he lie?  (Your inability to read does not qualify)


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 24, 2010)

elvis said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Stop stalking.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


look at the wiki link your moronic buddy Id-Eots posted
dipshit


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


you are the only bitch here, fucktard


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 24, 2010)

Hiding something = Classified information

What the fuck is a pink coward? 

Another term from the bentdick dictionary?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



So you say jones lied and accused the poll as being from pp because there was no link so you cite the same poll.....without giving a link.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

REALLY!!!
i have to post ANOTHER link to the exact link eots posted?
LOL
you are fucking pathetic


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



How did jones lie you fuckig no-legged dumbfuck?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> REALLY!!!
> i have to post ANOTHER link to the exact link eots posted?
> LOL
> you are fucking pathetic



The wink link does not provide a link to the poll.....exactly like the jones story that does not provide a link to the poll.......you dumbfucking punk.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


he didnt use the correct responses, dipshit
he left off the "mostly telling the truth"

that is a lie by omission


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 24, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Hiding something = Classified information
> 
> What the fuck is a pink coward?
> 
> Another term from the bentdick dictionary?



Holy shit.  You are dumb enough to think the red herring would work.  The poll doesn't ask about classified v non-classified info you pink coward.  It asks about being truthful. The government can be truthful about an event and still keep certain details classified but that doesn't equate to being dishonest.  You are a coward and dumb.


----------



## eots (Oct 24, 2010)

polls are irrelevant to the fact the official 9/11 reports are orchestrated cover-ups


----------



## eots (Oct 24, 2010)

or that the very core of the wtc 7 report of (the NIST computer simulation } is so flawed a child could see it 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY[/ame]


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Didn't I just finish saying your inability to read does not qualify?  Here is the exact text from the jones article:

Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth,
are mostly telling the truth but hiding something , or are they mostly
lying?
Telling the truth 16%
Hiding something 53%
Mostly lying 28%
Not sure 3% "
Http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm

See where it says "mostly telling the truth?"

HAHAHAHA!!!!!

You just got bitch slapped again!


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


no

the 2nd option is where it should say "Mostly telling the truth, but hiding something"

more proof you are a fucking IDIOT


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Holy fuck...it does say that:

"Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth,
are mostly telling the truth but hiding something , or are they mostly
lying?"

Learn how to read you fucking punk.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


it does not you fucking LIAR

also the link says in the title that 84% "reject" the official story, which is ALSO a lie


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



LOL Bentdick is lying again, in the same thread he already got burned in..

You just can't make this shit up......


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Lol.......I quoted the text exact from the link and gave the link and you still claim it isn't there.......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHhahahAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 24, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You do make this shit up...you guys represent nearly every single reason why America is drowning economically, socially, and internationally.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


not in the RED you fucking moron


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Hahahahaha.......no shit brainiac.  Any article can be cherry picked then claim it doesn't contain what was cherry picked you dumbfuck.  The jones article quotes the poll but you will continue to be dishonest.

The scary part?  The same arrogance that caused your accident is the same arrogance that keeps you from being honest.  After al that you still haven't learned a fucking thing.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


you are totally fucking delusional
but do tell me again how my phone has a mode it actually doesnt, and prove it doesnt but still claim it does
then tell me how you can drive faster than your cell phone signal

pathetic fucking moron


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Hahahahaha.......no shit brainiac.  Any article can be cherry picked then claim it doesn't contain what was cherry picked you dumbfuck.  The jones article quotes the poll but you will continue to be dishonest. 

The scary part?  The same arrogance that caused your accident is the same arrogance that keeps you from being honest.  After al that you still haven't learned a  fucking thing.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


still fucking delusional
grow a functioning brain cell


----------



## eots (Oct 24, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



then why do you ? oh  ya I Remember.. to distract from addressing this



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 24, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Yawn,

This has been addressed numerous times. You simply don't get it. Now do tell what have I made up?


----------



## eots (Oct 24, 2010)

sfc ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



so now you are going to use the dwivcon lie ??  ..so one more time little ollie ..why does the simulation not match the reality ??


----------



## elvis (Oct 24, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


you really are the poster child for abortion.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 24, 2010)

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I never said the NIST report was 100% correct. I can't say that as it talks about subjects i do not know about. And unlike some I don't make shit up to fit. I do know that you cannot see the framework of the building in the video and that is what the simulations are showing. So you are not really looking at the same things. In the video you are seeing the outer walls, not what is behind them.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...


as i already told that dipshit many many posts ago


----------



## eots (Oct 24, 2010)

sfc ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



a child could see the walls fold inward in the simulation {the very core of the nist theory} if it is not 100% correct a re-investigation is required


----------



## eots (Oct 24, 2010)

divecon said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



told me what ? That the findings of nist are not correct ?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

eots said:


> divecon said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...


that the simulation is not showing the walls that you see on the outside


----------



## eots (Oct 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...



bullshit it isn't ...the line representing the outer wall is very clear he even points to it in the presentation and says here we see the outer wall...


----------



## eots (Oct 24, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V0WQFztLyg[/ame]


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 25, 2010)

elvis said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Lol....can't you take an online course for trolling?  You don't need one for stalking but you truly suck at trolling.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



It's sad you repeat the same bowlshit.  You don't back up anything you say then simply lie and claim you did.  The next time you pick out a wheelchair try to get one that doesn't have a giant dildo in the center so you can sit comfortably........


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 25, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



Of course you dont understand the official version...all you need to understand is to believe what the government tells you to believe....actually trying to understand is soooo un-American!


----------



## eots (Oct 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



he has already done that...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyhsfnUkRos&translated=1[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I am not an engineer, and I seriously doubt that of you dumbass truthers are either. But i do have a touch of common sense and I am educated above and beyond HS. I understand that I just watched the last video that eots provided and once again it is nothing more than he said she said. there is no proof of any conspiracy or demolitions. Just more of the same BS. Have you decided that you are a truther yet?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


stop projecting your own issues on me, dipshit


----------



## eots (Oct 25, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



nothing more than he said she said ?....that does not even make sense..you do not need to be a engineer to understand the  NIST theory rest almost completely on the computer model and that model does not appear as the actual collapse does


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 25, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



If the feds told ollie his closest friends were responsible he would have believed it.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 25, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Not hardly, you fools have any actual proof that the main points of the Official reports are wrong, yet?


----------



## eots (Oct 25, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



yes..the computer simulation and its tweaked parameters for one


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 25, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Yet you cannot prove any other scenario....... And I'm not convinced that the simulations were that far off. And even if they are that doesn't explain WTC 1 and 2 or the Pentagon, or Shanksville


----------



## eots (Oct 25, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


...
but if the nist report is so flawed on wtc 7 how can this investigation team be credible...they dismiss explosives or accelerants claiming no sound as loud as a shotgun blast was never recorded or reported by first responders and we know this is not true


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 26, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Did you know when people suspect the government had something to do with it they mean it includes DMV employees in Idaho, postal workers in Kentucky, and Crossing guards in Truth or Consequences?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 26, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I haven't found where they said "never recorded"; as we all know that there were secondary explosions, It's an office building of course there were. But there was nothing recorded at the time of collapse that could have been controlled demolition.


----------



## eots (Oct 27, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ayp54vHwUyA[/ame]




[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-npAbNl2ihY[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 27, 2010)

Well, there went 12 minutes I'll never get back...


----------



## eots (Oct 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Well, there went 12 minutes I'll never get back...



NIST...lied

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vbmP0Jw_2E[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 27, 2010)

And another wasted 6 minutes.

We can watch all the biased edited youtube videos in the world. Doesn't change the facts. We know there were secondary explosions, We also know that the planes when they exploded into the buildings sent a fireball down the elevator shafts. We do not have a timeline on the explosion that supposedly came from the WTC 7. Though I seem to remember someone pointing out it was at about 2:30 PM once.


----------



## eots (Oct 27, 2010)

nist reports no explosions heard or reported period...


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcaxvQGdmtw[/ame]


----------



## eots (Oct 27, 2010)

?.. a mire 100lbs is too much material to smuggle in ?..somebody needs to keep pushing it ?


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs25Jj8_As[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 27, 2010)

eots said:


> ?.. a mire 100lbs is too much material to smuggle in ?..somebody needs to keep pushing it ?
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs25Jj8_As


dang, why did they cut it off BEFORE the conclusion?


----------



## eots (Oct 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > ?.. a mire 100lbs is too much material to smuggle in ?..somebody needs to keep pushing it ?
> ...



because any idiot could coincide if fire brought the building down a fire that much more intense certainly would using the principal of thermal expansion as the cause...it is not required to melt the steel beam


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> And another wasted 6 minutes.
> 
> We can watch all the biased edited youtube videos in the world. Doesn't change the facts. We know there were secondary explosions, We also know that the planes when they exploded into the buildings sent a fireball down the elevator shafts. We do not have a timeline on the explosion that supposedly came from the WTC 7. Though I seem to remember someone pointing out it was at about 2:30 PM once.



Of course your countless years as a firefighter qualifies you to ignore it when firefighters who were actually....there...said they heard explosions that sounded like when they demo a building.   Fucking coward.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 27, 2010)

The end result probably showed melted steel on the beam so it wouldn't fit the theory because no melted beams were found.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > ?.. a mire 100lbs is too much material to smuggle in ?..somebody needs to keep pushing it ?
> ...



You never whined about the conclusion of the sandia labs test of a non-flying jet hitting a wall get cut off before you could see the results.  Hypocrisy is your BFF.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


because i have seen the FULL video of it, dipshit
anyone can
just got to the sandia lab site and you can see them ALL
moron


----------



## eots (Oct 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> The end result probably showed melted steel on the beam so it wouldn't fit the theory because no melted beams were found.



there are many reports of molten metal as you know and the evidence from wtc 7 was destroyed and only a few pieces 278.. I  believe from wtc 1 and 2


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 27, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > The end result probably showed melted steel on the beam so it wouldn't fit the theory because no melted beams were found.
> ...



And how many cameras were running for how many days and there are no melted steel beams on any of the video footage. Come on we aren't stupid. Curve, you , and 911 might be but please....


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 27, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-pZf56L0lg[/ame]




the part they DIDNT show


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Lol!  Divey lying hiz raggedy ass of.....again.

Post the link showing the full video of the crash test.
(We ALL know you wont but at least you can't honestly say it was never requested.)


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



You fucking coward.  You will say anything to give the appearance of being unbiased because cowards like you never have the balls to be honest. Why don't you explain all the footage of molten steel?  Nevermind.....stoopid to expect honesty from a coward like you.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


fuck off you PoS
they changed the site and the old link i had doesnt work now
i'll try finding them another way
but i'm not a fucking liar like YOU are


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 27, 2010)

found it, you lying PoS

Sandia National Laboratories: Sled Track


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Hey asswipe, show us the video of molten steel beams.... You can look at molten something flowing all you want. you cannot look at it and say it is steel. Show me the beams that were actually melted. We have seen plenty of them that were twisted and bent. But the only ones melted were cut with a torch during the cleanup. Now come on stupid ass, show me some proof, now that you seem to be actually taking a stand.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


um, once it is "molten" it would not look like a beam anymore
but, what i have seen them use as "molten" wasnt actually
you cant pick up a liquid with tongs


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I suppose I should say a beam that had been cut with thermite.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> found it, you lying PoS
> 
> Sandia National Laboratories: Sled Track



You dumb fuck.  That is not the full video.  Show the full video where we can see the aftermath of the crash.  We all know of the video showing the impact but nobody has ever been able to provide the full video.  However, in your defense you are quite stoopid so maybe you don't have a fucking clue what is meant by full video.

Link the video showing the aftermath dumbass.  Slow mo of impact doesn't cut it.


----------



## elvis (Oct 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > found it, you lying PoS
> ...



I knew we could count on you.......


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > found it, you lying PoS
> ...


its the full video you dumbfuck


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Molten Steel

Let's see if you figure out what else on that page shows what a dumbass coward you are.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Lol!  It doesn't even show the completion of the imact and aftermath you dumbfuck.  I knew you were too dumb to know what a full video consists of.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


its the full video dipshit
doesnt matter if you like it or not


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 27, 2010)

Sandia National Labs: News Room: Resources: Video Gallery

there is the original page, moron


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 27, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Lol....you think a video stopping before the completion of a crash is a full video?  Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!  Sooper stoopid fuck!


----------



## Obamerican (Oct 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


How did the thermite and the "molten steel" end up right where the planes hit? Let me guess. Someone ran up the stairs and planted the thermite AFTER the planes hit. Are you people really this stupid?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 27, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Oh please sir point out what on this page (that destroys anything you think you have as proof) shows that I am a dumbass coward. 

I really do need the entertainment.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 27, 2010)

Obamerican said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Yes they are that stupid. The planes didn't bother setting off the thermite either, It was set off later.... And I think I'm now the King of  Bhutan.


----------



## Obamerican (Oct 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


This is a bullshit post. I'M the King of Bhutan, you fake!!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 27, 2010)

Obamerican said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Obamerican said:
> ...



Well shit, can I be co-Prince of Andorra then?


----------



## eots (Oct 28, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frIpyTBAV_Y[/ame]


----------



## eots (Oct 28, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcqf5tL887o&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## eots (Oct 28, 2010)

divecon said:


> curvelight said:
> 
> 
> > divecon said:
> ...



for one thing there was a very small amount of paint applied ..the point is that it can be applied without "someone pushing it against the beam" like nist said. It is not in dispute that thermite melts steel.. Is it.and according to the nist theory it is not necessary to melt the steel and clearly a fire fueled by thermite would be a much hotter and intense fire


----------



## candycorn (Oct 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Wasn't ****-bite the one who said you can drive faster than cell phone signals or something like that in trying to discredit whether or not phone calls came from the planes?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 28, 2010)

candycorn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You're a dumbass.  The best you idiots can do is put words in others' mouths then celebrate your own fantasies.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 28, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



You wanted pics of molten metal so I provided it and you still ignore it.

For the longest time you've been screaming about explosions not being heard as proof no demo equipment was used.  Even this octa site knows better than your stoopidity:

"Let ' s forget for a moment that thermite doesn' t explode so the claims
of hearing explosions become meaningless."

Dumbass.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 28, 2010)

Obamerican said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



The jackass asked for pics of molten metal so I provided them.  I've never said the towers were brought down with explosives so don't ask me to prove claims i've not made.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 28, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



OH so now I asked for Molten metal? No you lying sissy fuck, I said Molten steel beams. And notice how once again Bentdick has decided that he can't take a stand.... You just can't make this shit up. 

That makes 3 flat out lies in this thread alone. Now watch him try to deny it.


----------



## eots (Oct 28, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Obamerican said:
> ...



lord what retard you are ollie...now watch him try a it


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 28, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Obamerican said:
> ...



Lol...the Queen of Cowards called me a liar.......hahahahahahaha!


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 28, 2010)

candycorn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


yes, he's the one that said that
but now he denies it like the lying PoS he is


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 28, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Deflection is the same as denial. And we have proven your lies. Care to prove I'm a coward?

Didn't think so.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Keep lying you brokedick diaper fashionista.......you're such a self admitted joke you don't even try to support your own claims....hahahahaha


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 28, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


everyone saw your posts, dipshit, you DID make that claim until it was pointed out to you that speed had nothing to do with cell phone signal loss, and that geography played a larger role
you OWN it, dipshit


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Lol....no evidence...again.....


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 28, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


yeah, cause everyone remembers something that didn't happen


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Once again.......no evidence.......hahahahahaha.....dumfuk


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Dipshit actually thinks anyone cares enough about him to go hunt down his lies from a thread 6 months buried. We all know he is a liar and a poor one at that. But he has to believe that he is right.... No doubt in need of professional help. Poor bitch can't even take a stand on an issue.


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 28, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



When you care enough to make the accusation you should have the balls to back it up.  Don't worry little miss Queen of the Cowards.  That only applies to honest people who do not shower daily in hypocrisy.  So shitbags like you and DiveNeverAgain are exempt.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Oct 28, 2010)

Did someone fart in here?


----------



## CurveLight (Oct 28, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Did someone fart in here?




You must have thought someone was calling your name........


----------



## eots (Nov 1, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P_hMQ1yZ4I&feature=player_embedded[/ame]


----------

