# yep no controlled demolition of bld 7 or  lost libertys since 9/11 alright



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 5, 2013)

I hate it that I am making another thread about 9/11 since I keep saying it is like the kennedy assassination,done and over with and just like with it,no justice will ever come about to where the real terrorists are put behind bars where they belong.

But after seeing this latest video by Richard Gage,i could not resist making this thread.Yep,according to the official conspiracy theory apologists in denial here, we havent lost libertys and freedoms since 9/11 and bld 7 wasnt a controlled demolition. The loyal Bush dupes in denial here of course wont watch this video.they will never do something like that. they will only listen to the paid shills listed in my sig here.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZAHp_zSGd8]Richard Gage New 10-minute Showcase Video - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jan 5, 2013)

Normally when a Plane crashes, the area is cordoned off and an investigation is done which can take months or years. Not so with the twin towers after 9/11.

The steel was hauled off to China and India *within a month*. The Chinese firm Baosteel purchased 50,000 tons at a rate of $120 per ton, compared to an average price of $160 paid by local mills in the previous year.

By September 29, 130,000 tons of debris, most of it steel, had been removed.

Mayor Bloomberg, a former engineering major, was not concerned about the destruction of the evidence:


> "If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do. Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything."


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 5, 2013)

the frady cat deniars here that are not paid shills here and just afraid and in denial,will of course not watch this video here either.I made a thread a long time ago how Alex Jones exposed 9/11 before it happened but it was Bill Cooper who originally did and Jones has even given Cooper credit for waking him up about 9/11.

For the sheople who ask why did they kill Cooper and not Jones as well then thats because Jones was far more well known back then then Cooper was.and If they killed Jones as well after killing Cooper,there would be a mass awakening so its best fro them to leave him alone since if they kill him,that just reinforces everything Jones has been saying.

When they cant kill you like they cant with Jones,they try to discredit you in the process.Cooper here correctly calls it out.Funny how  a LAMESTREAM media reporter here just happens to interview Bin Laden in the summer and tells the whole world he will pull off this attack and yet the LAMESTREAM media and the pentagon are allegedly so incompetent,they cant stop some cave dweller from pulling off.Great fairy tale if you were making up a fantasy.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 5, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> Normally when a Plane crashes, the area is cordoned off and an investigation is done which can take months or years. Not so with the twin towers after 9/11.
> 
> The steel was hauled off to China and India *within a month*. The Chinese firm Baosteel purchased 50,000 tons at a rate of $120 per ton, compared to an average price of $160 paid by local mills in the previous year.
> 
> ...



excellent post.well said,thanks for pointing that out.

I asume you watched the video?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 8, 2013)

I love it.I see the trolls are aoviding this thread because they know they cant counter these facts.hee hee.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 8, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> I love it.I see the trolls are aoviding this thread because they know they cant counter these facts.hee hee.



Woo. You're crying because you are desperate for some human contact and nobody, not even your loony tunes buds talk to you, forcing you to respond to yourself. Get out of your mommy's basement and do some living, Princess. Oh, and leave the foil hat at home.


----------



## Againsheila (Jan 9, 2013)

We have lost a lot of our rights since 9/11.  I don't like the fact that if someone doesn't like me, all they have to do is tell the cops I'm a terrorist and I can disappear forever....scary, isn't it?


----------



## Noomi (Jan 9, 2013)

Againsheila said:


> We have lost a lot of our rights since 9/11.  I don't like the fact that if someone doesn't like me, all they have to do is tell the cops I'm a terrorist and I can disappear forever....scary, isn't it?



Terrifying.


----------



## Montrovant (Jan 9, 2013)

I like how you have connected a controlled demolition to loss of rights; trying to make it seem that if you believe in one the other must be true?


----------



## Againsheila (Jan 9, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> I like how you have connected a controlled demolition to loss of rights; trying to make it seem that if you believe in one the other must be true?



Actually, you don't have to believe in the controlled demolition of building 7 to realize that the patriot act took away our rights.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 9, 2013)

Againsheila said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I like how you have connected a controlled demolition to loss of rights; trying to make it seem that if you believe in one the other must be true?
> ...



Are you saying you don't believe any of the towers were downed by controlled demo?


----------



## Againsheila (Jan 9, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



What I think about the buildings in relation to 9/11 is irrelevant to the FACT that the government used them as an excuse to take away our rights.  Don't you think that's the more important factor in this discussion?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 9, 2013)

Quote: Originally Posted by Montrovant  
I like how you have connected a controlled demolition to loss of rights; trying to make it seem that if you believe in one the other must be true? 



Againsheila said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Maybe, maybe not. 
It seems those who scream longest and loudest about our "lost freedoms" - and I know no one who has lost any - are the same peeps who subscribe to all manner of CTs about nefarious forces running and ruining our lives ... none of whom find America so bad they are willing to leave it.


----------



## Dante (Jan 9, 2013)

PLEASE>>>>   Stop replying to conspiracy threads>>>>>  Your mental health and that of others begs you


----------



## Montrovant (Jan 9, 2013)

Againsheila said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I like how you have connected a controlled demolition to loss of rights; trying to make it seem that if you believe in one the other must be true?
> ...



That is, actually, my point.  I should have used a quote of the OP, since I was speaking to that.

9/11IJ is the one who seems to be trying to connect the two, despite the fact they are completely separate issues.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 12, 2013)

Dante said:


> PLEASE>>>>   Stop replying to conspiracy threads>>>>>  Your mental health and that of others begs you



Typical post from someone in denial.


----------



## Againsheila (Jan 12, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Quote: Originally Posted by Montrovant
> I like how you have connected a controlled demolition to loss of rights; trying to make it seem that if you believe in one the other must be true?
> 
> 
> ...



Where are we suppose to go?  We are the only country in the world that takes in unskilled workers to compete with our own.  We are the only country in the world that takes in elderly from other countries and them puts them on welfare.  The only Americans who can move from here to another country are the overly educated and the overly wealthy.  Guess we are stuck here fighting to make this a better country the same way our ancestors were, except that THEY really did have a choice and chose to fight, knowing that if they failed, they'd be hung as traitors.


----------



## Againsheila (Jan 12, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Without 9/11, there would be no Patriot Act.


----------



## Montrovant (Jan 12, 2013)

Againsheila said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Yes, but without a controlled demolition of building 7, you still have 9/11.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 13, 2013)

Againsheila said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Quote: Originally Posted by Montrovant
> ...



There are hundreds of other countries to which you can go. There are even uninhabited islands in the Pacific you could colonize.
I am happy to tell you that many retired Americans living on Soc Security are retiring abroad where the cost of living is more reasonable and elderly immigrants to this country had better have financial resources or family here because they are not eligible for benefits. It is unhealthy to blame the sadness of your life on "them."


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 13, 2013)

Againsheila said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



How has the Pat Act negatively impacted on your life?


----------



## whitehall (Jan 13, 2013)

You think the sale of debris is evidence that some weird faction of the government conspired with the Clinton administration to blow up the symbol of capitalism in the United States by synchronizing the time schedule of a bunch of crazy jihadists crashing into the Towers with planes? Are you nuts?


----------



## zombiehunter696 (Jan 13, 2013)

whitehall said:


> You think the sale of debris is evidence that some weird faction of the government conspired with the Clinton administration to blow up the symbol of capitalism in the United States by synchronizing the time schedule of a bunch of crazy jihadists crashing into the Towers with planes? Are you nuts?



These loons will try to make anything seem to confirm their wacky beliefs. Except of course, explain how this conspiracy was carried out. There's a reason people usually ignore them. Hint to CT's: It's not because they are afraid you're right.


----------



## Againsheila (Jan 13, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Hundreds of other countries?  Care to name them?  I thought not.  When my husband was laid off, I decided to check out other countries because if we were going to emigrate, the best time is when you don't have a job here.  Too old for Australia, have to have a doctorate for New Zealand.  Must have a job for Canada.  Japan is right out and we have friends there.  England was a possibility because I was born there, but they have the same problems we do in relation to lack of jobs and a crumbling system.  Worse, they are being taken over by the Muslims and their citizens who can are leaving in droves.  We couldn't even move to Mexico, not legally.  Of course, a senior citizen who has a certain amount of money in the bank and a certain income can go there but you are out of work, forget it.  When my job went to India, I offered to go with it.  I was good at my job.  I was told no, those jobs were for their citizens.  

What are these uninhabited islands we can "colonize"?  Seriously, I'm interested.

Meanwhile, our country takes in the dregs of all the other countries, including their elderly and they are put on disability because they "can't" work and then many of them work under the table anyway.  They get subsidized housing, income, medical care, heck even Obama's illegal aunt was in subsidized housing and you're claiming that doesn't happen?


----------



## whitehall (Jan 13, 2013)

zombiehunter696 said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > You think the sale of debris is evidence that some weird faction of the government conspired with the Clinton administration to blow up the symbol of capitalism in the United States by synchronizing the time schedule of a bunch of crazy jihadists crashing into the Towers with planes? Are you nuts?
> ...



You need a motive and a reasonable scenario to promote a conspiracy. The 9-11 inside job theorists offer neither. They just keep throwing inane junk out hoping something will stick. Take the Pearl Harbor conspiracy. You can make a good case that FDR invited the Japanese attack in order to get the US into the War. Hitler might have burned his own Reichstag building in order to channel anger against the Jews. Why would Americans destroy the World Trade Towers? To get us into a war in Iraq? That's weak. Judging by the survival rate it seems that WTC security was pretty tight. When would the alleged demolition experts be able to drill the holes needed for the explosives. President Bush was in office for about 7 months and kept most of the Clinton appointees in the intelligence agencies and we know the jihad gang was planning the operation for years. The conspiracy theorists are careful not to implicate Clinton so who could have done the job?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 13, 2013)

Againsheila said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Indeed, they are not eligible for welfare. I'm sorry about your difficulties but they are not the fault some flood of elderly immigrants to this country. Here's a few of those islands but none have Starbucks. Sorry:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=..._BuGlN_uqEm5Thgxlz_Lw&bvm=bv.1357700187,d.dmQ


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 13, 2013)

whitehall said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



On the other hand it is easy to discern the motives of the CTs themselves.


----------



## Politico (Jan 14, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> I love it.I see the trolls are aoviding this thread because they know they cant counter these facts.hee hee.



No they're just asleep from boredom.


----------



## Toro (Jan 14, 2013)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jan 14, 2013)

Toro said:


> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


LIBOR Scandal,Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Algo Trading Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Jamie Dimon 6 Billion in botched trades, Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
1,600 Trillion in Global Derivatives, Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Al Capone: "Everyone knows the Markets are rigged". Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jan 14, 2013)

Toro said:


> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


Monarchy of Canada, Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 14, 2013)

zombiehunter696 said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > You think the sale of debris is evidence that some weird faction of the government conspired with the Clinton administration to blow up the symbol of capitalism in the United States by synchronizing the time schedule of a bunch of crazy jihadists crashing into the Towers with planes? Are you nuts?
> ...



I love how all you frady cat deniars cover your ears and eyes everytime we show you these videos showing what chickenshit cowards you are cause the truth scares you.Oh and thanks for ignoring facts how they illegally destroyed and removed evidence as well.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 14, 2013)

whitehall said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Yes we do its just you  always run off everytime we post it for you. thanks for demonstrating your ignorance saying it was americans.It was evil powerful people in the CIA and mossad that did it,the evidence is overwhelming in these two videos in my first post on this thread here.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...solved-names-connections-details-exposed.html


but your so afraid of the truth you wont look at it and will mock it as a youtube video. No whats weak is your pitiful posts ignoring facts we post for you running off with your tail between your legs everytime we answer these questions for you.  the demolition work was done months in advance,there were many signs in hallways that said-keep out construction work going on.The agents used service elevaters to get to floors to do their construction work to plant the explosives.the employees did not have acceess to these service elevater the agents used to plant the explosives.

security was horrible.Marvin Bush and his cousin were in charge of the security along with zionst jew larry Silverstein idiot.Silverstein,Bush and Cheney all profited from the wars in Iraq and afghaninstan.Many surviviors reported very unusual construction going on.if you would ever look at an opposing view than your own,you would know this. 

oh and your also obviously ignorant how the neocons in the Bush administration had plenty to gain by this.we have explained this to you HUNDREDS of times before but you just innore it and ask the same stupid questions over and over again which is the neocons in the Bush administration needed 9/11 for their pretext for war.in the PNAC document drawn up in 1999,they talked about trying to get support from the american people to invade Iraq but they mentioned that it would take a pearl harbour event to pull it off and get support from the american people. you wont read these links  below of of course but this explains it all for you.get your head out of your ass.

http://ian56.blogspot.com/2012/12/p...2/pnacs-neocon-agenda-continues-unabated.html



and and we have told you MILLIONS of times as well that Bushs pal and long time friend Clinton is involved in this as much as they are,you just ignore it all the time and always run off.

oh and Im not a conspiracy theorist,I am a conspiracy REALIST.Unlike you,I dont go into it only seeing what i want to see like you loyal Bush dupes do.You guys ignore evidence and facts that dont go along with thwe governments version because you all are a buch of COINCIDENCE THEORISTS.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 14, 2013)

whitehall said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



There are motives and much to read and research about their possibilities, that make more sense then the fanatical jihadists doing coke and watching porn attacking us at the behest of their leaders who hate us for our freedumbs storyline.
That was a good one wasn't it? In order to protect us from further terrorists attacks, simply infringing on those freedumbs we are hated for should work...
What insanely asinine logic...
Seems like the official conspiracy nuts don't see the irony in this, nor do they appear to have taken the time to study the whole 9-11 conspiracy, as told by the state, or the objections to it with any real objectivity.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 15, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > zombiehunter696 said:
> ...



Silverstein, a NY real estate developer profited from the war? It is clear why no one here - not even your fellow CTs - talks to you or gives you any respect despite your many attempts to engage them ... you are a flaming loon.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 15, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Silverstein made out well, and so did his BFF Nuttyahoo, who even admitted the 9-11 attacks were good for Isntreal. Wow, what the fuck are you even doing here, go study the topic... poobut


----------



## Toro (Jan 15, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



The value of the WTC rose by 6% per annum from 01 through 07, less than the rate of return of the average Manhattan commercial building.

But I'm betting you didn't know that.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jan 15, 2013)

Toro said:


> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


Bond Market Bubble! Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 15, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> ...



The point remains that trying to "prove" the 9/11 CT by concocting BS about Silverstein's "profit" is bogus.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jan 15, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


Until someone or a group, comes forward with absolutely rock solid damning evidence of a 9/11 conspiracy, that's all yer gonna' get: Circumstantial Evidence that when viewed by it's self seems normal but when viewed on a timeline or perhaps in conjunction with other evidence points at something other than the "Official Story" pushed by the Gov't and Mass Media.

It's not one thing, but it's the *totality of evidence* that makes me *certain* the Gov't isn't telling the *full truth* about 9/11.

That doesn't make me a Conspiracy Theorist, it just makes me Observant.

Hey, the Gov't pushes a food pyramid that keeps people fat, then pushes pills that have *huge side effects* to remedy the problems caused by the food that the Gov't promoted in the first place! Why should I listen to them? They have a poor track record of success and telling the truth.

So when two planes crash into buildings and kill 3,000 people on 9/11 and the Govt wants to go to War as a result, don't I have the right to examine *ALL *the Gov'ts Evidence they have? 

Am I a "nutter" for not completely trusting the *same* Gov't that lied us into Vietnam? Robert McNamara waited until 1995 to say that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident didn't happen the way it was reported.

Am I supposed to wait 30 years to question all the evidence used to send our Military to War?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 15, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



I don't think you are a Nutter, Mad, just a bit twisted but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I don't know what foods our gov't "pushes" but one can and should legitimately question gov't policies and actions. My prob is with the hard core CTs here who believe, as Paulitician so eloquently states, "Big Bro lies 24/7, 365."
Believing our elected officials, their staffs, the courts and the media are a monolithic, evil cabal is not rational and more to the point, the bogus claim that Silverstein was involved in some 9/11 plot because he benefitted financially, which he did not, is typically lame CT BS.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jan 15, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> I don't think you are a Nutter, Mad, just a bit twisted but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I don't know what foods our gov't "pushes" but one can and should legitimately question gov't policies and actions. My prob is with the hard core CTs here who believe, as Paulitician so eloquently states, *"Big Bro lies 24/7, 365."*


When Trillions of Dollars are at stake in Gov't and the Military Industrial Complex, they have to lie to keep the gravy train rollin', startin' with the Federal Reserve! You don't see that? Just because we elected them and this is America, we won WWII, that doesn't mean we can go go to sleep.


SAYIT said:


> Believing our elected officials, their staffs, the courts and the media are a monolithic, evil cabal is not rational and more to the point, the bogus claim that Silverstein was involved in some 9/11 plot because he benefitted financially, which he did not, is typically lame CT BS.


I know a *little* about Silverstein and his deal. I know he was outbid for the Towers but the other party's deal fell through so he got it. What's more interesting is that apparently the WTC complex office space was hard to fill so it was privatized by Pataki. 

See, I happen to know that failing businesses and other insured buildings get torched just for the Insurance Money. I ask you: Is it COMPLETELY out of the Realm of Possibility that the WTC buildings were destroyed for the Insurance Money? No it isn't. Do I *wanna'* believe it? No!

But when something happens and you don't know exactly why, you gotta' take *all the possibilities* and through Investigative Techniques, pare the list down until all you have left points Conclusively to the Cause.

What happened after 9/11? Was the Crime Scene cordoned off and an exhaustive investigation completed? No. Most of the steel was hauled of to China in less than a month! Well why was that?

When the Navy Seals got Osama bin Laden how many times did the Gov't change the story? Osama fought back, he didn't fight back, he used his wife as a shield, he didn't use his wife as a shield.

Then, the MOST f*ckin' amazing thing! THEY THREW HIS BODY IN THE F*CKIN" OCEAN! Who the f*ck does THAT? How long had we been at war to get this guy? We finally get him and he should be paraded around right? Like a war trophy! I ask you: Is that the way YOU'D have done it? NO! That's not the way ANY right thinking Gov't would do it!

They had video of Saddam getting his neck stretched. Why no pics of OBL?

WTF? 

And just the other day they said "Oh, we have the pics, we just may never show them". What? Oh Bullshit! How stupid do you think we are?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 15, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think you are a Nutter, Mad, just a bit twisted but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I don't know what foods our gov't "pushes" but one can and should legitimately question gov't policies and actions. My prob is with the hard core CTs here who believe, as Paulitician so eloquently states, *"Big Bro lies 24/7, 365."*
> ...



No rational person wants to believe 9/11 was an insurance scam and the insurance companies who paid out billions are pretty good at sniffing out fraud so the obvious question is, do _you_ believe 9/11 was an insurance scan orchestrated by Silverstein?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 18, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Silverstein and insurance fraud were a side benefit of the 9-11 attacks. He is friends with Nuttyahoo who stated Israel and its cause benefited from the attacks.
The way Mad is looking at the totality and circumstance of events and possible players is spot on. It is the way law enforcement, detectives and prosecutors establish cases and obtain motives, and compile a case.
See, the very first thing one has to do, if honestly studying this case, is the demise of the WTC and who is said to have flown the planes. Then study how these massive structures, with one being reinforced that wasn't hit by an airliner, all coming down in the manner that they did.
Mad is correct in his analysis of the situation, it is a natural sequence that you are not considering, and are ignoring. You make a very poor case for adhering to your beliefs, and
you refuse to honestly consider any objections to them, despite some very good points being made against them.

I will ask you once again to explain why did the WTC complex buildings experience only minimal resistance to the collapse front? Let's start there shall we?


----------



## eots (Jan 18, 2013)

sayit said:


> mad scientist said:
> 
> 
> > sayit said:
> ...



waterboard him and he would confess...


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 18, 2013)

Silverstein traded $124 million and 6 months for over $4 BILLION.

I think he made out quite well.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 18, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> I hate it that I am making another thread about 9/11 since I keep saying it is like the kennedy assassination,done and over with and just like with it,no justice will ever come about to where the real terrorists are put behind bars where they belong.
> 
> But after seeing this latest video by Richard Gage,i could not resist making this thread.Yep,according to the official conspiracy theory apologists in denial here, we havent lost libertys and freedoms since 9/11 and bld 7 wasnt a controlled demolition. The loyal Bush dupes in denial here of course wont watch this video.they will never do something like that. they will only listen to the paid shills listed in my sig here.
> 
> ...


Two planes.
Three steel-framed towers.
2.25 seconds of free-fall @WTC7
The time is long past for a full investigation.
Bush, Cheney, and Rummy live on CSPAN before they die.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 18, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> zombiehunter696 said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



9/11 Hand Job is a prime example of what happens if you allow your boy to live in your basement beyond age 23. Message to parents: Get 'em out of the house!


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 18, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Silverstein traded $124 million and 6 months for over $4 BILLION.



No he didn't and you keep posting that lie despite knowing it's a lie. 
Whatsamatta Guy ... the truth not strong enough to make your case?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 18, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Silverstein traded $124 million and 6 months for over $4 BILLION.
> ...



You keep telling me it's a lie but you provide ZERO evidence to back your assertion.

He paid $124 million to get his 99 year lease.

He collected over $4 billion from the terrorism clause in his insurance policy.

Which of those two statements is false?

Provide proof, please.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 19, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



It doesn't seem to matter how often your lying is refutted ... you continue lying. You will, as usual, ignore the facts in order to persue your lies.   

"The lease agreement applied to One, Two, Four, and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet (39,500 m2) of retail space. Silverstein put up $14 million of his own money to secure the deal.[15] *The terms of the lease gave Silverstein, as leaseholder, the right and the obligation to rebuild the structures if destroyed."*

Larry Silverstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"As leaseholder of buildings One, Two, Four and Five, Silverstein had the legal right to rebuild the buildings, including 1 World Trade Center at the World Trade Center site which would later be designated as building One, and while the site remains unoccupied, he continues to pay $10 million per month in rent to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey."
"Ground was broken on the construction of 1 World Trade Center on April 27, 2006.[31] Lack of financing had prevented construction from commencing earlier. *The proceeds of the insurance policies arising from the destruction of the previous buildings were insufficient to cover the cost of rebuilding all the insured buildings*."

Larry Silverstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## paulitician (Jan 19, 2013)

Hold on, the Goose Steppers are checking with their handlers for an appropriate & predictable Big Brother response. Give em some time.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 19, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


Your link:

"After the September 11 attacks, the United States Congress approved $8 billion in tax-exempt Liberty Bonds to fund development in the private sector at lower-than-market interest rates. $3.4 billion remained unallocated in March 2006 designated for Lower Manhattan, with about half of the funds under the control of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the other half under the control of former Governor George Pataki."

Two planes.
Three steel-framed skyscrapers.
2.25 seconds of free fall WTC7 acceleration.
Magical box cutters?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 20, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Uh-huh. So what has that to do with the FACT that GuyPinesta's claim about Silverstein reaping a windfall gain from 9/11 was bogus? You'll notice that after receiving proof that his BS was BS, Guy vanished like a fart in the wind. Typical ignorance and cowardice.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 20, 2013)

How did those $8 billion in Liberty Bonds affect Silverstein's bottom line? I don't know where to start assessing Larry's "windfall." It seems likely his net gain or loss won't be determined until Ground Zero is operating at its full capitalistic potential. I am considerably more certain there's a generation of Americans on the way who won't be afraid to demand an answer to this simple question: how did two planes collapse three steel-framed skyscrapers? How will you answer?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 20, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> How did those $8 billion in Liberty Bonds affect Silverstein's bottom line? I don't know where to start assessing Larry's "windfall." It seems likely his net gain or loss won't be determined until Ground Zero is operating at its full capitalistic potential. I am considerably more certain there's a generation of Americans on the way who won't be afraid to demand an answer to this simple question: how did two planes collapse three steel-framed skyscrapers? How will you answer?



They ignore questions like this by jumping over to something less difficult and engaging in other aspects of 9-11, like Silverstein, or will ask how "thousands" of people could keep a secret. The very first and most important things are of course what you just asked, and NIST and FEMA, have not answered it, and neither have any of the OCT people on here.

Once you begin to understand why credible intellects have objected to the NIST, and comprehend what the fuss is about, then you can begin to start researching who may have been able to facilitate the WTC destruction, and it does not point to AL CIA DUH.
The questions as to who benefited the most, who had opportunity, motives, and what was planned and going on that day and the reactions to the attacking planes, have their place, but you are dealing with people who don't even want to understand that the WTC towers and WTC 7 did not come down the way the NIST and others have them believing.
 They are trying to attack parts of the event that are, in their view, easier to defend while ignoring the elephant in the room.


----------



## paulitician (Jan 20, 2013)

Yep, we're more free now than we've ever been. Well, that's what Big Brother and his Goose Steppers keep telling us anyway.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 20, 2013)

Quote: Originally Posted by GuyPinestra  
You keep telling me it's a lie but you provide ZERO evidence to back your assertion.
He paid $124 million to get his 99 year lease.
He collected over $4 billion from the terrorism clause in his insurance policy.
Which of those two statements is false?
Provide proof, please.

Quote: Originally Posted by SAYIT
It doesn't seem to matter how often your lying is refutted ... you continue lying. You will, as usual, ignore the facts in order to pursue your lies. 

"The lease agreement applied to One, Two, Four, and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet (39,500 m2) of retail space. Silverstein put up $14 million of his own money to secure the deal.[15] The terms of the lease gave Silverstein, as leaseholder, the right and the obligation to rebuild the structures if destroyed."

Larry Silverstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"As leaseholder of buildings One, Two, Four and Five, Silverstein had the legal right to rebuild the buildings, including 1 World Trade Center at the World Trade Center site which would later be designated as building One, and while the site remains unoccupied, he continues to pay $10 million per month in rent to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey."
"Ground was broken on the construction of 1 World Trade Center on April 27, 2006.[31] Lack of financing had prevented construction from commencing earlier. The proceeds of the insurance policies arising from the destruction of the previous buildings were insufficient to cover the cost of rebuilding all the insured buildings."

Larry Silverstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote: Originally Posted by georgephillip
Your link:
"After the September 11 attacks, the United States Congress approved $8 billion in tax-exempt Liberty Bonds to fund development in the private sector at lower-than-market interest rates. $3.4 billion remained unallocated in March 2006 designated for Lower Manhattan, with about half of the funds under the control of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the other half under the control of former Governor George Pataki."

Two planes.
Three steel-framed skyscrapers.
2.25 seconds of free fall WTC7 acceleration.
Magical box cutters?

Quote: SAYIT
Uh-huh. So what has that to do with the FACT that GuyPinesta's claim about Silverstein reaping a windfall gain from 9/11 was bogus? You'll notice that after receiving proof that his BS was BS, Guy vanished like a fart in the wind. Typical ignorance and cowardice.   




georgephillip said:


> How did those $8 billion in Liberty Bonds affect Silverstein's bottom line? I don't know where to start assessing Larry's "windfall." It seems likely his net gain or loss won't be determined until Ground Zero is operating at its full capitalistic potential. I am considerably more certain there's a generation of Americans on the way who won't be afraid to demand an answer to this simple question: how did two planes collapse three steel-framed skyscrapers? How will you answer?



So now you wish to play the rational loon? Guy's point was clearly that Silverstein benefitted from 9/11 and therefore had to have been part of some nefarious CT. You defended his silliness until faced with the truth and now you claim we should wait to determine his loss or gain. It seems to me you are playing both sides, Princess.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 20, 2013)

paulitician said:


> Yep, we're more free now than we've ever been. Well, that's what Big Brother and his Goose Steppers keep telling us anyway.



Exactly what were you doing before 9/11 that you can't do today, Princess? Carrying boxcutters aboard commercial jets?


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 21, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > How did those $8 billion in Liberty Bonds affect Silverstein's bottom line? I don't know where to start assessing Larry's "windfall." It seems likely his net gain or loss won't be determined until Ground Zero is operating at its full capitalistic potential. I am considerably more certain there's a generation of Americans on the way who won't be afraid to demand an answer to this simple question: how did two planes collapse three steel-framed skyscrapers? How will you answer?
> ...


*Don't forget the donkeys in the room*.

Elected Republicans AND Democrats will be highly resistant to a full congressional investigation of 911.If a majority of Americans become convinced their government facilitated an attack on the US homeland, the Republican Party will vanish from the page of time and Democrats won't be far behind.

There are existing third parties already appearing on most ballots across the US; possibly, candidates from the Green, Libertarian, AIP, or Peace and Freedom parties would be more willing to make 911 Truth a hot-button topic in some future election?


----------



## paulitician (Jan 21, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, we're more free now than we've ever been. Well, that's what Big Brother and his Goose Steppers keep telling us anyway.
> ...



Man, i hope they're paying you well for being such a loyal Bootlicker. You can't be playing this dumb for free.


----------



## Montrovant (Jan 21, 2013)

paulitician said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Of course, you didn't actually answer the question.....

I actually agree that we lost a bit of freedoms after 9/11, and perhaps more importantly, lost a bit of the sense that our freedoms are at least as important as our safety.  Still, you are pretty extreme in your views and I'm very curious what, specifically, you think are the lost freedoms that have turned us into, how was it described in another thread, the least free country in the developed world?


----------



## paulitician (Jan 21, 2013)

Nothing to see here folks. All is well. Big Brother knows what's best for ya. He has to take your freedoms away in order to protect them. Kinda like his Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace Catch 22. Man, how can so many Americans be so ignorant and obedient. Sadly, even darker days are ahead for our Nation.


----------



## TNHarley (Jan 21, 2013)

I have never really been much on thinking it was an inside job(although the video of this tower collapsing was sketchy to say the least). Do I think our gov't would stoop so low? Absolutely. Really the only thing that gets me ont his is them getting rid of everything as FAST as they could. We could have been doing investigations. But then there is this : Why would we need to do an investigation? We saw the plane hit the other one. Could the force of impact just make this one fall? ( I really would like that question honestly answered)

Then you have the Patriot Act. Inacted very soon after the attack. Imposes on our freedoms, and IMO, is a start to what could become more gov't power. Power hunger will do strange things to people. The act America hates a a populace got extended in 2011. Sure, 9-11 changed everything. Did it get changed on purpose? Hmmmmmm

Holy shit, did I just make myself a CT?


----------



## paulitician (Jan 21, 2013)

Yep, so much more Freedom now. Uh huh.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pJFv5fIFpc]Lupe Fiasco Disses Obama at Inauguration Party OFFICIAL - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 21, 2013)

There have been many instances of transgressions upon the Constitution, and the Bill Of Rights throughout the history of the US, but they have become common place and are now being considered normal, and necessary.
The Patriot Act is a piece of legislation that can make truth an act of treason.

There are many links that can better define this, and a few people who have had the patriot act used against them, and has instilled fear in others.

The Patriot Act: When Truth Becomes Treason | Veterans Today


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nce5NZeFLY]9/11 Whistleblower and Patriot Act Victim Susan Lindauer On Patriot Act Extension - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 21, 2013)

TNHarley said:


> I have never really been much on thinking it was an inside job(although the video of this tower collapsing was sketchy to say the least). Do I think our gov't would stoop so low? Absolutely. Really the only thing that gets me ont his is them getting rid of everything as FAST as they could. We could have been doing investigations. But then there is this : Why would we need to do an investigation? We saw the plane hit the other one. Could the force of impact just make this one fall? ( I really would like that question honestly answered)
> 
> Then you have the Patriot Act. Inacted very soon after the attack. Imposes on our freedoms, and IMO, is a start to what could become more gov't power. Power hunger will do strange things to people. The act America hates a a populace got extended in 2011. Sure, 9-11 changed everything. Did it get changed on purpose? Hmmmmmm
> 
> Holy shit, did I just make myself a CT?



No you just made yourself what everyone should be, that being a person who thinks for himself and is not afraid to ask questions if he doesn't fully understand the answers given
or the answers simply do not make sense.
There are links I can provide that spell out the objections regarding the destruction of the WTC with the use of science and physics.
If something about the official version doesn't sit comfortably with you, then by all means you have the right to research it. Just be aware of strawmen and ridicule by those that don't want people to question things.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 21, 2013)

paulitician said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



I'll take that to mean you really haven't lost any of your rights but you like to whine like a little girl. Got it.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 21, 2013)

Quote: Originally Posted by paulitician  
Yep, we're more free now than we've ever been. Well, that's what Big Brother and his Goose Steppers keep telling us anyway. 

Quote: Originally Posted by SAYIT
Exactly what were you doing before 9/11 that you can't do today, Princess? Carrying boxcutters aboard commercial jets? 

Quote: Originally Posted by paulitician
Man, i hope they're paying you well for being such a loyal Bootlicker. You can't be playing this dumb for free. 

Quote: Montrovant
Of course, you didn't actually answer the question.....
I actually agree that we lost a bit of freedoms after 9/11, and perhaps more importantly, lost a bit of the sense that our freedoms are at least as important as our safety. Still, you are pretty extreme in your views and I'm very curious what, specifically, you think are the lost freedoms that have turned us into, how was it described in another thread, the least free country in the developed world? 




paulitician said:


> Nothing to see here folks. All is well. Big Brother knows what's best for ya. He has to take your freedoms away in order to protect them. Kinda like his Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace Catch 22. Man, how can so many Americans be so ignorant and obedient. Sadly, even darker days are ahead for our Nation.



What a lame coward. Not only does he continue to avoid the question raised by his whining about what he calls our lost rights, he truncates the thread because it exposes him for the whiny, snivelly, ignorant jackass he clearly is.


----------



## paulitician (Jan 21, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Quote: Originally Posted by paulitician
> Yep, we're more free now than we've ever been. Well, that's what Big Brother and his Goose Steppers keep telling us anyway.
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by SAYIT
> ...



I try avoiding feeding lame ass Sock Trolls. But do carry on stalking. I'm flattered.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > I have never really been much on thinking it was an inside job(although the video of this tower collapsing was sketchy to say the least). Do I think our gov't would stoop so low? Absolutely. Really the only thing that gets me ont his is them getting rid of everything as FAST as they could. We could have been doing investigations. But then there is this : Why would we need to do an investigation? We saw the plane hit the other one. Could the force of impact just make this one fall? ( I really would like that question honestly answered)
> ...



exactly.you took the words right out of my mouth.I was about to say the same thing but you beat me to the punch.Tn Harley here is doing what at least half of the americans are not doing.Being objective,using logic and common sense and being open minded asking questions.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 22, 2013)

paulitician said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Quote: Originally Posted by paulitician
> ...



so very true.Yeah like you mentioned before,wonder how much money his handlers are paying him to troll these boards like he does.


QUOTE=paulitician;6680872]Hold on, the Goose Steppers are checking with their handlers for an appropriate & predictable Big Brother response. Give em some time. [/QUOTE]


Whats funny is Sayit trolls handlers havent been able to give him any kind of propaganda to post to counter the facts in this video.yeah you know he deosnt play dumb for free.

also whats amusing to me about these trolls in denial and afraid of the truth such as whitehall and Toto,they prove in sapdes all the tiem they are in denial and afraid to look at the evidence because they come on here making moronic posts without even bothering to look at the video they post dismissing it cause its on youtube.In their waped minds,the twin towers never fell cause its been posted on a youtube video.

it cracks me up about whitehall troll.Myself and others have stated many times to him  how clinton is involved in this up to his ears every bit as much as Bush is but all he can do is repeat the same ramblings over and over about Clinton all the time as evidenced in his posts on this thread everytime one of these threads is made. and as always,he changes the subject just like you mentioned before,aoviding the facts presented in the video talking about things that have been explained many times to him before and going on and on about his obsession with clinton all the time.Never fails with trolls like him.


----------



## TNHarley (Jan 22, 2013)

So can someone answer my question? Could the force from the airplane cause the other tower to fall by itself?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 22, 2013)

TNHarley said:


> So can someone answer my question? Could the force from the airplane cause the other tower to fall by itself?



Are you asking if the force of the planes hitting towers 1 & 2 caused 7 to collapse?


----------



## TNHarley (Jan 22, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > So can someone answer my question? Could the force from the airplane cause the other tower to fall by itself?
> ...



Yes. The best result I have ever been able to find is "natural causes"


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 22, 2013)

surely.I think you mean cause the tower to fall by itself though right? To answer your question,no the force of the plane could not cause the tower to fall by itself thats why explosives were rigged.

We know they could not fall from the force of the plane hitting the towers cause the designers when they designed the towers,built them having that in mind if an airliner smashed into it,that they would remain standing.they were the most advanced sophisticated skyscrapers in our modern times ever built.This video below is an interview with Frank Demartini who was the construction manager and one of the main designers of the towers in an interview with modern marvels in march 2001 several months before 9/11. The towers stood for over and hour after the airliners hit the towers so these experts were right obviously.

You can hear it from the horses mouth himself one of the main architects who oversaw the construction of the towers.Oh and that paid troll Sayit will come on and say something like it was designed for a 707 to hit it and not a 747 or crap like that to avoid the facts but the problem with his  rants and propaganda he posts is that again,it was designed by them to withstand hits from MULTIPLE airliners and remain standing.Plus there were many people that heard explosions going on in the towers including many credible first responders and firemen experienced in the sounds of explosives going off that heard them.

Also,some witnesses heard explosions going on in the BASEMENT below and some of the suppressed photos taken by a photographer back them up showing black smoke billowing from below at the base of the towers rising up before the tower collapses and you hear misstimed explosions as well.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1JxpVb2eU]Frank A. DeMartini - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 22, 2013)

TNHarley said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



You are talking to a paid troll right now.You wont learn anything from him other than that he lies and that he runs off with his tail between his legs when he is cornered by changing the subject refusing to address your evidence and facts coming back with pitiful one liners as his rebutalls.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 22, 2013)

TNHarley said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



Speaking just intuitively, it would depend on a number of factors including the size and speed of the plane, the size of the structure, its proximity to the collision site and the building's structural soundness. In the case of 9/11 I'd say the answer is no. Why do you ask? Is anyone claiming that to have been the cause of bldg 7's collapse?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 22, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



How do you know I'm a paid troll, Princess? You must be stealing my checks because I certainly haven't seen any. Do you ever deal in facts or just the BS you gather at LoonyTunes-R-Us? As for your well established lunacy, have you ever noticed that no one, and I mean no one wants their name attached to anything you say. Now get out of your mommy's basement and get a life.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 22, 2013)

your handlers sure sent you here quickly to fart in my thread sayit.two farts in a row from you.


----------



## TNHarley (Jan 22, 2013)

Ok, so if it was "rigged", why blow that one up?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 22, 2013)

paulitician said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Quote: Originally Posted by paulitician
> ...



Nah. What is do is toss lame BS on the wall and then deflect from any request that you stand behind your silly crap. Are you still thinking about that list of rights you claim to have lost to the Pat Act?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 22, 2013)

TNHarley said:


> Ok, so if it was "rigged", why blow that one up?



I'm not certain you aimed this question at me. Perhaps you meant it for 9/11 Hand Job? I have never claimed that bldg 7 was felled by the impact of the jets on 1 & 2, I never heard anyone make that claim, nor have I ever claimed it was "rigged" or "blown up." 
Additionally there is no evidence those were factors in 7's collapse.
So who did claim the impact destroyed 7?


----------



## TNHarley (Jan 22, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, so if it was "rigged", why blow that one up?
> ...



No one. 911 was talking about the explosives in it. So my question to him was, why would they blow that one up?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 22, 2013)

TNHarley said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



Got it. So what inspired your original question?

Quote: Originally Posted by TNHarley  
So can someone answer my question? Could the force from the airplane cause the other tower to fall by itself?
Quote: Originally Posted by SAYIT
Are you asking if the force of the planes hitting towers 1 & 2 caused 7 to collapse?
Quote: Originally Posted by TNHarley
Yes. The best result I have ever been able to find is "natural causes"


----------



## TNHarley (Jan 22, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



I am trying to figure out why it would just fall


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 22, 2013)

TNHarley said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



The obvious place to start would be GOOGLE. Just punch in "why did building 7 collapse on 9 11" and you will get both factual theories (Structure Mag, POP Mechs, NIST Report) and all the CTs you can handle. There's even an independent study by some Chinese University. Have fun!


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 22, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


Including 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration over eight stories.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 22, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...




Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Free Fall


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 22, 2013)

TNHarley said:


> So can someone answer my question? Could the force from the airplane cause the other tower to fall by itself?



In a word, no.

The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of the largest airliner of the day, comparable in size and weight to the planes that struck the buildings.

ETA: Sorry I misunderstood your question. The planes couldn't be responsible for the destruction of WTC 1&2, let alone WTC 7...


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 22, 2013)

TNHarley said:


> Ok, so if it was "rigged", why blow that one up?



The answer to your question is found in the occupants of that building and the information it's collapse 'disappeared'.

Think SEC and fraud investigations.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 22, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



$10 million a month X 12 months = $120 million/year x 10 years = $1.2 billion

What was your point?

How much money was contributed after the fact by both government and private individuals?

No money, my ass!


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 22, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > So can someone answer my question? Could the force from the airplane cause the other tower to fall by itself?
> ...



More knowledgeable and far smarter peeps disagree with you, Guy.
For instance, Cesar Pelli, who designed the Petronas Towers in Malaysia and the World Financial Center in New York, remarked, "no building is prepared for this kind of stress."

'Magnitude Beyond Anything We'd Seen Before'


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 22, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, so if it was "rigged", why blow that one up?
> ...



Great! Now all you need is some evidence that bldg 7 was rigged for demo and you've got something, Princess ... maybe. Do you have any proof that any SEC evidence was lost? You have heard of electronic record storage, right?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 22, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



You forgot the small matter of lost profit and the cost of rebuilding the towers which I've repeatedly told you is required by the lease. Any idea what that will cost, Princess?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 22, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > So can someone answer my question? Could the force from the airplane cause the other tower to fall by itself?
> ...



Exactly.Its impossible for the planes alone to destroy the towers.Aluminum slamming into steel?you wont hurt the steel framed building,that aluminum plane will crumple up everytime. the crux of the 9/11 coverup commission that paid troll sayit cant get around is the 9/11 commission said that the planes caused the collapse of the towers.even if that were true it cant account for building 7.as you can see in that video,building 6 which was much closer to the towers than bld 7,received far more extensive damage done to it than bld 7 and the fires were far more severe and far more extensive as well than bld 7's was yet that building and other buildings that were damamaged far more extensively and had far worse damage than bld 7 all remained standing.

Its all just a mere bizarre coincidence to agent troll Say it that the only buildings that collapsed that day were all owned by zionist jew larry Silverstein.Just one of many bizarre incredible coincidences this troll ignores all the time.

Including 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration over eight stories. 

yep.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 22, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



There are several billion dollars available from government and private entities, and better than $3 billion left from the insurance. 

As the cost overruns pile up, Congress will write Larry ANOTHER check to get him 'over the hump'...


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 22, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



You have no idea what costs Silverstein has incurred. For instance, he ceded some of his right to rebuild along with some of the insurance money to the Port Authority. 
Any idea what that cost him? 
You have no idea what remains of the insurance settlement, no idea what it will cost him to rebuild and no evidence that Congress has ever or will ever write "Larry" a check. 
It seems you are slowly oozing out of the closet, Bubba, and I'm not a bit surprised by what is oozing out.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Speaking of 'oozing', you might want to wipe your chin and tone down the hysterics a notch or two.

You claim I 'have no idea', but the fact is I have some facts to go on.

Fact 1.) Larry collected several billion dollars insurance money from the attacks of 9/11.

Fact 2.) The government set up several different recovery funds with several billion dollars of both public money and private donations.

Fact 3.) Your stated expenses so far have totaled approximately $1 billion.

Fact 4.) Construction costs so far are estimated to be $3 billion.

Fact 5.) Congress will HAPPILY write Larry a check should he need it. You think that ANY of the 535 worms on Capitol Hill would say 'No'?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



It has been 138 months since 9/11 ($10 rent mil x 138 = $1.38 bil). Add in the costs incurred by Silverstein on 9/11 (any thoughts what they were?) and all costs since. I don't know what they are and neither do you but I do know these props have not run themselves for 136 months. Silverstein relinquished his rights and obligation to rebuild bldg 7 along with some of the insurance money. Any idea how much, Princess? It is obvious that whatever is left of the money isn't going to be enough to cover the rebuilding costs whatever the final number is. If this is the basis of your 9/11 CT you may as well retire from the loony tune biz right now.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


Your link made no reference to WTC7; why is that?
Here's one for you...convince me you're smarter than David Chandler.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Did you all go over why in the world a guy waould want to blow up his own buildings yet?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 23, 2013)

TNHarley said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



There was nothing natural about the WTC destruction. 
It was assumed that the structural damage to WTC 7 may have played a part in its demise, but upon further review it was determined that the debris of the falling towers, did not contribute to it, despite a few on here posting shit like "110 stories fell on WTC 7".

The point of contention is that the majority of the mass of the towers, ie; the parts that were not affected by plane impact, or fires, could not have physically been overcome by the collapsing front, in such a short amount of time.
Facts to consider are, much of the collapsing debris was forcibly elected away from the buildings, and therefore could not contribute to the "crush down" or "pancake" theory, in the short amount of time we witnessed them both "collapse".
Any video of the collapses will readily show what are seemingly explosive ejections of massive material, and NOT a gradual deterioration of the buildings, caused by fires.
No partial collapses, no sustained toppling over of debris in which the main more robust lower structure remains standing as might be expected.
The buildings just seem to explode all the way down, with no "pancaked" floors remaining.
Watch a video and take a good look at the explosive ejections. BTW,The video below is narrated by the man who forced NIST into admitting that the WTC 7 did indeed experience a period of freefall.
North Tower
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8]North Tower Exploding - YouTube[/ame]


South Tower-Note the explosive material being ejected just under the collapse fronts.
Many of the objects being ejected were estimated to weigh hundreds of tons, some were
found imbedded in surrounding buildings, so this ejected material could not be included as helping to "crush" down the towers.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA]9/11: South Tower "Collapse" video compilation - YouTube[/ame]


Now take a look at the part of what appears to be the core/outer core just dissipate into dust?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI]9/11 WTC North Tower Core, HAVE YOU SEEN IT? - YouTube[/ame]

It is easy to be fascinated by the event and most of us were shocked, but by now people should be able to look at what happened to those massive buildings, and read the objections to the NIST report by credible physicists and people in the pertinent fields, and at least understand why they and many people suspect the NIST report is bogus, and further on, will understand the pressure being put on those NIST people to conclude an outcome that was in line with the OCT.

The point in all of this is, that the lower unmolested parts of the buildings, should have provided more then just "minimal resistance" as NIST has claimed without even explaining. Much like they tried to keep the fact that WTC 7 had experienced FF for 2.25 secs. for 8 stories.


----------



## Toro (Jan 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Silverstein traded $124 million and 6 months for over $4 BILLION.
> 
> I think he made out quite well.



No he didn't, you idiot.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 23, 2013)

candycorn said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



You'll have to ask the CT loons but GuyP won't do you much good ... he just fabricates "facts" as he goes.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


*Your link:*

"The end came when the fire had softened the girders so that the weight above the crash sites became unsupportable. 

"The South Tower, hit lower down, fell first beneath the greater weight. The North Tower, with less weight above the explosion, held out a bit longer: '*The whole thing just imploded*,' said Melvyn Blum, 55, a real estate executive who was watching through a telescope from his 44th-floor office a few miles away on Manhattan's Seventh Avenue, '*just like you see when they take buildings down with dynamite*.'"

That would be dynamite laced with Thermite.

'Magnitude Beyond Anything We'd Seen Before'


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



I see that this troll has nothing to reply with to what I posted about the impossibility of the WTC buildings being destroyed by fires in such short collapse times. 
Another disinfo troll exposed.
Now that the matter of the WTC being facilitated by something else other then kerosene and aluminum planes being flown by inexperienced pilots, who would have motive, financial and otherwise to participate in this "terrorist attack"?
Who would have the means to allow devices into the property?
Who stood to benefit the most from such an operation?
It couldn't have been AlQaeda, they would have been noticed right?


----------



## Montrovant (Jan 24, 2013)

I wonder how many of you who believe the towers were brought down by controlled demolition work in the fields of demolitions, or building design perhaps, structural engineering?

I ask that because, while not being one of those things in no way negates any claims you make, it does lead a person to wonder why you accept the claims of those who have the proper background that say it was controlled demo, but dismiss the claims of those with the proper background that say it was not?

Or are there no engineers or designers or demolitions experts who accept the idea that the planes brought down the towers?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 24, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> I wonder how many of you who believe the towers were brought down by controlled demolition work in the fields of demolitions, or building design perhaps, structural engineering?
> 
> I ask that because, while not being one of those things in no way negates any claims you make, it does lead a person to wonder why you accept the claims of those who have the proper background that say it was controlled demo, but dismiss the claims of those with the proper background that say it was not?
> 
> Or are there no engineers or designers or demolitions experts who accept the idea that the planes brought down the towers?



Good question. My take is that there are so many instances in the OCT about 9-11 that the government and its affiliated agencies refused to answer and in many instances refused to even acknowledge, that many people don't take their word for it and hence their explanations. They can not be trusted,and their reports are full of obfuscation and slight of hand.
When compared to what other unbiased experts have said and explained in much greater detail, and compared to the explanations and lack of details that very biased sources of the government and its agencies have delivered, it's really a no brainier.
One source has the motive to lie and the others do not
One source leaves more questions then answers in their theory and hypothesis, while others are more detailed and fact based.
One source leaves out the explanation of physics in their theory and hypothesis, while the ones I believe use them exclusively to explain theirs.
The source that delivered the OCT received a political and military objective that depended on the 19 jihadists theory with planes and are loyal to a foreign state, while the other sources mostly want the truth and justice, and provide a more real world fact based theory and hypothesis..

It should be noted that the government sources who provided their explanation ( or lack thereof) base it on theories that leave out anything that would discredit it, and provide no absolute concrete proof or evidence to support it, while depending it will be believed by the public simply because they are the US government and an authority most people are trained to believe and never question.
That should be evident by the posters on here.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 24, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



A real estate exec? There's a demo expert for you! Are you calling his comment proof the Towers were demolished by explosives? Do you have a link to the rigging of the Towers for demo? The job would have required dozens of pros, tons of materials and a dozen weeks or more. Surely someone has said something.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 24, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how many of you who believe the towers were brought down by controlled demolition work in the fields of demolitions, or building design perhaps, structural engineering?
> ...



    
CTs have no reason to lie? You are a very strange bird, Princess, but you have made your reason for lying perfectly clear.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


"The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939, but grew to *employ more than 130,000* people and cost nearly US$2 billion (roughly equivalent to $25.8 billion as of 2013[1]). Over 90% of the cost was for building factories and producing the fissionable materials, with less than 10% for development and production of the weapons."

How many of those 130,000 employees said anything before Hiroshima?

Manhattan Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 24, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> I wonder how many of you who believe the towers were brought down by controlled demolition work in the fields of demolitions, or building design perhaps, structural engineering?
> 
> I ask that because, while not being one of those things in no way negates any claims you make, it does lead a person to wonder why you accept the claims of those who have the proper background that say it was controlled demo, but dismiss the claims of those with the proper background that say it was not?
> 
> Or are there no engineers or designers or demolitions experts who accept the idea that the planes brought down the towers?


I'm not an engineer or an architect, and I'm sure there are many who accept the government's explanation for what happened on 9/11/01. To my knowledge, those who support the Official Conspiracy Theory have not bothered to organize and agitate the way their opponents have.

The biggest difference I see between the two camps is simply this: 911 skeptics argue there is sufficient controversy to warrant a full public investigation by the entire US Congress with all principals required to testify in public and under oath.

Those who accept their government's explanation argue no such controversy exists.

From past experience I've found it useful to consider a hypothetical possibility: If agents of the US government had prior knowledge of the attacks on 911 and allowed them to happen, which poses the greater threat to this Republic, allowing the attacks or lying to the US public for the last decade?

Finally, I can't help believing there is a generation of Americans on the way who will look back at those of us of legal age in September '01 and see a cohort of cowards unwilling to demand a full impartial investigation of the events.


----------



## Montrovant (Jan 24, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how many of you who believe the towers were brought down by controlled demolition work in the fields of demolitions, or building design perhaps, structural engineering?
> ...



I suppose this sounds reasonable, on it's face, but it leads me to another question : are there no unbiased experts who accept the explanation that the planes alone caused the collapses?  Is it possible that you automatically consider anyone who agrees with the government's report to be affiliated with the government in some way?

I guess I just find it hard to believe that NO impartial experts have said they disagree with the idea of controlled demolition.


----------



## eots (Jan 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...




wtc 7 had moderate random fires, all other building experiencing such fires and far worse never collapsed let alone completely in secs


----------



## eots (Jan 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc]Danny Jowenko on WTC 7 controlled demolition - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg]Tom Sullivan - Explosives Technician - Loader - AE911Truth.org - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 24, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Really? That's the best you can do? Those working on the Bomb with knowledge of what was up were committed to helping America defend itself in case of war. They knew what they were researching. What would keep all those hard hat demo peeps, each of whom would have known what was up, from wondering out loud why they were rigging the Towers? Surely someone would have seen them. Surely some of them would have come forward on 9/12 if only to garner their 15 minutes of fame. Game over, Princess, but if you put another dollar in the slot you can try again.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 24, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I see the idiot Jones troll has no response to the bogus "Silverstein made a ton of money on 9/11" CT. Instead he lamely attempts to deflect the conversation. Typical.


----------



## eots (Jan 24, 2013)

its not even relevant...whats relevant is the column 79 theory is nonsense


----------



## eots (Jan 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



blah blah blah..a building does not fall in this manner from fire


----------



## eots (Jan 24, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj487RNAi14]wtc tower 7 high resolution collapse footage: clip 2 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 24, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



I did not state the "expenses so far have totaled approx $1 bil" you lying slug, but _you_ have done so repeatedly.
I have consistently proven they are far higher. The $10 mil/month alone (138 months since 9/11) totals $1.38 bil. I suggest you lay off the crack pipe.


----------



## paulitician (Jan 24, 2013)

Oh just STFU! Big Brother always tells the truth and he knows what's best for ya. And if you quesion that, you're a "Crazy Tin Foil Hat-Wearing America-Hater."


----------



## eots (Jan 24, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI]4409 -- (Unseen Footage) Tower 7 blasted into rubble from NEW angle! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 24, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how many of you who believe the towers were brought down by controlled demolition work in the fields of demolitions, or building design perhaps, structural engineering?
> ...



Funny you would mention 9/11 skeptics, or more precisely, 9/11 CT skeptics. They find the 9/11 CT "movement" to be far more fertile ground for their skepticism than the NIST report.
Skeptic » eSkeptic » Wednesday, June 4th, 2008


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 24, 2013)

paulitician said:


> Oh just STFU! Big Brother always tells the truth and he knows what's best for ya. And if you quesion that, you're a "Crazy Tin Foil Hat-Wearing America-Hater."



Typically lame Straw Man. Would you like some cheese with that whine, Princess? Music?


----------



## paulitician (Jan 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Hey douchebag, many of your "9/11 CT skeptics" are actual loved ones of those lost in the attack. They deserve truth. So piss off asshole.


----------



## eots (Jan 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



meaningless link void of any substance


----------



## paulitician (Jan 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Oh just STFU! Big Brother always tells the truth and he knows what's best for ya. And if you quesion that, you're a "Crazy Tin Foil Hat-Wearing America-Hater."
> ...



Nah, sums you ignorant Goose Steppers up quite accurately.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 24, 2013)

eots said:


> its not even relevant...whats relevant is the column 79 theory is nonsense



Could you spend a minute listing a few of the "several former NIST" investigators you claim leveled charges at the NIST report and the charges they made? You weren't lying when you said that, were you, Princess?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 24, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...




You're too funny!


----------



## paulitician (Jan 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > its not even relevant...whats relevant is the column 79 theory is nonsense
> ...



Hey Sock, the "Princess" thing is pretty old. Get some new material. You're running on empty. Now you're just embarassing yourself.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 24, 2013)

paulitician said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...




Yeah ... I've noticed your "concern" for the loved ones of tragedy vics over on the Sandy Hook thread, Princess. You are one particulary slimy individual, plying your lowlife CT trade before the bodies were cold.


----------



## eots (Jan 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



so explain the column 79 theory for us


----------



## paulitician (Jan 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



So douchebag, what do you have to say to those loved ones who still believe their Government lied to them? I dare you to call them "Crazy Tin Foil Hat-Wearing America-Haters" to their faces. Give it a shot pussy.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 24, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Obviously it does. Got any evidence they were rigged for demo?


----------



## eots (Jan 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > its not even relevant...whats relevant is the column 79 theory is nonsense
> ...



I already address this...but perhaps you can tell us more about how dr Q had no involvement in the  nist investigation


----------



## eots (Jan 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



the nature of the collapse is evidence...any evidence of the column 79 theory ? do you even know how NIST created this theory ?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 24, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



It's you who's obsessed with it, Princess ... you go first but before you begin would you post the names of a few of what you claim are "several former NIST" investigators who have leveled "charges" against NIST and the charges they made?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 24, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Really? Could you link me to that post? Thanks.


----------



## paulitician (Jan 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Many family members of 9/11 victims question Big Brother's 9/11 story. Are they all just "Crazy Tin Foil Hat-Wearing America-Haters" too?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 24, 2013)

paulitician said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Typically weak deflection. The subject is Ideot's claim that "There is the fact that several former NIST chief fire investigators have made these charges." 
I have repeatedly asked Ideots to name the names and the charges. Can you help him with that or is this lame deflection stuff all you have in your bag, PRINCESS?


----------



## Montrovant (Jan 24, 2013)

paulitician said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



This sounds like a pot/kettle case, mr. government/media complex, goose-stepper.


----------



## eots (Jan 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



sayit does not even understand the basic cornerstones of NIST theories or the method used to determine them...yet he blindly supports them


----------



## paulitician (Jan 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Oh, so you're just a cowardly Goose Stepper douchebag. Gotcha.


----------



## paulitician (Jan 24, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Don't expect too much from a Sock Troll.


----------



## eots (Jan 24, 2013)

he really should go a actually read and understand the NIST report.. if he is capable
before he opens his mouth


----------



## paulitician (Jan 24, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Seriously, the "Princess" thing is just plain gay. You sound so damn dumb. Try to get some new material. It's embarassing.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jan 24, 2013)

eots said:


> he really should go a actually read and understand the NIST report.. if he is capable
> before he opens his mouth


Is there a NIST WikiPedia page? He *might* look at it then.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


Maybe they did it for the money?
Another good reason for a full congressional investigation televised on CSPAN.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


"skeptic..."

"Someone undecided as to what is true."

In this case, someone calling for full public investigation into the events of 911 with Bush, Cheney, and Rummy testifying under oath on CSPAN.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 25, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



In this case, well established skeptics take aim at the 9/11 CT movement and squish it like a grape.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 25, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I take that to mean you do not have evidence of "several former NIST" investigators who have leveled "charges" against NIST. That, of course, was my point. You lied because the truth just doesn't support your foil-hatted CTs. You are, like all loony tune CTs, just a lying fool but thanks for playing, Princess. You are dismissed.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 25, 2013)

paulitician said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Evidently you, like Ideots, have nothing to support his lies. You too are dismissed, Princess.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 25, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Now that's convenient. What money?


----------



## eots (Jan 25, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



you pathetic little man you have never even read these essential reports have you...do you know how ridiculous that makes you ?


----------



## eots (Jan 25, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



go read the reports for the first time in your life and earn your pay-check troll


----------



## paulitician (Jan 25, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Another lame Sock Troll. Same Ole Same Ole. Stale 'Tin Foil Hat' insult in 5 4 3 2 1...


----------



## paulitician (Jan 25, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Don't bother with that one. Just another lame Sock Troll. I'm guessing del a.k.a. (The Gimp), that creepy Dante dude, or dawgshit. But it wouldn't surprise me if it was all of the above. lol! Hang in there man. Keep on fighting the good fight. Take care.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 25, 2013)

candycorn said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Google 'asbestos abatement'...


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 25, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Did you miss the word 'approximately', or are you just being bitchy by nature?

We're talking over ten billion and you want to snivel about $380 million?

Cry me a river...


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 25, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


Squish this:

"Summary: More than 40 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and most have called for a new investigation. Veterans from the U.S. State Department, the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the branches of the U.S. Military are quoted."

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 25, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



You're just like the mole in that old Whack-a-Mole game. Get your lies blasted on a post? No prob! Just move on to the next post and double down on your lies. 
The bottom line?
You have no idea how much the leaseholder, Silverstein Props has received from the insurers (and wouldn't they have denied payment altogether if they could have proven a controlled demo?), no idea what their expenses have been since 9/11, and no idea what it will cost them to rebuild, nevertheless you are convinced that the knowledge _you don't have_ proves your 9/11 CT. 
That's monumentally lame but soooo typical of a foil-hat nutter.


----------



## ERGO (Jan 25, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



*In the provided video,* well established architects and engineers speak out and squash the "official" lame...filled with holes NIST cover-up report like a pesky mosquito. splat!

I dare the so called well established "skeptics"  to watch this entire video. The government/NIST version of 9/11 is the conspiracy theory. 

*I DARE YOU TO WATCH THIS VIDEO!*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBCu_pvhnzQ]9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 27, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


What's convenient, the money coming from *globalization*?
Or the fact that some human beings will take anyone's money to kill other human beings?

"Bernard Lewis is the best-known exponent of the idea of the 'humiliation' of the Islamic world through *globalization*. 

"In the 2004 book The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror, he argues animosity toward the West is best understood with the decline of the once powerful Ottoman empire, compounded by the import of western ideas&#8212; *Arab socialism, Arab liberalism and Arab secularism*.

"During the past three centuries, the Islamic world has lost its dominance and its leadership, and has fallen behind both the modern West and the rapidly modernizing Orient. 

"This widening gap poses increasingly acute problems, both practical and emotional, for which the rulers, thinkers, and rebels of Islam have not yet found effective answers."

Motives for the September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Another good reason for a full public investigation into all aspects of the 911 terror attacks, right?*


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 27, 2013)

you guys are still arguing with these two paid trolls? they dodge the facts in this video so i dont understand why you bother with them.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 27, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



The money from globalization funded the 9/11 attack on America? You've gone totally bonkers, GP. What you have described - the decline of the Arab World's significance - is not a function of globalization. The advances in the West and the Orient have stood in stark contrast to stagnation in the Arab World as Islamism and its rejection of modernity has tightened its oppressive grip in the Mideast. The world only left them behind when they jumped off the train of progress.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 27, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> you guys are still arguing with these two paid trolls? they dodge the facts in this video so i dont understand why you bother with them.



Nobody pays any attention to you, 9/11 Hand Job, and I mean nobody. 
Now back to whatever you do best in your mommy's basement. You're dismissed.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 27, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


How has globalization impacted the Saudi economy?

"After the 10-year anniversary of Sept. 11 and six months after the death of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, questions still remain regarding who funded the attacks that led to thousands of deaths and billions of dollars in damages.

"The latest legal pursuit is that of an insurance syndicate of British insurer Lloyd's, which says the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, its banks and various charities should be financially responsible for the $215 million it paid in insurance settlements to 9/11 victims' families.

"William Doyle's family is one of the families determined to find those who funded the attacks on 9/11. Doyle's son, Joseph, was killed in the north tower of the World Trade Center.

"William Doyle told ABC News there are 'concrete facts' showing the majority of the hijackers' funding originated from Saudi Arabia. He said the government helped "shield" some of that evidence when the joint congressional committee investigating the attacks published a report in December 2002 and redacted about 28 pages."

Yet one more good reason for a full public investigation by the US Congress, right?

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/funded-911-attacks-insurance-companies-911-families-continue/story?id=14512391


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 27, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



The 'Hole Rule' now applies to this conversation: When in a hole over your head, stop digging!
Globalization did not fund the 9/11 attack on America but radical Islamists may well have. 
Your source does make a pertinent point ... the big money insurance companies who paid out billions in claims did not find the CT movement's pseudoscience, half-truths and outright fabrications to be proof of complicity on the part of the US gov't or Israel or Silverstein Props.
If we are going to follow the money, consider how much the insurers would have saved if the CTs held water.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 27, 2013)

If radical Islamists used petro-dollars to finance the 911 attacks, that is yet another valid reason for a full congressional investigation into 911. In spite of your defense of a criminally negligent administration whose incompetence (at least) caused the deaths of 3000 Americans, following the money would be a good first step in cutting through all the "pseudoscience, half-truths, and outright fabrications."


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 27, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> If radical Islamists used petro-dollars to finance the 911 attacks, that is yet another valid reason for a full congressional investigation into 911. In spite of your defense of a criminally negligent administration whose incompetence (at least) caused the deaths of 3000 Americans, following the money would be a good first step in cutting through all the "pseudoscience, half-truths, and outright fabrications."



Not being aware of the specific plans of a relatively small group of committed terrorists does not rise to the level of criminal negligence and Congress seems content, as do most rational Americans, that the NIST report so far outweighs the CT World's silliness that further investigations are unnecessary. 
In the unlikely event that you come up with any real evidence which supports your conspiracy theories, most rational people would join you in insisting on Congressional action. Deal?


----------



## paulitician (Jan 28, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> you guys are still arguing with these two paid trolls? they dodge the facts in this video so i dont understand why you bother with them.



Yeah, more boring Sock Trolls. SAYIT is the newest Sock Troll asshole. I'm guessing it's del a.k.a. (The Gimp), that creepy Dante dude, or dawgshit. Pretty pathetic stuff. But waddayagonnado, right? Hang in there.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 28, 2013)

paulitician said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > you guys are still arguing with these two paid trolls? they dodge the facts in this video so i dont understand why you bother with them.
> ...



I'll take that bit of silly putty to mean neither of you can explain why those insurance companies paid BILLIONS in claims stemming from 9/11. They are waaaaay smarter than you and have far more resources and motivation to bust the official 9/11 reports. Just like you and your CT movement, they failed.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jan 28, 2013)

Gotta' Wikipedia link (that we can shred) for your assertions SAYIT?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 28, 2013)

Quote: Originally Posted by 9/11 inside job  
you guys are still arguing with these two paid trolls? they dodge the facts in this video so i dont understand why you bother with them.

Quote: Originally Posted by paulitician 
Yeah, more boring Sock Trolls. SAYIT is the newest Sock Troll asshole. I'm guessing it's del a.k.a. (The Gimp), that creepy Dante dude, or dawgshit. Pretty pathetic stuff. But waddayagonnado, right? Hang in there. 

Quote=SAYIT
I'll take that bit of silly putty to mean neither of you can explain why those insurance companies paid BILLIONS in claims stemming from 9/11. They are waaaaay smarter than you and have far more resources and motivation to bust the official 9/11 reports. Just like you and your CT movement, they failed.



Mad Scientist said:


> Gotta' Wikipedia link (that we can shred) for your assertions SAYIT?



You need a link to prove that those insurers paid billions on 9/11 claims? Munich Re's web site reveals they paid $2.2bil ... by far their largest payout ever and they weren't the only insurer to pay big bucks. Do you think they all did so without looking for a way out? 
C'mon, Princess ... you can do better than that, right?.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jan 28, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> You need a link to prove that those insurers paid billions on 9/11 claims? Munich Re's web site reveals they paid $2.2bil ... by far their largest payout ever and they weren't the only insurer to pay big bucks. *Do you think they all did so without looking for a way out? *
> C'mon, Princess ... you can do better than that, right?.


Sounds like a crazy "Conspiracy Theory" you're pushing there.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 28, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > You need a link to prove that those insurers paid billions on 9/11 claims? Munich Re's web site reveals they paid $2.2bil ... by far their largest payout ever and they weren't the only insurer to pay big bucks. *Do you think they all did so without looking for a way out? *
> ...



We both know why you go so limp when the pressure is on, Princess ... a gov't conspiracy turned you homosexual.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 28, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > If radical Islamists used petro-dollars to finance the 911 attacks, that is yet another valid reason for a full congressional investigation into 911. In spite of your defense of a criminally negligent administration whose incompetence (at least) caused the deaths of 3000 Americans, following the money would be a good first step in cutting through all the "pseudoscience, half-truths, and outright fabrications."
> ...


There's no shortage of evidence revealing how the Bush Administration turned a blind eye to events culminating on 911:

"Sibel Deniz Edmonds (born 1970)[1] is a Turkish-American[2] former FBI translator and founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC). 

"Edmonds gained public attention following her firing from her position as a language specialist at the FBI's Washington Field Office in March 2002, after she accused a colleague of covering up illicit activity involving foreign nationals, alleging serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence which, she contended, presented a danger to the United States' security. 

"Her later claims have gained her awards and fame as a whistleblower.[3]

"In March 2012, she published a memoir, titled Classified Woman-The Sibel Edmonds Story.[4]
Edmonds testified before the 9/11 Commission, *but her testimony was excluded from the official 567 page 9/11 Commission Report."*

Sibel Edmonds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## eots (Jan 28, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > If radical Islamists used petro-dollars to finance the 911 attacks, that is yet another valid reason for a full congressional investigation into 911. In spite of your defense of a criminally negligent administration whose incompetence (at least) caused the deaths of 3000 Americans, following the money would be a good first step in cutting through all the "pseudoscience, half-truths, and outright fabrications."
> ...


 
you have not even read the  NIST  report


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 28, 2013)

paulitician said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > you guys are still arguing with these two paid trolls? they dodge the facts in this video so i dont understand why you bother with them.
> ...



yeah probably Dawgshit.One of those trolls.Doubt that its Dante troll.He has the same pattern of Dawgshot for sure.In desperate need for attention talking to himself and doesnt bother to address facts in videos and like him,comes back only with pitiful one liners.Yeah surprise me at all if it was him the way he cant stop his faring problem he has demonstrated throughout this whole thread.Just like Dawgshit always does.

could be another one of Candyass's sock puppets as well he has here.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 28, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Is there any evidence that this 9/11 Hand Job is over 12 years old?


----------



## paulitician (Jan 29, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Could be all of the above. Who knows. Anyway, don't let the bastard get ya down.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 31, 2013)

"As documented by video footage, Building 7 collapsed at free-fall acceleration for a distance of more than 100 feet  equal to at least eight stories.

"NIST initially denied Building 7s free-fall in its Draft Report released in August 2008. In the technical briefing that followed, NISTs lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder accurately explained, 'A free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.' 

"He inaccurately claimed that WTC 7 took 40 percent longer than 'free-fall time' to collapse, 'and that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. 

"And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place, and everything was not instantaneous.'"

Building 7 Implosion: The Smoking Gun of 9/11

*It's long past time for the truth about 911 to reach the world.*


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 31, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> "As documented by video footage, Building 7 collapsed at free-fall acceleration for a distance of more than 100 feet &#8211; equal to at least eight stories.
> 
> "NIST initially denied Building 7&#8217;s free-fall in its Draft Report released in August 2008. In the technical briefing that followed, NIST&#8217;s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder accurately explained, 'A free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.'
> 
> ...



Once more for the ternimally dense:
As of this posting there is still no evidence of a controlled demo nor of rigging for a controlled demo on any of the WTC buildings.
When you find some, immediately stop wasting your time here and contact the insurers who paid out billions and would probably reward you handsomely for the opportunity to recover that money. In the meantime your shrill, desperate silliness remains just ... silly, Princess.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 31, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



As if one can get lower than posting "poop" from Mommy's basement. If you really want to help ol' Hand Job, get him a life.


----------



## paulitician (Jan 31, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



He's honest and has integrity. But you, well you're just an average Sock Troll asshole. You cannot be trusted or respected. But hey, we all look forward to another one of your fresh & original 'Tin Foil Hat' insults. Keep up the bad work dummy.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 31, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "As documented by video footage, Building 7 collapsed at free-fall acceleration for a distance of more than 100 feet &#8211; equal to at least eight stories.
> ...


"*Let&#8217;s consider the evidence*:

Speed of Collapse

"As documented by video footage, Building 7 collapsed at free-fall acceleration for a distance of more than 100 feet &#8211; equal to at least eight stories.

In spite of Bush and Cheney's best efforts to ship thousands of tons of evidence to China before any forensics was performed, there's no shortage of physical evidence remaining to warrant a full public, independent investigation of how two planes collapsed three steel-framed skyscrapers.

Building 7 Implosion: The Smoking Gun of 9/11


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 31, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Let's consider the reality:
If what you think you have could prove the collapse was a controlled demo, you'd be talking to the aforementioned insurers (who paid out billions in 9/11 claims) instead of trying to convince me. 
Why not give them a call and get back to me with their response, Princess?


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 31, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


Here's the reality you need to consider:
Stop being afraid.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 31, 2013)

paulitician said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...




He's a raging, adolescent "poop" idiot and any normal, rational adult can spot that.


----------



## paulitician (Jan 31, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk]WTC7 -- This is an Orange - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## paulitician (Jan 31, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



At least he's honest and has integrity. No one trusts or respects cowardly Sock Troll assholes like you.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 31, 2013)

paulitician said:


> WTC7 -- This is an Orange - YouTube


If millions of Americans don't get beyond their sense of denial and cognitive dissonance relating to 911, the US Experiment will vanish from the page of time, and whatever takes its place will be neither democratic nor free.(But the rich will still be rich)


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 31, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



I'll take that to mean you called and they wouldn't stop laughing. You need to stop wallowing in CT fantasy, Princess.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 31, 2013)

paulitician said:


> WTC7 -- This is an Orange - YouTube



So what do you think, Pauli? Do you think those who paid BILLIONS in claims have access to the WWW? Do you think they can view Youtube? Do you think they are aware of everything you believe to be factual? Do you doubt they would petition the court tomorrow if they thought any of your pseudoscience, half-truths or fabrications wouldn't get them laughed out of court and perhaps out of biz? Remove your head from your ass and smell the fresh air, Princess.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 31, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


*"Lets consider the evidence:*

"Speed of Collapse
"As documented by video footage,* Building 7 collapsed at free-fall acceleration for a distance of more than 100 feet*  equal to at least eight stories.

*Why can't you explain those two seconds of free fall?*

Building 7 Implosion: The Smoking Gun of 9/11


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 31, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



You are wasting precious time, Princess. If your half-truths, pseudoscience and fabrications are so good the insurers and the media will be at your door in the next 5 minutes to throw money at you to make the case. Let me know when they get there.


----------



## paulitician (Feb 1, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Wow, you're so damn dumb. I mean, i know you're a Sock Troll asshole, but clearly you're the dumbest one here. Got anymore 'Tin Foil Hat' insults for us? SHEESH!


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 1, 2013)

paulitician said:


> Wow, you're so damn dumb. I mean, i know you're a Sock Troll asshole, but clearly you're the dumbest one here. Got anymore 'Tin Foil Hat' insults for us? SHEESH!


SAYIT thinks WikiPedia is an good source of info. 

Sayit let me ask you a question. What was this comment of yours in your profile about?

"No harm done. $7 trillion is just a number the haters pull fom their butts. They have nothing to support it."

Federal Reserve?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 1, 2013)

paulitician said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



I'll take that to mean none of the insurers who paid BILLIONS in claims has called on you or any of your CT brethren to help them make a case for restitution from those _you claim_ were the real 9/11 perps. What a surprise! How do you explain their reticence?


----------



## paulitician (Feb 1, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Seriously, you're embarassing yourself now. Time to create a new Sock. This one's all done.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 1, 2013)

paulitician said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



So you're admitting that deep down inside you know that your 9/11 CTs are just plain BS. It's about time you faced that fact. You may, with much hard work, someday rejoin the real world ... maybe.


----------



## paulitician (Feb 1, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Yeah sure, whatever you say Sock.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 1, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, you're so damn dumb. I mean, i know you're a Sock Troll asshole, but clearly you're the dumbest one here. Got anymore 'Tin Foil Hat' insults for us? SHEESH!
> ...



You mean from my messages? Was that from a conversation I was having with you? When was it?
BTW, Princess, are you getting your 9/11 "facts" in order so that you can make a case on behalf of the insurers who paid out BILLIONS in 9/11 claims. I believe I can get you 10% of any money you recover. See the "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is" thread for details.
Hurry.


----------



## paulitician (Feb 1, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Sock Troll meltdown in progress. Absolutely hilarious.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 1, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



What pseudoscience and fabrications are you talking about asshole? And how do you figure insurance companies and their employees are infinitely more powerful then oh say, the US government and their machinations, or the Israeli Mossad and their assassination tactics, or even a corrupt judge or 2 that may be sympathetic to their cause?
Would you risk your life and your families life to "blow the whistle" on such a plot???
This outta be good...


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 1, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Nice tap dance, Princess, but all you did was admit you really don't have a case, just hot air. At least you are aware of it which puts you miles ahead of 9/11 Hand Job and right there with Pauli.


----------



## MysticPhD (Feb 1, 2013)

Any and every event that has severe National Security implications can be counted on to have an official cover story that will not stand up to detailed scrutiny. The reasons are legion  . . . and they include 1.)not providing useful assessment information to enemy states about the extent of damage to our infrastructure and capabilities; 2.) the effectiveness of the incident; 3.) the weaknesses in our defenses; 4.) any diplomatic repercussions for our myriad relationships; etc., etc.  Obviously any such deliberate cover-up for legitimate reasons will necessarily provide grist for the conspiracy nuts and others not friendly to us. It is unavoidable. 

Of course controlled demolition was involved in the final collapse of the buildings. They contained myriad secrets, perhaps top secret, agencies, records, economic and defense related infrastructure, a veritable cornucopia of economic and security related information, etc. . . . all of which would have been open, vulnerable and compromised after such a catastrophic event. There could be no control of access or protection of anything that was there. Do you really think that after the first failed attempt on the towers they did not put in place measures to cover just such a contingency?

I understand these things are not as much fun to talk about or speculate about as the many conspiracy theories floating around out there . . . so I apologize for raining on anyone's parade. Carry on.


----------



## georgephillip (Feb 1, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


"Prior to the NIST investigation, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), had conducted a preliminary, cursory, underfunded investigation and produced a Building Performance Assessment Report. 

"In Appendix C of that report, FEMA described its analysis of only two steel samples, one from Building 7 and the other from Tower 1 or 2. 

"The analysis of the WTC 7 sample showed '*evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel*, including rapid oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting&#8230;.'&#8221;

Building 7 Implosion: The Smoking Gun of 9/11


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 2, 2013)

MysticPhD said:


> Any and every event that has severe National Security implications can be counted on to have an official cover story that will not stand up to detailed scrutiny. The reasons are legion  . . . and they include 1.)not providing useful assessment information to enemy states about the extent of damage to our infrastructure and capabilities; 2.) the effectiveness of the incident; 3.) the weaknesses in our defenses; 4.) any diplomatic repercussions for our myriad relationships; etc., etc.  Obviously any such deliberate cover-up for legitimate reasons will necessarily provide grist for the conspiracy nuts and others not friendly to us. It is unavoidable.
> 
> Of course controlled demolition was involved in the final collapse of the buildings. They contained myriad secrets, perhaps top secret, agencies, records, economic and defense related infrastructure, a veritable cornucopia of economic and security related information, etc. . . . all of which would have been open, vulnerable and compromised after such a catastrophic event. There could be no control of access or protection of anything that was there. Do you really think that after the first failed attempt on the towers they did not put in place measures to cover just such a contingency?
> 
> I understand these things are not as much fun to talk about or speculate about as the many conspiracy theories floating around out there . . . so I apologize for raining on anyone's parade. Carry on.



In short, there was a coverup alright and that is evident, but the cover up attempt was put in place with the intention of providing cover for the perpetrators of the crime, not for national security reasons. Incentive to keep quiet was most likely provided in the form of monetary incentive, threats, or as we have seen, by giving promotions.
The power of those behind the crime of 9-11 is evident, and those we have charged with protecting our nation have been compromised, while those with the courage to speak out are eliminated threatened, or silenced.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 2, 2013)

paulitician said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 2, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



This agent troll is only afraid of the ass beatings he gets here all the time from truthers and not getting paid enough from his handlers to keep coming back for them.This paid troll knows it was an inside job.He isnt one of those frady cat deniars who only sees what he wants to see and is in denial like politico,prezfan,or whitehall who always leave and dont come back when cornered.this troll can only come back with pathetic one liners for his rebutalls when he is cornered and is just here seeking attention.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 2, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "As documented by video footage, Building 7 collapsed at free-fall acceleration for a distance of more than 100 feet  equal to at least eight stories.
> ...


Once more for the terminally stupid....They are not allowing any evidence, nor even allowing any sort of discussion of proof/evidence that is contrary to the OCT, on any level, especially the courts.....you stupid motherfucker, or stupid **** (take your pick,dependent on your gender, which by your constant use of the word "princess" I'm leaning towards you being a female stupid **** or perhaps you are bi gender?)

ANYWAY,
What you don't want to understand or admit is that the judicial system that US citizens depend on for hearing of their grievances has been compromised, with instances of conflict of interests and out right disdain for the rule of law. This is a huge issue, as the grievances are quickly dismissed, or not even heard in a court of law.
To these "federal" judges it must be akin to swatting flies, as the 9-11 Commission panel, the supposed grand daddy of all the inquiries was itself compromised, how can any litigants possibly expect their cases to even be considered.
It seems like you also need a lesson on the reality of the situation, as you haven't grasped just how screwed this nation has become and just how badly compromised the US Federal Gov. is.
There are many instances that are easily found concerning attempts to get cases into court, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to quickly realize that 9-11 truth is a complete hands off cover up, which is yet another grievance and source of frustration for those attempting to disclose information.
What a fucking joke you are!! I can't believe you are that fucking obtuse....on the other hand yes I can. Anyone who will come onto a message board and argue a case without any proof whatsoever is a fucking basket case, a brain dead alcoholic or both, you must be hung over again.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 2, 2013)

paulitician said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



Isnt it though?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 2, 2013)

paulitician said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Hey paid agent troll sock puppet SAYIT.your the one posting from mommys basment.You take money handoffs from your handlers and sell your soul down the drain for money which you will regret in the end when you burn in hell after you die.something i actually feel sorry for you on.

 posting poop is the ONLY reply that your worthy of and that any truther should ever give you around here since your such a chickenshit coward who has to use a sock puppet and who cowardly runs off with his tail between his legs like a chickenshit coward only coming back with pathetic one liners everytime I challenged you to debunk that five minute video on that thread of his.showing the world you cant debate. 

i gave you MANY chances to engage in a debate on me on that information in that video,like the coward troll you are,you ran off EVERYTIME and could only shit all over the floor just like you are doing now.till you get a hold of your shitting problem you have.your just a troll not worth replying to.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 2, 2013)

MysticPhD said:


> Any and every event that has severe National Security implications can be counted on to have an official cover story that will not stand up to detailed scrutiny. The reasons are legion  . . . and they include 1.)not providing useful assessment information to enemy states about the extent of damage to our infrastructure and capabilities; 2.) the effectiveness of the incident; 3.) the weaknesses in our defenses; 4.) any diplomatic repercussions for our myriad relationships; etc., etc.  Obviously any such deliberate cover-up for legitimate reasons will necessarily provide grist for the conspiracy nuts and others not friendly to us. It is unavoidable.
> 
> Of course controlled demolition was involved in the final collapse of the buildings. They contained myriad secrets, perhaps top secret, agencies, records, economic and defense related infrastructure, a veritable cornucopia of economic and security related information, etc. . . . all of which would have been open, vulnerable and compromised after such a catastrophic event. There could be no control of access or protection of anything that was there. Do you really think that after the first failed attempt on the towers they did not put in place measures to cover just such a contingency?
> 
> I understand these things are not as much fun to talk about or speculate about as the many conspiracy theories floating around out there . . . so I apologize for raining on anyone's parade. Carry on.



You start out with some marginally logical speculation (for instance, why wasn't the Pentagon also rigged for demo?) and abruptly shift into "conspiracy nut" mode,  jumping to your "Of course controlled demolition was involved" conclusion.
You ignore the fact that no one observed the rigging, not one demo worker questioned why they buildings were being rigged and none came forward after to tell the tale. If you consider what would have been required, that's just not likely.
There is no evidence of rigging and none that the buildings were felled by controlled demo.
None. 
The "facts" you've picked up in your Internet investigation are just grist for your vivid imagination. Enjoy.


----------



## georgephillip (Feb 2, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> MysticPhD said:
> 
> 
> > Any and every event that has severe National Security implications can be counted on to have an official cover story that will not stand up to detailed scrutiny. The reasons are legion  . . . and they include 1.)not providing useful assessment information to enemy states about the extent of damage to our infrastructure and capabilities; 2.) the effectiveness of the incident; 3.) the weaknesses in our defenses; 4.) any diplomatic repercussions for our myriad relationships; etc., etc.  Obviously any such deliberate cover-up for legitimate reasons will necessarily provide grist for the conspiracy nuts and others not friendly to us. It is unavoidable.
> ...


There's nothing imaginary about tons of evidence being recycled prior to a complete investigation:

"Steel was the structural material of the buildings. As such it was the most important evidence to preserve in order to puzzle out how the structures held up to the impacts and fires, but then disintegrated into rubble. 

"*Since no steel-framed buildings had ever collapsed due to fires*, the steel should have been subjected to detailed analysis. So what did the authorities do with this key evidence of the vast crime and unprecedented engineering failure? *They recycled it*!"

9-11 Research: WTC Steel Removal


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 2, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



The insurers spent years in court fighting payment of those claims. You think they didn't consider everything you think you know and much, much more?
Obviously you have no idea how the US civil court system works. Anyone can file suit against anyone and if getting their BILLIONS back were even remotely possible, the insurers would be paying for your "expert" testimony. Of course, they are not calling on you or any member of the loony CT movement to make your case because your "facts" just don't hold water, but you keep right on digging in that sandbox, Princess, as long as it makes you happy.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 2, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



You're such a powerful Hand Job. A regular legend in your own very small mind.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 2, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 2, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > MysticPhD said:
> ...



Some was sold as scrap. Some is still around. The last column was removed from the site on May 29, 2002 ... a full 8 months after the attack. As always you base your conclusions on CT BS.  
"There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures".
www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/mar06/corley.htm


----------



## georgephillip (Feb 2, 2013)

"Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. 

"The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. 

"Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage. "

9-11 Research: WTC Steel Removal

You're naive enough to believe Lamar Smith's willing to investigate 911?
That's BS.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 2, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> "Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey.
> 
> "The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly.
> 
> ...



I believe you feel compelled to dismiss anything which does not conform to whatever is your 9/11 CT of the day. I believe there are many people and institutions -some with significant resources - whose best interests would be served by finding real proof of a 9/11 CT. So far you have nothing and if you did you'd be in court in the morning.


----------



## MysticPhD (Feb 2, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> MysticPhD said:
> 
> 
> > Any and every event that has severe National Security implications can be counted on to have an official cover story that will not stand up to detailed scrutiny. The reasons are legion  . . . and they include 1.)not providing useful assessment information to enemy states about the extent of damage to our infrastructure and capabilities; 2.) the effectiveness of the incident; 3.) the weaknesses in our defenses; 4.) any diplomatic repercussions for our myriad relationships; etc., etc.  Obviously any such deliberate cover-up for legitimate reasons will necessarily provide grist for the conspiracy nuts and others not friendly to us. It is unavoidable.
> ...


 Your suggested interpretation of the cover up is plausible ONLY if you have no faith in the legitimate concerns of the government (and whatever other entities were effected in the Towers). SayIT is right . . . Insurance is often predicated on adequate measures being provided for security to mitigate and minimize any covered damage in the event of a disaster. They would need assurances that whatever measures were taken were legitimate. 

If you think that the only "companies" involved in national security are in Langley or Washington . . . you are somewhat naive. If you think that the prior botched attack on the Towers in the heart of our financial centers didn't raise many red flags and cause the institution of protective measures (self-destruct) in the event of another attempt . . . you are really naive. If you think that they would ever let the public know exactly who, what and how many were affected and compromised by the attack . . . you are super naive.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 2, 2013)

MysticPhD said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > MysticPhD said:
> ...



Security, as the insurers define it, would definitely not be "self-destruct" unless they were guaranteed a free pass in the event such action was taken. Self-destruct as you describe it merely protected what you call sensitive info and cost the insurers BILLIONS of dollars. You've argued yourself into a corner. Do you have the courage to admit it?


----------



## MysticPhD (Feb 3, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> MysticPhD said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


Sure. I can be wrong and have no problem ever admitting it. But the insurers pay not based on the ultimate level of destruction incurred by any subsequent security induced self-destructs . . . but on the original destruction  . . . which was more than substantial. Besides it is in this arena that government power would definitely be exerted behind the scenes to ensure secrecy and compliance.


----------



## georgephillip (Feb 3, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey.
> ...


If it can be proven the US government collaborated in the terror attacks of 911, Lamar S. Smith and the Republican Party vanish from US History:

"Lamar Seeligson Smith (born November 19, 1947) is the U.S. Representative (Republican) for Texas's 21st congressional district, serving since 1987. The district includes most of the wealthier sections of San Antonio and Austin, as well as some of the Texas Hill Country. He sponsored the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)..."

"Some of the wealthier sections of San Antonio and Austin" might find things heating up in their 'hoods, as well, particularly if any economic gains their citizens have acquired since 911 have come from the "War on Terror."

Expecting corporate tools like Smith to explain how office fires "caused intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese," is about as likely as AIG discovering the physics that explains how two planes collapsed three steel-framed skyscrapers. 

Apparently you oppose a full independent investigation of 911 for exactly the same reason you deny the survivors of the USS Liberty their day on CSPAN?  What would that be, Troll?

9-11 Research: Forensic Metallurgy


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 3, 2013)

MysticPhD said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > MysticPhD said:
> ...



Simply put, if the insurers could have found a couple of credible witnesses, perhaps those who rigged the WTC for demo, they could have busted the case in court and saved BILLIONS. The number of peeps required to pull off such a stunt - rigging, for instance - would have taken dozens of workers at least a dozen weeks of hard labor plus tons of equipment and hazmats for each building and would have required labor union coop and silence of all involved - would have made exposure of the plot a lock. Is it possible that some of the many competing CTs contain some truth? Of course, but the probability that 9/11 was a gov't conspiracy and cover-up is about the same that Pluto is made of Swiss Cheese.    

Definition of OCCAM'S RAZOR  (M-W Dictionary Online)
: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that *explanations of unknown phenomena* be sought first in terms of known quantities


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 3, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



I have never expressed opposition to any investigation, I do not oppose further investigation if warranted and I do believe you just made my argument stronger. Thank you. If those who hate the GOP and Lamar Smith, and they are legion, or the insurers whose interest is less political but more financial, could prove gov't complicity - foreign or domestic - in 9/11, they could bust the case, bust the GOP, bust Lamar Smith, and recover BILLIONS for the insurers (for which they would pay handsomely). In addition, consider the fame, fortune and glory which would accrue to any CT or group of CTs who could make that case in an American civil court. The motivation to do so is real and ever-present. You are wasting valuable time here, Princess. Get busy!


----------



## georgephillip (Feb 3, 2013)

Why are you here?


----------



## paulitician (Feb 3, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Why are you here?



He or she is a warped Sock Troll asshole. The Sock really feels compelled to loiter here 24/7 pushing Government Propaganda. This is its latest Sock creation. But there will be more to follow. At first we all just assumed he or she was a paid Big Brother Troll, but now we realize it's just a demented stooge. I mean, i could understand getting paid to be such a stooge. But doing it for free is just plain bizarre. But hey, waddayagonnado, right?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 3, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> MysticPhD said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 3, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> MysticPhD said:
> 
> 
> > Any and every event that has severe National Security implications can be counted on to have an official cover story that will not stand up to detailed scrutiny. The reasons are legion  . . . and they include 1.)not providing useful assessment information to enemy states about the extent of damage to our infrastructure and capabilities; 2.) the effectiveness of the incident; 3.) the weaknesses in our defenses; 4.) any diplomatic repercussions for our myriad relationships; etc., etc.  Obviously any such deliberate cover-up for legitimate reasons will necessarily provide grist for the conspiracy nuts and others not friendly to us. It is unavoidable.
> ...


 You want to know why no one was observed planting, and rigging any of the buildings? Because it was done in secret, under cover, with their own people...Why is this so hard for your dumbass to understand?
They didn't put help wanted adds in the papers or Career Builder either you unimaginative troll..And...evidence from this crime scene was carted away and shipped off....AND people got paid off, silenced, promoted, or eliminated. See the crime of 9-11 was done by fucking criminals who do not play nice or by the rules, as you seem to think.

Good God...you'd think they would at least send in someone who had a fucking brain and some knowledge about the topic...


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 3, 2013)

So now 9/11 was not only planned and executed by the US government, but they used nuclear weapons to do it?!?!?!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 3, 2013)

MysticPhD said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > MysticPhD said:
> ...



I'm not naive enough to understand that there is a continuing cover up, and that the truth regarding the 9-11 attack will effect this nation and the world, which is why an honest and sincere search for it is adamantly being silenced.
My stance on this remains, which is that if the US government, and the other players involved in planning, facilitating, and carrying out this crime, want to side track, derail, or avoid anything that comes close to the truth about this attack, it will do so, including stopping insurance carriers and their investigators. They've managed to stop all others so far, and Sayits position that because insurance fraud took place, and was successful, 
therefore the official bullshit story is legitimate, is well....bullshit and a way to avoid the real issue regarding the objections to the OCT fable.

My point on the entire mater also remains intact, that these other side issues, while deserving research and consideration, can not be used to discredit the fact that, when science and physics are applied to the destruction of the WTC complex buildings, something else assisted them in being destroyed, and until people like sayit and others, face this fact, it doesn't matter who what why, or even if Daffy fucking duck was involved somehow....jumping to another topic about 9-11 will NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THEY WERE DELIBERATELY DESTROYED....ON PURPOSE...and THE EVENT WAS PLANNED AND ALLOWED TO HAPPEN.

And no group of insurance companies can be allowed to reveal the truth either.

In Silversteins case tho, it pays to have friends in high places-
*In May 2004, before Judge Mukasey, a jury decided, with respect to 10 of the remaining insurers were bound by the Wilprop form and only one occurrence had taken place and therefore were only obligated for $2 bn. rather than $4 bn. The jury said that three others insurers were bound by other forms and had to pay double on their claims. Thus, by the Fall of 2004, about $2.4 or $2.5 bn. in insurance proceeds had been awarded to Silverstein. The remaining claims were for either $1.1 or $2.2 bn. 

In December 2004, before Judge Mukasey, a second jury held that the remaining nine insurers were not bound by the Wilprop form, thus two occurrences had taken place, holding all nine insurers collectively liable for $2.2 bn. By the dawn of 2005, then, $4.6 bn. was awarded in insurance settlements. This is a far cry from what Silverstein wanted ($7 bn.), but much more than what many pundits thought he would recover ($3.55 bn.). Brooklyn-Queens Congressman Anthony Weiner vowed to punish the insurers with fines or operating restrictions if they do not pay up. [The WTC is in Manhattan.] Both sides appealed.  *

*[A judge can greatly influence a jury by regulating the evidence they receive and the final instructions that guide their decision. The second jury was obviously and totally confounded and overwhelmed by the mass of conflicting evidence and the burden of having to reconstruct the intent of the various parties years after the fact and very dependent on Mukasey's "shepherding".] 

In October 2006, the Court of Appeals (Judge Walker) in a 70 page opinion affirmed Judge Mukasey and wrote, "Judge Mukasey did a masterful job shepherding this complex, hotly contested case through both phases of a lengthy jury trial." 

Judge Walker opens his opinion with, "whether the coordinated terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, whereby two jetliners separately crashed into the WTC, destroying both buildings, constituted one or two "occurrences" under...multiple insurance contracts." And concludes with, "The jury had before it evidence that none of the remaining nine insurers were bound to the WilProp form... their hours limitation clauses did not specifically refer to losses caused by fire, aircraft, or acts of terrorism...and the destruction of the WTC was caused by separate fires, resulting from separate collisions by separate aircraft into separate buildings."  *

*[Persuasive evidence was allowed from a Silverstein expert as to trade customs in the insurance industry as well as testimony by a Travelers executive as to other claims against Travelers which were treated as separate occurrences. Reading this lengthy opinion, one is struck by the absence of Weill's Travelers as the replacement insurer when the news reports are filled with it.] 

Silverstein had spent about $100 million paying lawyers, which critics said was an unconscionable siphoning of money that should have been used for rebuilding but that $100 million produced an additional $1.1 bn. And Silverstein made a huge profit. The Port Authority, after Silverstein won the second case, quietly filed its own lawsuit seeking double indemnity on its own insurance policy.  *

*In 2003, Spitzer, then NY Attorney General, got involved behind the scenes and in the courts, filing a amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief on Silverstein's behalf [after the Martin decision in 2002]. The courts ended up agreeing with Spitzer and Silverstein. Spitzer helped mid-wife a fat compromise and an eventual $4.5 billion payout for Silverstein. Requests for comment from Governor Spitzer were ignored. *

*Not one single September 11 Victim lawsuit has been permitted to proceed to a public trial by jury with testimony by major government officials, complete and unhindered discovery of documents and interrogation by career prosecutors despite meritorious evidence of prior knowledge of the attacks by the Bush administration. *

The truth about the 9-11 attacks can not ever be allowed to surface, and all attempts to to bring it to light and  being heard are met with resistance at every level.

*In 2008 Mukasey, an Israeli citizen, was installed as US Attorney General at the urging of Senators Schumer and Feinstein where he will "shepherd" the prosecution of AIPAC for treason and/or espionage just like Kissinger was chosen to head the 911 Commission and replaced by Zelikow. Former Attorney General Gonzalez came under intense pressure to resign from Senators Schumer, Feinstein and Spector. The deputy attorney general and the associate attorney general also resigned clearing the way for more Mukasey shepherding. [Got the picture yet?] *

Who Destroyed The WTC?


----------



## georgephillip (Feb 3, 2013)

paulitician said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you here?
> ...


It is hard to understand why some posters feel obligated to accept and endorse the official explanation of how two planes collapsed three steel-framed skyscrapers. If that crime isn't reversed, the American Experiment is destined for a bloody, ignoble ending.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 3, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> So now 9/11 was not only planned and executed by the US government, but they used nuclear weapons to do it?!?!?!


Using the term "US government" is highly misleading, as it would not entail the entire US government to carry out a false flag attack, but only requires a handful of strategically placed individuals to call the shots, as is what appeared to have happened on 9-11.
The theory of mini nukes is one I am going to be looking into with interest to see what these people who posit this are saying and what they have to substantiate such a theory.

At this time one can not tell if it is a reasonable theory , or just another disinformation tactic to muddy the waters and make any search for the truth, look like a "kook" movement instead of  a legitimate search for the truth about the 9-11 attacks.
One thing is for sure, and that is that the WTC could not have been destroyed or explained the way NIST has said.


----------



## georgephillip (Feb 3, 2013)

*"Conclusion* 

"As anticipated by Kissinger, the destruction of the WTC and the loss of thousands of lives resulted in the demolition of the American Constitution; the American people did unite behind Bush and endorse wars of aggression and genocide on the nations of the Middle East and the theft of their resources for the benefit of Israel..." 

"Reportedly, even the National Institute for Standards and Technology has repudiated the 'collapse initiation' theory of its 10,000 page report, '*We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.*' 

"Well, nearly everybody else on the planet can. "

Who Destroyed The WTC?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 3, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > MysticPhD said:
> ...



Fantastic! Nobody knows because - drum roll, please - nobody knows! 
How convenient! 
I certainly can't compete with such powerful logic! Just for my records, could you post a credible link which supports your "facts," Princess?


----------



## georgephillip (Feb 3, 2013)

"'I can think of no faster way to unite the American people behind George W. Bush than a terrorist attack on an American target overseas.' Henry Kissinger, 2000. 

"'September Eleven was good for Israel'" (Benjamin Netanyahu)" 

*Can you spot the pattern?*

Who Destroyed The WTC?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 3, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> "'I can think of no faster way to unite the American people behind George W. Bush than a terrorist attack on an American target overseas.' Henry Kissinger, 2000.
> 
> "'September Eleven was good for Israel'" (Benjamin Netanyahu)"
> 
> ...



Both obvious truths. Your point?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 3, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Why are you here?



Because you are, Princess.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 3, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



You apparently can't compete, that's obvious, and what you try to pass off as logic, that being that the OCT is true and legit, beecausse insurance fraud took place, is just the latest and weakest attempt at sidetracking a topic, avoiding direct confrontation regarding a subject you don't want to face, and filling it full of BS.

I see you still are avoiding what I challenged you to respond to...You're still a weak coward and weaker example of internet disinformation troll, and BTW asshole, I have posted credible links, and easy to understand videos that explain my stance on this topic, but it looks like you're still playing dumb, which is one of the more easily spotted of tactics you trolls use.
Folks what this person is displaying is straight up disinformation internet troll tactics.

I assume you're stupidity and lack of knowledge on this topic is due to you probably still being in training...Come on now get to studying, and don't be afraid to raise your hand during follow up orientation sessions.....Shit...maybe they need a new instructor 

You are an epic fail, keep looking for work or troll another topic....


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 3, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "'I can think of no faster way to unite the American people behind George W. Bush than a terrorist attack on an American target overseas.' Henry Kissinger, 2000.
> ...



That you find not the least wrong, or at least peculiar....Internet disinformation troll is all over your statement..Must be getting difficult for them to find competent help..you been exposed boy/girl whatever you are! 

These must be temporary assignments....NEXT!


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 3, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



I always love it when someone uses the wrong version of your/you're when calling someone else stupid. 

Doesn't have anything to do with the thread or the post's content, just ironic!


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 3, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> I have never nor would I ever say the silly things mistakenly attributed to me (above in bold relief) in this post and would greatly appreciate being edited out. Thanks.



Sometimes the quote function gets messed up.  Probably an accidental key strike or something like that, but maybe it's just a glitch in the site.  Once it happens in a post, every subsequent reply which quotes from that post is also messed up.  You see it frequently enough on the site that people generally can tell who actually said what (not to mention the link buttons in the text that let you view the quoted posts).  

I edited my previous post to take out all the quotes and just leave my comment, but this is something that will come up probably many times again.


----------



## georgephillip (Feb 3, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "'I can think of no faster way to unite the American people behind George W. Bush than a terrorist attack on an American target overseas.' Henry Kissinger, 2000.
> ...


"Lewis Eisenberg, vice president of AIPAC and former Goldman Sachs partner, was Chairman of the Port Authority ("PA"), the Lessor. Larry Silverstein, New York developer and friend of Netanyahu (every Sunday Netanyahu would call Silverstein) led the Silverstein Group, the Lessee."

Still confused?

Who Destroyed The WTC?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 3, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Soooo, you admit you have nothing which supports your "facts" except those little voices in your toaster. You're dismissed, Princess.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 3, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



You could try being more objective and look at the responses of the poster you are defending to gather further insight as to why I call him/her that. Actually ii shows more of purposeful stupidity...playing dumb, avoiding answering, etc...It's classic IT tactics.

BTW, are we now in grammatical error mode? Can't find anything else worthy of scrutinizing? WTC, massive steel buildings exploding, science, physics don't jive with the results?? How about those topics? How about discussing how a successful insurance fraud scam absolutely, fucking positively proves beyond the shadow of any doubt, that the OCT is true and legitimate?? Yeah right,,,fuck the science and physics...let's just avoid that and change the subject lol!


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 3, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > I have never nor would I ever say the silly things mistakenly attributed to me (above in bold relief) in this post and would greatly appreciate being edited out. Thanks.
> ...



Understood but these foil hatters are so dishonest that somewhere down the road one would pick up on it and use it as proof of my "paid gov't disinformationist trolling." Anyway, thanks for your prompt attention.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 3, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Facts that substantiate my position on this topic have been posted, with easily understood videos, but again you are now back to playing dumb...It's all a circular game to fucks like you....Why don't you post in your own words why you think the WTC really were destroyed by planes and fire? Feel free to post links/videos... what ever you want.
You've already failed to convince anybody that the OCT is true and legit because insurance fraud was successful...what do you have to lose?

Hey C'mon man, I'm actually helping you try to keep yourself employed, and me entertained at the same time


----------



## georgephillip (Feb 3, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you here?
> ...


I can honestly state I'm not compensated in any material sense for my posts.
Can you?


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 3, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Using the term "US government" is highly misleading, as it would not entail the entire US government to carry out a false flag attack, but only requires a handful of strategically placed individuals to call the shots, as is what appeared to have happened on 9-11.
> The theory of mini nukes is one I am going to be looking into with interest to see what these people who posit this are saying and what they have to substantiate such a theory.
> 
> At this time one can not tell if it is a reasonable theory , or just another disinformation tactic to muddy the waters and make any search for the truth, look like a "kook" movement instead of  a legitimate search for the truth about the 9-11 attacks.
> One thing is for sure, and that is that the WTC could not have been destroyed or explained the way NIST has said.



I would say it is unreasonable unless there is some sort of evidence pointing to the use of nuclear weapons.  I have heard of nothing, either from the government or the 9/11 truthers, that would indicate some sort of small nuke was used.  I also can't think of a reason to do so as opposed to more conventional explosives, or even unconventional but non-nuclear ones.  Is it even possible to have a nuke small enough that the explosion wouldn't be noticed?  Would a nuke of any size leave enough radioactive residue to be easily detected, making discovery by the conspirators easier?

It just appears you are giving this more credence than warranted based on what you've said.  That, in turn, speaks to your possible willingness to give credence to any theory that claims 9/11 was a conspiracy, whatever the evidence or logic of the argument.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 3, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Of course we're only human and little grammatical mistakes happen, but c'mon now
back to work and the task at hand...When's quitting time?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 3, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Using the term "US government" is highly misleading, as it would not entail the entire US government to carry out a false flag attack, but only requires a handful of strategically placed individuals to call the shots, as is what appeared to have happened on 9-11.
> ...


You're ignoring what I posted about my stance on the mini nuke subject is, but I'll repeat,
That I am going to look into it, as I generally do with most things and see were that road ends, and especially who is putting this "out there".
BTW, you are wasting your time if you're waiting to hear anything about this from the Gov.
This is a hands off career ending topic, we all know this by now.


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 3, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Did you have trouble comprehending where I said this had nothing to do with the thread or the previous post's content?

It's funny and ironic when someone calls another person stupid while using an incorrect word to do so.  Whenever I see it, no matter the poster or thread or topic, I like to point it out.  I consider it one of the best reasons to avoid calling other people on a message board stupid; it's too easy for a silly mistake to make YOU seem like the stupid one instead.

I very seriously doubt my little interjection has in any way derailed the subject of 9/11 and whether there was a conspiracy involved.  If we are still having these discussions more than a decade later, it's clearly a subject that isn't going to go away any time soon.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 3, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



As always you are forced to lie about me because the truth just doesn't support your conclusions. I neither said nor inferred that the insurance payouts prove "beyond the shadow of any doubt, that the OCT is true and legitimate," but it does leave you desperately flailing for an explanation as to why so many, with so much to gain by finding a smoking gun have been unable to do so for over 11 years. What that proves is that your silly CTs are just that ... silly CTs.


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 3, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



I may not have been clear in my point.

It's not that I need the government to tell me why a nuke is or isn't possible in the fall of the towers.  

It's just that I have never before heard anyone say anything that would indicate the use of a nuclear device.  Not the government, not the people who believe it was a conspiracy, no engineers or nuclear weapons specialists or first responders or victims, no one.

Now, that doesn't automatically make the idea incorrect.  Unless I can see a reason to think a nuke was used, though, I think it is an UNreasonable idea.  I could say that the British government was behind 9/11; it might be possible, but unless I also provide some sort of reason for it, it starts out as an unreasonable theory.

Maybe what you have heard gives you reason to believe it might be true.  I am only going by the little you have said about it.  It's really not a very important point I was trying to make anyway, so I probably shouldn't harp on it like this.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 3, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Fair enough. I wasn't claiming any consipracy to defame me, only that the actors do the right thing and edit my name out of the misleading posts. I take it you've done that?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 3, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



That's it? That's your evidence that 9/11 was a controlled demo? No wonder the insurers aren't asking you to help them get their BILLIONS back. You're lame and perhaps just a bigot.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 3, 2013)

Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Jones  
You want to know why no one was observed planting, and rigging any of the buildings? Because it was done in secret, under cover, with their own people...Why is this so hard for your dumbass to understand...

Quote: Originally Posted by SAYIT 
Fantastic! Nobody knows because - drum roll, please - nobody knows! 
How convenient! 
I certainly can't compete with such powerful logic! Just for my records, could you post a credible link which supports your "facts," Princess? 




Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



More lame deflection. C'mon, Princess ... surely you have credible sources which support your conclusions. Just post 'em so we can all get a good laugh. FTR, I'm on your side. When you get your case together I'll approach the insurers, who would love to get their BILLIONS back, and negotiate a 10% recovery fee on your behalf. Of course, I require a modest 20% agent's fee but that still leaves you with lots of money so quit wasting our time and get busy!  Thanks.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 3, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Payback for the American Revolution, obviously.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 3, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Using the term "US government" is highly misleading, as it would not entail the entire US government to carry out a false flag attack, but only requires a handful of strategically placed individuals to call the shots, as is what appeared to have happened on 9-11.
> ...



Did you mean "willingness" or "eagerness?"


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 3, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Jones
> You want to know why no one was observed planting, and rigging any of the buildings? Because it was done in secret, under cover, with their own people...Why is this so hard for your dumbass to understand...
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by SAYIT
> ...


Oh man you're funny and entertaining while you yourself initiate deflection tactics, and avoid what has been said and posted.


 C'mon now all we want is for you to explain how it is possible for the WTC exploding and being destroyed the way NIST has said they were
while circumventing science and laws of physics is really really true because Silverstein managed a brilliant insurance scam....We've been waiting for any logical and reasonable response for a long time now....It looks like it is you little Sayit....yes it is you who is avoiding and deflecting the issue by bringing up the WTC insurance issue....That does not explain what was asked...tsk tsk...Now I've been more then fair and patient...you've had plenty of time to come up with something....I, in good faith have explained my stance, with links, videos and you just ignore it as if they don't exist.....I'm trying to play fair ...but you aren't....You've lost the debate and your credibility......the more you 
the worse off you appear to all the others on the thread.....  


*Why haven't you commented on the article about the WTC, the insurance, the litigation, lawyers, and the federal judges involved????*
I've posted this regarding your questions, and you don't even acknowledge them....poor me, I feel so sad that you ignore this stuff, I really wanted to play along....and toast your ass some more....Oh well, you lose no bonus points for you today...let's allow for some super bowl distraction shall we? Maybe there will be event there? Or a super bowl gate or something like that to distract the masses?

It's been a slice and I've enjoyed ripping your ass apart while you scamper around like a twit....or twat...whatever take your pick....or have both as your label...after all....you've earned them..


----------



## georgephillip (Feb 3, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


That's my evidence of two obvious truths.
Why do you find it difficult to stay on topic?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 3, 2013)

paulitician said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you here?
> ...



That is the typically lame defense of a typically lame CT. All who refute their silliness can only be mindless sheeple or gov't paid trolls. It isn't possible, according to these shrill and desperate morons, that their silliness is just plain silly.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 3, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I can appreciate your point, and I tried to explain that I don't subscribe to anything that is said by either side of the issue without first looking into it, and where the source comes from, and what if any credibility and proof they have. There is a vast amount of  BS information and theories planted to make the honest people look illegitimate and kooky.
The mini nuke thing may be another one of them.
I am firm in my belief that the WTC was not destroyed by planes and kerosene tho, and that there was out side and inside collaboration.
The poster you are defending is adamant that the OCT is true because an insurance fraud scheme was successful is just looney tunes material.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 3, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Jones
> ...



Listen up, terminally Dense One. It isn't me who has to prove anything. I don't believe we have a viable case but if you do, put your money where your mouth is. Quit trolling these obscure message boards, put away your Star Trek action figures, hang up your foil hat and get busy building our case. Just think, with my representation you will make hundreds of millions of dollars (just think of all the chicks) and all you have to do is present a credible case in an American civil court!. Now get busy, Princess!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 3, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



It's his/her/its job..Avoid, deflect, distract, while not acknowledging anything that can't be defended.  It's classic trolling on behalf of the 9-11 criminals and the cover up.
I mean just look at what it is trying to establish as proof that science and the laws of physics do not apply to the WTC complex.....insurance fraud!


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 3, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Topic? That your truths prove nothing? Some topic.


----------



## georgephillip (Feb 3, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


The same topic you've been ducking for days...how two planes collapsed three steel-framed skyscrapers? Eisenberg and Silverstein are two relevant cogs in the official lie.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 3, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



You mean what you believe is a lie. Frankly, I find the pseudoscience, half-truths and outright fabrications of the 9/11 CT movement to be downright self-serving and silly.
If you have the juice, let's file a civil suit with the insurers as plaintiffs and make some money on this. Of course, if you know your BS is just BS, there's no point wasting the court's time doing that and we should just hang here and argue. See you tomorrow, Princess.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 3, 2013)

and the same five minute video he always ducks and cowardly runs away from like a chickenshit coward and has no answers for for the past few months as well.only pathetic one liners that dont even address the facts.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 3, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Jones
> ...



the OCTA trolls always evade fatcs and change the subject everytime they are cornered.lol.


It's his/her/its job..Avoid, deflect, distract, while not acknowledging anything that can't be defended. It's classic trolling on behalf of the 9-11 criminals and the cover up.
I mean just look at what it is trying to establish as proof that science and the laws of physics do not apply to the WTC complex.....insurance fraud!


----------



## georgephillip (Feb 5, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Are you confused about whether or not you're materially compensated for your contributions to USMB?


----------



## paulitician (Feb 5, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Sock Troll asshole. We're guessing it's del a.k.a. (The Gimp) or Candyass/dawgshit. Could be all three though. Who knows? And probably not a paid Big Brother Troll. It's much worse, he or she trolls for Big Brother for free. What a wanker.


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 5, 2013)

paulitician said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Because it couldn't possibly be that someone honestly disagrees with you, could it?  That someone truly believes the towers came down because of the planes and not controlled demo?  No, that just couldn't be true!

I may think that most of you who are truthers are nutty, but I can at least accept that you may honestly believe what you post.  I don't have to assume you are paid to say what you do or that you are nothing but trolls to disagree with my infinite wisdom.


----------



## paulitician (Feb 5, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Nah, i don't mind disagreement. That's what Message Boards are all about. But the truth is, there are paid Government Trolls who troll Social Networks and Message Boards. That's just reality. And that particular wanker is known to have many Socks. But i doubt he or she is a paid Government Troll. It does it for free. It's an obsession for it. A real nutter.


----------



## georgephillip (Feb 5, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Someone who honestly disagreed with allegations like the 2.25 seconds of free-fall acceleration observed for WTC7 and the evidence of thermitic nano-spheres found in the dust particles from all three towers wouldn't fabricate illusions of insurance fraud, IMHO.

Do we agree the stakes could not be higher on this question?

If elements of the US government facilitated the events of 911, the Republican Party vanishes from the page of US History. No single event in this country's history has the power to Change USA First Principles virtually overnight that 911 has. Those who deflect instead of refute observations that are counter to their beliefs do little to make me believe they have the slightest interest in finding the truth.


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 5, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Many think that the supposed evidence of controlled demolition, be it the free fall or thermite or what have you, is ridiculous.  What you and other CT proponents consider obvious, incontrovertible proof that the official story is false, others see as crazy, pie in the sky foolishness.  I think there's often a huge disconnect between the two sides of the issue; each side can't believe the other can actually believe what they are saying.  This leads to the kind of insulting, attacking back and forth we tend to see in this forum.  It's not a matter of honest folks vs paid trolls, or even of rational people vs nutters.  Similarly to what goes on in the politics forum, I think it's too much my side vs your side, where my side is being honest and reasonable and your side is lying when they disagree with me.

Look, one of my first reactions when I, like so many others, watched the towers fall live on tv was, 'Why did they fall straight down onto themselves like that?  Why didn't they topple, why wasn't the collapse uneven at some point leading to a sideways lean?'  It seemed unlikely that such a contained, straight into itself collapse could happen.  So I can certainly understand people having some questions about what happened on 9/11.  However, there is a huge difference between having questions and the multitude of conspiracy theories that are bandied about.  There were no planes, they were unmanned drones.  It was the CIA.  It was the Mossad.  It was the one-world-order, secret behind the scenes people controlling us all.  The planes really did hit, but the towers were already wired with explosives in case of just such an event.  The changing list of theories seems endless.  It's hard to take any of it seriously when there are so many theories, with usually flimsy evidence, at best, and sometimes they are even mutually exclusive.

People on both sides of this argument, truthers and those who believe it was a terrorist attack, honestly believe in what they claim.  Each may find the others views to be crazy, but passing disagreement off as nothing but paid government trolls is, IMO, a tacit admission that one cannot accept that people see things differently.


----------



## georgephillip (Feb 5, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Do we agree there has not been an adequate official investigation into 911?


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 5, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Do we agree there has not been an adequate official investigation into 911?



Honestly, no....but not because I disagree so much as I am not well-enough informed about the investigation that took place to say if it was thorough enough or not.

I am fine with people saying they want more investigation (although I think it's a pretty unrealistic hope this far from the event).  It's the attached reasoning that often boggles my mind.

Oh, and as far as Sayit's harping on the insurance companies, I can't speak for him/her, but I think it's part of a larger point.  That point would be that there are so many people who would have had to be involved in a government plot, so many people and companies with a vested interest in what happened and who would absolutely love to prove that it wasn't a terrorist attack, that the idea becomes ludicrous.  Thinking that some random internet CT person has the truth that companies with huge resources could not come up with, and that further, all the people involved in the plot and cover-up have remained silent, stretches credulity to the limits.

So while I wouldn't say that the insurance companies being unable to show proof of a government conspiracy is proof of the validity of the official investigation, I DO think it's another good indication that the entire event being a government-run op is unlikely at best.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 5, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



thats the understatement of the century that there was never a real investigation.Just like in the kennedy assassination,waco,and oklahoma city bombing,same pattern follows,destroction of evidence and evidence illegally removed and the corporate controlled media gives their version and includes important evidence and facts and witness testimonys.same old pattern,also same result as the kennedy assassination,people who came forward and gave versions different than the governments dying in very mysterious ways again and its all just a bizarre coincidence according to the coincidence theorists here  that the only three towers that fell that day were all owned by zionist jew Larry Silverstein,tha the others that were not owned by him did not and others that were much close and had far more extensive damage and fires done to them than bld 7 did by debris, did not collapse..yep conspiracy there.

the facts have been proven to show it was a joint CIA/mossad operation.the official conspiracy theory apologists will ignore these facts in these teo videos and wont watch them.they never have answers for them and clearly dont know how to debate.



the people that defend the governments version of events that are not paid shills here like whitehall for instance,dont know why you bother with them,they obviously did not look at the short video at the start of this threrad I posted.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 5, 2013)

paulitician said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...





they got paid shills like him everywhere on message boards to try and derail truth discussions like 9/11.this one other message board I go to they are there in droves,much more so than they are here.No reason to think he isnt one as well though.


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 5, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Just how many people do you think are on the government payroll trolling the many message boards out there?

I mean, aren't there many thousands of message boards, twitter discussions, facebook pages, etc. etc. that the government would need to send paid trolls to to derail discussions?

It just seems unlikely that everyone who disagrees with you on a forum is a paid troll.  Maybe they are out there, but sheer numbers would lead me to guess there are few of them on any given site.


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 5, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Here's the thing.....that's 3.5 hours or so of my life you want me to devote to watching these videos, when they are coming from someone who I have never found to come of as particularly credible.  I certainly wouldn't expect you to watch 3.5 hours of videos showing why the government report is true, especially if it came from one of the people you think is a paid troll!


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 5, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Here's the thing.....that's 3.5 hours or so of my life you want me to devote to watching these videos, when they are coming from someone who I have never found to come of as particularly credible.  I certainly wouldn't expect you to watch 3.5 hours of videos showing why the government report is true, especially if it came from one of the people you think is a paid troll!



Coming from the other side, I've watched better than 100 hours of videos over the last 12 years on 9/11, from BOTH sides. I've also spent WEEKS reading everything from the NIST report to the 9/11 Architects and Engineers for Truth. Some of the 'truther' videos I consider to be 'way out there', just as some of the 'debunker' videos are. At the end of the day though, there are obvious questions that remain unanswered and areas of discussion that remain unaddressed. 

I have yet to find ANY explanation for the 2.5 seconds of free fall demonstrated by Building 7, I have yet to hear ANY explanation of multi-ton sections of debris from Buildings 1 & 2 that somehow traveled LATERALLY for several hundred feet, I have yet to hear ANY explanation of the massive destruction in the lobbies of 1 & 2 that were videotaped prior to their collapse, and I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation of the premature BBC broadcast describing the fall of Building 7 PRIOR to it's collapse. (You can SEE the building in the background of the broadcast, even.)

But my BIGGEST 'WTF' is how the 'failure' of ONE vertical support column in Building 7 (#79) could cause the symmetrical and TOTAL collapse of a 47 story, steel-framed structure. 

It just doesn't pass the smell test, IMHO.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 6, 2013)

paulitician said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Which "particular wanker?" 9/11 Hand Job? Pauli? Mr. Jones? You? After all, you all seem to hear the same mysterious voices from your toasters. Are you all paid trolls? Socks?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 6, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Do we agree there has not been an adequate official investigation into 911?
> ...



Because I believe anyone with even modest intelligence would see the larger point as you do (not saying yours is modest by any means), I suspect virtually all of these Nutters (except perhaps 9/11 Hand Job) do. In order to maintain their Nutterness, however, they must avoid the obvious at all costs.


----------



## georgephillip (Feb 6, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Then explain the obvious 2.5 seconds of free-fall acceleration displayed by WTC7.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 6, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I'm no physicist and I'll not play your little game of "what the definition of 'is' is."
I'll simply remind you that real experts _with much to gain_ have failed , since 9/11, to make your case anywhere but the Internet CT World. For you and I to play your silly game would be great if we were both 12 years old and you were a girl.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 6, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



And there you have it folks, straight from the horses mouth, admitting that he/she/it , refuses
to even divulge the minimal attention to basic science and physics, that is required to fully understand the MAIN OBJECTIONS TO THE NIST/OCT!! 

These facts are not a silly game, and the science and physics regarding the destruction of massive steel buildings, that ultimately changed the course of US and world history, is not some game for "12 year old girls"......."princess"  Perhaps that is what you really are, hence your avoidance of such subject matter, IDK...

You have proven and shown to the sincere posters on both sides of the issue your disdain, laziness, and contempt for such things, and it is no wonder you are so badly damaged mentally, and come off as nothing but a trolling fool, and in a majority of your posts, quite the ignorant asshole.

I have stated many times that once a person takes the time to get into the science, and physics of the WTC destruction, one will at least have a better understanding of this topic.
You on the other hand do nothing to advance your knowledge about it, and admit that you ignore it, and trivialize it as some child's play..While applauding the efforts of the physicists that concocted the NIST report, who used their position of authority as a government agency to blow smoke up the asses of ignorant children like your self...

Well this finally explains your complete and utter lack of knowledge or any semblance of intelligence on the topic of 9-11...You can't discuss or debate something you know nothing about, or aren't at least willing to learn....Fucking idiot lol!! 
BTW it is you that has avoided the obvious at all costs and forever damaged any hope of you gaining any real credibility....


----------



## paulitician (Feb 6, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Obviously you're the particular wanker i was referring to. Your numerous Sock Trolls are lame. And you do troll for Big Brother for free. That makes you a pathetic loon. But hey, have fun Sock coward. Whatever.


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 6, 2013)

How's this?  It's even in a youtube video, so it must be true!  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI]Building 7 Explained - YouTube[/ame]

And there are plenty more.  

My point being that, for those of us who are laymen, there is no clear and obvious evidence that the collapse was not due to fires.  More, if the science is so totally clear and obvious, doesn't that inherently mean that all the scientists and engineers who agree with the government's report are in on the conspiracy?  And doesn't that include any who independently accept it, not just those who may have been contracted to do the investigation?

There is a lot of bandying about of the word 'fact' in these threads, but I'm pretty sure most of the time it is really 'opinion'.


----------



## georgephillip (Feb 6, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


So link to any expert you can find who's disproved the allegation that WTC7 collapsed at free fall acceleration over nearly eight floors.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 6, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> How's this?  It's even in a youtube video, so it must be true!
> 
> Building 7 Explained - YouTube
> 
> ...



If this computer simulation is to be considered so accurate....then why do tell, doesn't the NIST allow their data to be used for replication purposes?
Your ignorant appeal to a government authority is really telling, in that you don't seem to realize that it is certain factions within the US government  that are the perpetrators of the lies regarding the 9-11 attacks.
How the fuck can you expect to appeal to the authority that is the main culprit, and that was tasked to conduct an honest and open investigation, including being forthcoming with the way the obtained their results....but were not?

We have posted proof and evidence that anyone with a basic grade school education could understand concerning the obvious distortions in the NIST  report, yet you insist on using this discredited agency and report as a defense against what we post??? 

I could post much about their report  that doesn't jive with the real world and readily visible results, and how they jumbled their data, but it is up to you as one of their defenders to prove us wrong, and you and the rest of your cohorts have failed.

Get with it or get on down the road, you bring nothing new to the discussion that solidifies your views.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 6, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



And how it was possible as well..But alas...he/she/it will just post how since the insurance companies were fucked over, the NIST/OCT is bound to be true lol....

These people have nothing....absolutely nothing that they can use to refute the real word facts that when analyzed, make the NIST look like the junk science that it is, and in the process, makes them look like the fools that they are as well for even using them as any kind of rebuttal..
Their reasoning is, that because they are a government agency, they are benevolent and honest, and would never screw their data to achieve a desired outcome, and they would never ever lie in the process.
They never pay attention to the real argument....they always rely on the gubmint to be straight with them LOL! Talk about stupid and naive...jeez...


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 6, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> How's this?  It's even in a youtube video, so it must be true!
> 
> Building 7 Explained - YouTube
> 
> ...



If the video is true why didn't at least one of THESE collapse? Why has no other steel-framed highrise in HISTORY collapsed from fire?


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 6, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > How's this?  It's even in a youtube video, so it must be true!
> ...



And this is why so many of us have so little patience with the CT posters.

I did NOT appeal to government authority.  In fact, I clearly asked if those who are NOT part of the government investigation, but agree with it's findings, must also be part of whatever conspiracy is at work.

I did not use the NIST report to try and debunk any claims you have made.  I posted a youtube video of someone who claims to have debunked the free-fall, full building collapse idea.

Maybe if you didn't automatically assume that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a paid government agent, or completely believes the government's investigation, or whatever other assumptions you are making, you might see that some people just DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR CONCLUSIONS.  Some people just are NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE SUPPOSED EVIDENCE YOU HAVE PRESENTED.  None of that means belief in the NIST conclusions.  It is possible to disbelieve both, or at least not be sure what the truth is.

Get back to me when you want to talk about what I actually post, rather than the delusions you create to pigeonhole me into whatever box you find most convenient.


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 6, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > How's this?  It's even in a youtube video, so it must be true!
> ...



If I understand the guy's conclusion correctly, he claims no other building of this type has ever burned uncontrolled for 7 hours.  I can only assume the buildings in your picture are either things he doesn't know about, or the fires were contained in some way, etc.

I'm not saying the guy in the video is right, merely making a point about the use of the word fact and the silliness of looking at youtube videos as paragons of accuracy.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 6, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



This guy's conclusion is bogus, and it's based on an easily refuted lie. It took me all of 5 minutes. I could post dozens of pictures of buildings that have burned for better that 12 hours, some as long as 24 hours, and never collapsed.

Check this out...
Other Fires in Steel-Structure Buildings


----------



## paulitician (Feb 7, 2013)

Yeah sure, buildings on fire collapse perfectly symmetrically all the time. Sure thing Big Brother. 


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8O6pISuPzTA]This Is An Orange - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 7, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



You posted a video that used the NIST report and explanation that claimed it was true. You indirectly appealed to NIST as an authority on the subject. 
Do you even watch the videos that you post beforehand?? 
The video does nothing but advance the reasons why so many think NIST is full of shit. I'll explain----

In the video, he states that the WTC7 collapsed due to uncontrolled fires.
Like has been said already, there have been numerous occasions of hirise buildings engulfed in larger fires that exceeded the 7 hrs of flame time at WTC 7, and they did not collapse into it's own footprint, like the video creator admitted happened to WTC 7
.
It is not mentioned that these buildings like most others had a degree of safety factor built into them, and are designed to withstand 3-5 times their limitations.
He goes on to say that 7 was supported by a series of steel columns (and beams) he also says that steel loses half of its strength at around 1200 degrees, then shows a steel beam being overcome by 2000 deg. flame.
Questions-Is the steel used in the video tempered and assembled to specs for use in a hi rise building?
The alloys and the heat treatment used in the production of steel result in it having different values and strengths. Testing must be accurate to determine the properties of the steel and to ensure adherence to standards.
High-tempered steel can be used exactly the same as untempered steel but is preferable in the area of construction.
Was it ever proven that the fire temps even reached 2000 deg. in the WTC 7?
NO.
Was the piece that was used in the video treated with fire retardant?
Doesn't appear to have been.

Here are tests results that cast doubt on the NIST theory of fire doing all the damage it claimed.
A New Approach to Multi-Storey Steel Framed Buildings Fire and Steel Construction.

Next he involves the thermal expansion that supposedly took place, but leaves out the fact that the components were held in place by the shear studs, that would have had to rip apart, and also does not mention that the expansion would have also occurred at the other end of the piece..NIST is caught distorting facts regarding the shear studs by  saying there were none in a 2008 report. This contradicts directly with what they said on  Sept.2005, 
"Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs.
Typically the shear studs were 3/4 inch think x 5 inches long  spaced 1 to 2 ft. on center.."
Without this thermal expansion concoction by NIST, and the deception regarding the shear studs
the whole fabrication is laid bare..
That and the fact that they tried to lie about the FF, then admitted to that as well, but left out the explanation for it.
It would be impossible for the minimal amount of thermal expansion to rip apart the heavy shear studs, so NIST pretends they didn't exist....After first admitting that they did.
This is but one example of the deception NIST used to achieve the demanded outcome, of a fire only explanation for the WTC 7 demise. It is very unlikely that this massive building would have come down so evenly at the rate that it did by only office fires. NIST admitted that the fires burned for 20 minutes or so then moved on. Fires cause asymmetrical random damaged as they are not controlled, so why the seemingly symmetrical collapse?

The theory that the inner core of 7 was falling down is absurd, as this implies that the outer columns and components were never connected to the inner structure.
In order for this massive building to come down as it did, producing FF for 8 stories, the supporting structure was taken out of the way. This is evident by the penthouse falling into the building first. This could not have occurred by random roving office fires, as a distorted collapse would have ensued and not the symmetrical one that was witnessed.

The idiot that produced your video, is also comparing a bridge, that is built with encased concrete, to the WTC7 .
Concrete does protect the steel that is encased within it, but at high temps the concrete explodes and the much thinner steel is exposed to the high temps of the tanker truck and collapses, much like a building that is used to try to prove their case regarding steel buildings and collapses.

The video producer asks why did 7 collapse, and he answers by saying that 7 was only one in history that was allowed to burn uncontrolled for 7 hours! How he can say this with all the other videos of other massive buildings that burned uncontrolled for much longer times, available is either ignorant or very deceptive of him.

Some of the warranted comments on the video-
"Another lying conspiracy retard. Amusing."
"Probably the lamest explanation of the WTC collapse I have had the misfortune to read.
I used to work in construction and I know those steels used in construction are as tough as hell. Fires are not enough to bring them down. Period."
"And you see, the guy who composed this video stated "it is only one in the history to burn, uncontrolled, 7 hours". And you believed to him without trying to check it."...

This video is lame, and full of lies. I also noticed that he didn't let the NIST simulation play to the end while doing the side by side comparison of the actual WTC7 collapse.....They look nothing alike...

Her's a much better and more detailed explanation regarding the shear studs and the thermal expansion that destroys the video you claim explains the demise of 7...And uses actual NIST reports in the process..Specifically the area around the famous column 79 that called for 3800 shear studs....on just one single level of the 47 story structure -4:00 minute mark.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qGe0E9cjUbI]Shear Ignorance - NIST and WTC7 - YouTube[/ame]

Why would they directly state the abundance of shear studs in building 7, then omit them out of subsequent reports
and their simulation model?
Well they admitted they were having trouble "getting a handle" on explaining the collapse, so they settled on the thermal expansion theory, but in order for it to be even remotely plausible, the rigid shear studs had to be removed from the equation..

Their thermal expansion theory does not hold up to scrutiny with these types of extra fortifications placed 1-2 ft apart
like they mentioned in their 2004 report.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PO_3pKXYMk]NELSON - Shear Stud Welding - YouTube[/ame]

Compare these two paragraphs. In the excerpted paragraph of the 2004 report, NIST says that studs were used with both beams and girders, although the studs "were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders" (the girder associated with column 79, by the way, was not a core girder). In the 2008 report, however, not only does NIST drop the association of girders with shear studs ( first sentence of excerpted paragraph), but then they go on to imply that studs were not indicated at all on the girders (last sentence of excerpted paragraph):

June 2004   NIST L pg 6 [10 on pg counter]
Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced 1 ft to 2 ft on center. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders.

August 2008   NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 pg 15 [59]
Most of the beams [the words "and girders" are deleted] were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced [the words "1 to" are deleted] 2 ft on center**.  Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for  [the words "many of the core" are deleted] the girders.

Then, in this paragraph of the 2008 report, they use the "absence" of shear studs to help make their case:

August 2008   NCSTAR 1A pg 49 [87]
At Column 79, heating and expansion of the floor beams in the northeast corner caused the loss of connection between the column and the key girder. Additional factors that contributed to the failure of the critical north-south girder were (1) the absence of shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint and (2) the one-sided framing of the east floor beams that allowed the beams to push laterally on the girders, due to thermal expansion of the beams.

This deliberate distortion of the evidence can only be called fraud.  Even those who have accepted the official story must acknowledge that NIST's misstatements of its own report are not mistakes. They are bending the facts to accommodate a theory that cannot stand up. Then they hide their computer modelling data so it can't be replicated?
Why?

WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: What Was In Building 7?

OpEdNews - Diary: NIST fraud - WTC 7 Shear Studs


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 7, 2013)

From the post I made with the video :

"My point being that, for those of us who are laymen, there is no clear and obvious evidence that the collapse was not due to fires. More, if the science is so totally clear and obvious, doesn't that inherently mean that all the scientists and engineers who agree with the government's report are in on the conspiracy? And doesn't that include any who independently accept it, not just those who may have been contracted to do the investigation?"

Perhaps you are unable to understand that I posted that video by way of making a point, not as some sort of definitive proof of the accuracy of the NIST report.

I was trying to show that for those of us that are not physicists, nor engineers, much of what you claim is scientific proof that the NIST report is wrong is not obvious.

I also wondered if there are any independent scientists from pertinent fields, not involved in the investigation, who concur with the NIST report.  If, in fact, there are such scientists, then either the evidence you think so obviously proves the report wrong is not unambiguous, or these scientists are unable to draw the obvious conclusions from data within their field of expertise, or they too are involved in the conspiracy.

And last, I was making a dig at the prevalence of youtube videos posted by conspiracy theorists, all of which supposedly prove their particular theories.  Very often we see posts that say something like, "Watch this youtube video!  It shows I am right!"  That is usually followed by, "You didn't even watch the video, you can't disprove it, you're a troll/goose stepper/paid disinformation agent/poop".  Often these videos have no sources given, no way to verify the accuracy of the content, etc.  I'm confident there are many others I could find that argue against the conspiracy idea.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 7, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> From the post I made with the video :
> 
> "My point being that, for those of us who are laymen, there is no clear and obvious evidence that the collapse was not due to fires. More, if the science is so totally clear and obvious, doesn't that inherently mean that all the scientists and engineers who agree with the government's report are in on the conspiracy? And doesn't that include any who independently accept it, not just those who may have been contracted to do the investigation?"
> 
> ...



I post videos that are relevant to what I believe and make sense.
I understand that you could find videos that are posted on U-Tube about this topic like you did, but I simply pointed out how easily BS can be found, and quickly refuted. There are many kooks out there who post insanely illogical crap, to paint those that are sincere with a broad brush of "conspiracy theorists"
I stay away from the nonsense and deal with understandable and logical findings and conclusions.
I'm sure you could find a video that suggests visitors from outer space have taken over the planet are really really the ones who did it!!!

Let's stick to the facts. I believe that the WTC could not have physically come down, in the short amount of time that they did due to kerosene office fires and plane damage.
I have submitted what I believe to be proof, and evidence of my belief, that entail calculations, along with scientific data, and theories that use available physics and said science, that directly rebuke the NIST findings. This is the heart of the objections to the OCT as told by government agencies their lackeys, and their propaganda arm in the MSM.
If you would like to post something other then insurance fraud, or the common "someone would have talked" excuse for your belief and include some scientific data, this can turn into abetter discussion and maybe we both would learn something, who knows? Have at it.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 9, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > From the post I made with the video :
> ...



we already know beyond a doubt that explosives brought the towers down because of these facts below.

Yeah thats all in my thread that I have going.The people that come on there and keep defending the fairy tales of the government obviously dont want to watch that video.Its not just that,but bld 7 is the crux of the 9/11 coverup commission that they cant get around and always ignore because this point goes ignored EVERY SINGLE TIME,that there were other buildings much closer to the towers than bld 7 was that had far more extensive damage and far more extensive fires to them than bld 7,yet unlike bld 7,they did not collapase.

then there is this other fact the trolls on here constantly dodge and ignore as well that the twin towers and bld 7 were not on the only buildings to collapse that day,but they were the first ever to collapse due to fire and were the only ones owned by zionist Jew Larry Silverstein.the official conspiracy theory apologists and the paid trolls like sayit ignore these facts EVERYTIME and have no answer for them.its just one bizarre mere coincidence to them.

It also makes no difference to them that the pattern follows the JFK assassination in the fact that just like in that event,people who came forward and gave versions different than the governments wound up dying in mysterious deaths.There were witnesses who said they heard explosions going off who later wound up dying mysteriously later on.The biggest mysterious one is Barry Jennings who was in bld 7 and told reporters that BEFORE  the towers collapsed,bld 7 and the basement blwe up and was gone due to explosions,that the entire basement was gone and this all happened in bld 7 BEFORE the twin towers collapsed.It was very conveininet for the government that he died just a couple days before the NIST report came out because his testimony would have shreeaded to pieces the lies and propaganda of the NIST report.

Plus there were many credible witnesses that were  firefighters who were experienced in the sounds off explosives that were witnesses who called the 9/11 coverup commissions investigation what it was-a half baked farce.

thats the most overhwhelming proof and evidence it was a controlled demolition.everything else besides the video on this thread thats been said is irrelevent.


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 9, 2013)

Has there ever been a conspiracy that you heard and did NOT buy into, 9/11 IJ? 

It's this kind of poster, who jumps onto every CT that pops up, who ruins whatever credibility someone who merely wants to ask questions about an event like 9/11 may have.  Unfortunately, the majority of conspiracy theorists seem to believe anything at all that starts with 'the government did it'.


----------



## eots (Feb 9, 2013)

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


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 9, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Has there ever been a conspiracy that you heard and did NOT buy into, 9/11 IJ?
> 
> It's this kind of poster, who jumps onto every CT that pops up, who ruins whatever credibility someone who merely wants to ask questions about an event like 9/11 may have.  Unfortunately, the majority of conspiracy theorists seem to believe anything at all that starts with 'the government did it'.



Indeed they put "the gov't did it" in front of or behind virtually every tragedy.
Their worship of all and any CT is not limited to actual events. When polled most even swore allegiance to a bogus CT injected just to test their lucidity and integrity. They failed.


----------



## eots (Feb 9, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Has there ever been a conspiracy that you heard and did NOT buy into, 9/11 IJ?
> ...



so have you got around to reading and understanding the NIST theory yet ??
or are you still just going on faith ?


----------



## Dude111 (Feb 10, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:
			
		

> Normally when a Plane crashes, the area is cordoned off and an investigation is done which can take months or years. Not so with the twin towers after 9/11.


No not at all as they knew exactly what happend there!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 10, 2013)

Dude111 said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Really? Is that why it took them years to write a BS report that doesn't make scientific, or physical sense? Or why the panelists of the 9-11 commission have claimed they still don't know much about what actually happened?
Are you aware that Kean thought that aftershocks" from planes caused the collapse of WTC Building 7, or that in their report they state the towers came down in 10 seconds?


----------



## Dude111 (Feb 10, 2013)

No they came up with the BS report right away bud! (They knew what really happend like I said)


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 10, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Has there ever been a conspiracy that you heard and did NOT buy into, 9/11 IJ?
> ...



You're a fucking liar.
I've explained that it probably would not take the "whole government"  and that something like this would be highly compartmentalized. In truth it is you who worships the most outrageous CT to come down the pipe in years, and what's even more ridiculous is that you don't even defend the obvious gaping holes that others point out about your OCT!

You hide behind claims of insurance fraud, and "too may people to keep quiet" BS, and you have no shame when your lack of thinking and logic is exposed.

Hey when are you going to address what we've been pointing out to you you pompous twink?
Kerosene and office fires, exploding hirises that produced tons of ejected steel, defying known physical properties and capabilities?
This isn't about bigfoot and aliens, or the entire US government asshole...If anything Israel is implicated more then the US.
 But we're kidding ourselves if we expect anything of relevance from you. You'll continue to generalize, minimize avoid and evade facts while worshiping a theory that can not stand when put to a proper evaluation.
You make a fool of yourself by your obvious lack of knowledge and well known information that has been in circulation regarding this topic. You should have asked questions instead of pretending you knew something and trying to cover it by generalizing about "any and  all CTs and your constant use of your limp wristed phrase "princess" you stupid MFKer LOL.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 10, 2013)

Dude111 said:


> No they came up with the BS report right away bud! (They knew what really happend like I said)


Sure


----------



## paulitician (Feb 11, 2013)

Yep, Big Brother is preserving our Freedom & Liberty, by taking it away. Just like his Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace stuff. What a Catch 22 sham, huh?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 12, 2013)

Whats the matter seems like no one can substantiate their crazy conspiracy theory that consists of what is in this entertaining little video?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98&feature=player_embedded]9/11: A Conspiracy Theory - YouTube[/ame]



Why can't any of you OCT NIST nuthuggers just come out and admit this is what you believe in???? It's all true isn't it???


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 12, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Whats the matter seems like no one can substantiate their crazy conspiracy theory that consists of what is in this entertaining little video?
> 
> 9/11: A Conspiracy Theory - YouTube
> 
> ...



So, let's see what we can in this video.

First, no, I don't think that Manhattan was the most heavily defended airspace in the world.  Also, were all 4 of the airline pilots military combat trained?  If so, did that training include hand to hand combat?

The whole video is a snarky bunch of misrepresentation and loaded phrasing (did you stop beating your wife?) which, while it may be an attempting to respond to similar things directed at truthers, certainly does nothing to increase the video's credibility or persuasiveness.  It also overshadows any truths that are, in fact, in the video and important.  

I also wonder why, if the government could supposedly pull this off with no more than a couple of dozen people (someone in one of these 9/11 threads has said that), when Al Qaida is said to have done it it's the most sophisticated, elaborate terrorist operation ever.  Hijacking the planes and flying them into buildings requires elaborate, sophisticated planning and execution, but adding the hidden use of demolitions to bring down the towers, as well as everything necessary to facilitate the cover-up afterwards, doesn't require more than 20 or 30 people?

Assuming we can agree that planes did, in fact, hit the towers, is it your contention that those planes were not hijacked by terrorists, but rather by agents of the US government willing to die for this plan?  Or were the planes empty and remotely controlled?  Or were there actually terrorists, but they were being manipulated by the US gov't?  Or was this just a coincidence and the demolitions were in place as a contingency, then set off when the planes hit?

As usual, CT posters seem to equate disagreement with complete faith and trust in anything government.  If you cannot see how that view is not only foolish, but incredibly limiting, there's probably no reason for anyone to have a discussion with you.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 13, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



You're a fuckin' CT idiot.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 13, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Whats the matter seems like no one can substantiate their crazy conspiracy theory that consists of what is in this entertaining little video?
> ...


 No, but the Pentagon is...


> The whole video is a snarky bunch of misrepresentation and loaded phrasing (did you stop beating your wife?) which, while it may be an attempting to respond to similar things directed at truthers, certainly does nothing to increase the video's credibility or persuasiveness.  It also overshadows any truths that are, in fact, in the video and important.


 Try to get over the snarkiness, and focus on the absurdity the video highlights.


> I also wonder why, if the government could supposedly pull this off with no more than a couple of dozen people (someone in one of these 9/11 threads has said that), when Al Qaida is said to have done it it's the most sophisticated, elaborate terrorist operation ever.  Hijacking the planes and flying them into buildings requires elaborate, sophisticated planning and execution, but adding the hidden use of demolitions to bring down the towers, as well as everything necessary to facilitate the cover-up afterwards, doesn't require more than 20 or 30 people?
> 
> Assuming we can agree that planes did, in fact, hit the towers, is it your contention that those planes were not hijacked by terrorists, but rather by agents of the US government willing to die for this plan?  Or were the planes empty and remotely controlled?  Or were there actually terrorists, but they were being manipulated by the US gov't?  Or was this just a coincidence and the demolitions were in place as a contingency, then set off when the planes hit?


 I'm the one that said 'a couple dozen', and that's because 'grunts follow orders'. All the conspirators had to know was that AQ had a PLAN, they didn't have to work with them. Much of the demolition work could have been accomplished by DUPES, people who thought they were doing one thing when in fact they were doing another. How hard would it be to 'fireproof' steel beams with nano-thermate?



> As usual, CT posters seem to equate disagreement with complete faith and trust in anything government.  If you cannot see how that view is not only foolish, but incredibly limiting, there's probably no reason for anyone to have a discussion with you.



We can have a discussion...


----------



## paulitician (Feb 13, 2013)

WOO HOO!! Big Brother is here to save us all!!

Well, that's what he keeps telling us anyway.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 13, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Whats the matter seems like no one can substantiate their crazy conspiracy theory that consists of what is in this entertaining little video?
> ...



The video exposes the bizarre circumstances that after reviewing them are absurd.
True it is snarky, and comical, but is not a misrepresentation of the facts, but an acknowledgement of the facts and circumstances about the 9-11 narrative, that many such as yourself must find at least plausible to conclude it really happened the way it was explained.
How is it that you can simply ignore the glaring oddities and absurdities that the OCT is riddled with, and not find it to be highly questionable or at least peculiar? And it those aren't bad enough, what about the instances of the cover up, and the many instances that were witnessed to even avoid any kind of investigation?
Even the panelists of the 9-11 commission have publicly stated doubts about their own body of work....
I didn't want to believe in such a conspiracy, but the facts that have come to light remain
and avoiding them, and to have the position that they do not have to be addressed, because they don't exist, is even more absurd. NIST does not and has not acknowledged many things,....does that mean they do not exist?? Because THEY SAY SO??
How can a person side with a belief they admit to knowing nothing about the details about?? Like other posters on this thread have admitted to? 

As I have said many times, once the collapses of the twins is analyzed, that includes watching them essentially explode while hurling tons of steel and mass, AWAY from themselves, and when analyzing the way NIST gathered and put together its "evidence" that made up its theory, that includes instances of deceit, and deception,and omissions, it is clear that they were being forced to align the details in ways that would better suit a damage/fire only scenario and explanation.
This makes sense when you think and analyze what the ramifications would have been if it was shown to have been done with the help of a foreign state, who had access to the complex, by proxy, and had the capabilities at their disposal to help facilitate this criminal attack on America... And had insiders within our own government to aid in the coverup...

Really all one needs to do is study the very first objections to the claims that fire and plane damaged caused 3 massive steel hirises to collapse in record time..Once one gets what the fuss is all about, then the speculation of who, how, and why can be put into play...Just because the NIST wont address many questionable issues, does not mean others must avoid them, or that they have no credibility, after all many problems people have are with the NIST reports and their procedures, and avoiding them does not automatically take them off the table as some of you people would like...The real world does not work that way.....In order to honestly discuss this topic, and be objective about it, one must allow all the available information to be part of the equation, and avoiding much about it is what many claim has happened.

As an example...if there was an investigation regarding an auto manufacturer, and the safety of the vehicle was in question, would it be right in taking relevant safety components that are directly involved, out of the investigation???
This is what has happened with the 9-11 WTC....the most glaring and important facets about the demise of the buildings are purposefully left out!


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 13, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Wow.  And after I just posted that the belief that anyone who disagrees with you is a government stooge is ridiculous.  

As I've said before, one of my first reactions to the towers falling was to consider it peculiar.  Why did they collapse straight in on themselves like that, why wasn't it uneven at some point leading to a lean, and the top falling to the side instead of straight down?

I'll admit that there are other peculiarities as well.  However, as I've said before, incompetent before malicious.  Add in the old standby of Occam's Razor, and here's what we've got.  I watched planes fly into the towers.  I watched the towers burn, people leaping from windows, etc.  I watched the towers collapse.  The simplest answer is that, yes, the planes caused it.  And the government, rather than covering up it's malicious involvement, may be covering up it's incompetence in being unable to stop it.

In fact, the absurdity of the video works just as well to highlight possible incompetence by various agencies.  The military didn't respond in time, the FAA didn't know how to respond, etc.

However, oddities and peculiarities aside, what you consider clear is far from obvious to many others.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 13, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



So when does incompetence translate to culpability? I mean how many peculiarities and oddities that defy physical explanation, and obvious attempts at obfuscation does it take to convince you that it is leaning towards this explanation being less then logical?
Are you that naive, that so many instances can not possibly be just plain old incompetence? There's too many instances, in too many places, and do you find it normal that if these are cases of neglect and incompetence, for them to be a basis of promotions rewards, and medals of commendations as has happened in many cases?
Get a clue.


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 13, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> So when does incompetence translate to culpability? I mean how many peculiarities and oddities that defy physical explanation, and obvious attempts at obfuscation does it take to convince you that it is leaning towards this explanation being less then logical?
> Are you that naive, that so many instances can not possibly be just plain old incompetence? There's too many instances, in too many places, and do you find it normal that if these are cases of neglect and incompetence, for them to be a basis of promotions rewards, and medals of commendations as has happened in many cases?
> Get a clue.



I think that incompetence is often rewarded, in politics in particular.

I think that you see far more instances of peculiarity and oddity in 9/11 and the subsequent investigations than I do.

I think that this was such a massive event, inconsistencies and peculiarities were bound to appear.  Two of the largest buildings in the entire world collapsed, in one of the largest population cities in the world.  Of COURSE this wouldn't be a completely precise, sterile, perfect investigation.  There was just too much crap to deal with and too many people wanting a say in how it was looked into.

I think your rampant anti-government bias has you seeing more than is really there.  Hell, I've long been of the opinion that all politicians should be looked at as inherently corrupt; politics is the proof of the adage that power corrupts.  That doesn't lead to me looking at any disaster/major event as likely a government cover-up.  I have less faith in the ability of those in power to maintain good relations with each other, agree on designs and plans, and keep their mouths shut about it forever.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 13, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> So when does incompetence translate to culpability? I mean how many peculiarities and oddities that defy physical explanation, and obvious attempts at obfuscation does it take to convince you that it is leaning towards this explanation being less then logical?
> Are you that naive, that so many instances can not possibly be just plain old incompetence? There's too many instances, in too many places, and do you find it normal that if these are cases of neglect and incompetence, for them to be a basis of promotions rewards, and medals of commendations as has happened in many cases?
> Get a clue.





Montrovant said:


> ]I think that incompetence is often rewarded, in politics in particular.


The 9-11 attacks are significantly more important then your everyday run of the mill political banter. This was a global, life altering event, akin to the new Pearl Harbor mentioned by PNAC. To not anyone accountable for massive failures that resulted in thousands of lives lost, and the damage done is criminal in itself.



Montrovant said:


> ]I think that you see far more instances of peculiarity and oddity in 9/11 and the subsequent investigations than I do.


 It is because I care to look, observe and research such an important event. I guess some people like yourself, are full of apathy and just shrug it off..Or so it seems.Perhaps this is why you can't relate to what we mention. What we deem as appalling you chalk up to ....politics???



Montrovant said:


> ]I think that this was such a massive event, inconsistencies and peculiarities were bound to appear.


 Wow, this is inconsistent with how you act above....



Montrovant said:


> ]Two of the largest buildings in the entire world collapsed, in one of the largest population cities in the world.


 Right but you fail to mention what had to have taken place, or allowed in order for this to be a successful mission.The posted video mentions these facts.



Montrovant said:


> ]Of COURSE this wouldn't be a completely precise, sterile, perfect investigation.


 Why should the American people expect anything less then a precise, detailed accounting of the event that would require US blood to avenge? The mission statement of the 9-11 commission promised as much....



Montrovant said:


> ]There was just too much crap to deal with and too many people wanting a say in how it was looked into.


 Well first off the Bush administration tried like hell to avoid ANY investigation regarding this horrific event but anyone who looks into the Bush die nasty would understand this is to be expected.In fact he made damned sure that he put people in place that assured the proper spin and narrative came out of it. 
Phillip Zelekow, is just one example...



Montrovant said:


> ]I think your rampant anti-government bias has you seeing more than is really there.


 You generalize too much regarding this false assumption regarding me.
Allow me to clarify, I do not hate the institution of the US government, and in fact I only despise the people that manage to get themselves into it because of the stupidity and lackadaisical apathetic attitudes of the idiots who call themselves citizens, who vote them into the sensitive positions. Once they are in, they proceed to do everything they can to line their pockets and purses for themselves at the American peoples expense. This is flagrant, and extremely obvious.
 So no, the institution itself would be fine, and sound if not for the corrupt treasonous SOB's that are in it . But again this is mostly because of the American who doesn't give a shit and votes according to what his equally ignorant friends and family do. It's popularity over substance and brains every single time..
Even after years of being lied to, they still believe what the candidates promise them and what the MSM, and Pac money decides for them...



Montrovant said:


> ] Hell, I've long been of the opinion that all politicians should be looked at as inherently corrupt; politics is the proof of the adage that power corrupts.


If you are stuck in the left/right paradigm and argue  for one side or the other, you haven't learned and go with the flow and choose the "lesser of 2 evils"?
Anyway it is possible for even a corrupt politician to have some boundaries, and be expected to have some fucking loyalty to his nation when it comes to such a horrific thing like 9-11, or letting a nasty state like Israel dictate policy that is in their interests over your own fucking country...IE: Look how many Zionist were in the Bush administration, and in our sensitive political positions in general....If your interested, you can see where most of their loyalties are, dual citizenship etc, 29 standind o's for Nutty yahoo who said the 9-11 attacks "were good for Israel' etc....This is what I despise about the PEOPLE in my fucking government. Not the institution itself..There's a big difference, and it's popular to not distinguish this...the whole you're either with us scumbags or your against us thing, Like the way they toss the word "terrorists" around....Do you know how easy it is for a regular Joe to labelled that nowadays?  



Montrovant said:


> ]That doesn't lead to me looking at any disaster/major event as likely a government cover-up.


 9-11 in its magnitude and importance is certainly one I would make a damned exception about...if I were you. Again one must research the history of this nations black ops, Cointellpro, etc....to understand. Naive gullible people I can expect
this kind of thinking from, but not when you are awake and ware. 



Montrovant said:


> ]I have less faith in the ability of those in power to maintain good relations with each other, agree on designs and plans, and keep their mouths shut about it forever.


 Then you put little emphasis on the importance of the power of persuasion, bribery, threats, and death. These people are not like you or me,  or your everyday pedestrian. There are real serious matters and power plays in effect that we can only imagine.
The implications are global and not just water cooler gossipy BS and petty backstabbing.
For instance we recently had an example of the power and influence of AIPAC, and its Christian Zionist cronies in Huckabee calling for the release of one of Americas worst spy cases with Johnathon Pollard..We had Romney accept money from a foreign state to help prevent Obama from re-election. These treasonous MFKER's don't give a shit how fucked up these things look to the aware American, just so long as the king Bibi can see that they are proselytizing before him...that's all that matters to them....It's fucking disgusting.
Did you see that Zionist nuthugger Lindsey Graham have the incredulous indignation and the nerve to ask Hagel "what Israeli or AIPAC influence is there?"

Hagel at least once declared I'm not an Israeli senator. I'm a United States senator,
This is the attitude that is needed MORE. Not less.
So, you may not give a shit about America or the implications of things that I mention or care about....But there is a growing segment that does, and wont be going away for love of country without a fight.
9-11 awareness, leads to overall awareness of the state of affairs, including the serious economic one we are facing...This is why 9-11 is important to me and others.


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 14, 2013)

Your 'growing segment' is pretty much the outer fringe.  That element has always been around, probably throughout human history rather than just the US; those who always see hidden daggers in the darkness, those who explain the bad things in the world by blaming some mysterious, powerful 'they'.

When I say you have an anti-government bias, I don't mean to imply you are an anarchist.  I could have phrased that better I suppose.  I mean that you come off as someone who thinks the members of our government, and the Israeli government, and possibly all governments in general, are and have been working toward some unclear, nefarious goal(s).  I would include any group that is in control of things behind the scenes, so to speak, when I say government in this instance.  Secret cabals of the rich and powerful pulling the strings of government equates to government, in this context.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some criminal activity post-9/11 in an attempt to cover asses.  That still doesn't come anywhere close to rising to the level of government involvement in it happening.

I wonder how long the Jews are going to be blamed for the ills of the world.  I mean, it's not as though there are so many of them!  Such a small segment of the population to blame for so much.....
Or maybe their having been blamed for so long is some kind of proof of their culpability? 

Anyway, one last time and then I think I'll just stop replying, as we're obviously going nowhere with this.  What you consider obvious, I and many others do not.  It isn't a matter of not doing enough research, of not seeing all the information.  It's about not coming to the same conclusions you do.  You see a truther scientist talk about some aspect of the towers falling and say, "Look!  Science says it must have been controlled demo!".  You see some other scientist rebut that and say, "That was a strawman, that didn't take everything into account, that isn't the same circumstances as 9/11" etc.  I, on the other hand, see the first scientist and say, "Well, that sounds somewhat convincing.  I wonder if there are any opposing views.".  Then I see the other scientist and say, "Oh, I see.  That first guy was jumping at shadows.".  

Maybe one of you truthers should try to get elected to public office.  Work from within the system, either to change things or to gather evidence.  Of course, you'd have to hide your beliefs about 9/11, but it would be worth it, wouldn't it?  I wonder if there are any truthers who are under the radar enough yet charismatic enough to give it a try.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 14, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Your 'growing segment' is pretty much the outer fringe.  That element has always been around, probably throughout human history rather than just the US; those who always see hidden daggers in the darkness, those who explain the bad things in the world by blaming some mysterious, powerful 'they'.


And who exactly dictates who this outer fringe is? Let me guess...the people in the "news" and the MSM in general..There are many worldwide who believe that the 9-11 fable and theory is not correct. If you would read some history you would soon find many instances of powerful people vying for control of the masses, but you limit yourself to looking at only the superficial or micro level of things, you wont understand. Don't expect things to pop out at you, there are many instances where the hidden "daggers" and agendas are obvious but only after one takes on a sincere effort to understand. You also must be aware of who the source of information is, what their involvement is, and who benefits etc. IOW, vetting your sources.
The story of the Fed Reserve is a good example, among many that one can undertake to understand about hidden agendas, and conspiracies.




> When I say you have an anti-government bias, I don't mean to imply you are an anarchist.  I could have phrased that better I suppose.  I mean that you come off as someone who thinks the members of our government, and the Israeli government, and possibly all governments in general, are and have been working toward some unclear, nefarious goal(s).


 Information that proves this is available, but again government is supposed to be a tool for the benefit and orderly function of the citizens of a nation, but many times it is infiltrated by those that special interests tab and help "elect" for their goals and outcomes. It may be to control monetary, foreign ,business , military, or to subvert the constitution. A nations government has and can be controlled by these and criminal interests as well.
The concept of a fair government as the US is supposed to be, has been infiltrated by criminal elements, that involve outside states and entities.



> I would include any group that is in control of things behind the scenes, so to speak, when I say government in this instance.  Secret cabals of the rich and powerful pulling the strings of government equates to government, in this context.


 It equates a subverted and infiltrated government, that does not benefit the people that it is designed to serve. There are safeguards the framers of the US constitution put in place for these reasons, and why an oath to it is required, but there are many instances where this oath and respect to it and what it stands for has been trampled. They are obvious and taking place everyday. Our own elected officials actually challenge and fight against it
instead of preserving it and the principles it was designed to uphold.



> I wouldn't be surprised if there was some criminal activity post-9/11 in an attempt to cover asses.  That still doesn't come anywhere close to rising to the level of government involvement in it happening.


 Well, there are instances regarding the 9-11 attacks where this is obvious. Asses are being covered to hide murder of Americans, There is evidence of criminal activity before during and after 9-11.



> I wonder how long the Jews are going to be blamed for the ills of the world.  I mean, it's not as though there are so many of them!  Such a small segment of the population to blame for so much.....
> Or maybe their having been blamed for so long is some kind of proof of their culpability?


 This is another area where you generalize "THE Jews" Not all Jews are Zionist nationals. Not all who claim to be Jews are really Semites either. The history is intriguing, and would take too much time to discuss, but suffice it to say that Judaism has itself been infiltrated and replaced by fanatical Zionist nationalism. The Jewish people have been fed the line that they are a "chosen" people and a mentality that
the world and Gentiles especially hate them, when in fact ill will is because of the Zionist policies and Nazi tactics that are used in their name.
America is also hated in the Muslim world because of the Zionist policy that it is directly connected to.
But as far as the 9-11 attacks are concerned, many Zionist were in control of sensitive positions in the Bush cabinet and administration, who had the means and authority to facilitate the attacks, that were only of benefit to Israel, just ask Nutty Yahoo. Follow the Zionist connections in the white house, research who wrote the PNAC policy and who signed them. They are the Neo Cons who are trying like hell to send America to fight another war against Israel's enemy in Iran. The same peddlers of BS and policy involving Iraq. How many UN resolutions has the apartheid state of Israel ignored??
Its the unfortunate truism about a few bad apples spoiling the entire barrel. The FEW  very few  Zionist Jews who have wreaked havoc in America and around the world have managed to foment an unsettling hatred in the hearts of those who perceive these misdeeds and then blame ALL Jews for the actions of these deranged few. 



> Anyway, one last time and then I think I'll just stop replying, as we're obviously going nowhere with this.  What you consider obvious, I and many others do not.


 That's OK with me, it does not deter me from my duty as a citizen. I have researched all that I speak to you about in earnest, and followed trails to come to my OWN conclusion. I enjoy, and am proud of the fact I do this, instead of relying on ignorant herd mentality. Example are...The Fed Reserve is really a federal agency, Flouride is really good for you, and Alqaeda  is a constant threat, and another whopper being that the OBL raid really really took place....


> It isn't a matter of not doing enough research, of not seeing all the information.


 In most cases it really is, it's obvious when discussing certain things when a person did not do any homework about what they are engaging in a debate about, and as has been shown in threads like this, they turn out to look like fools-
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.- Socrates




> It's about not coming to the same conclusions you do.  You see a truther scientist talk about some aspect of the towers falling and say, "Look!  Science says it must have been controlled demo!".


 Ah, the truther label applied to signify a separatist, a kook, a "CT" LOL! 
What credible people have done in the pertinent fields of study regarding 9-11 is offer a more scientific, logical, and physically possible alternative to the guesses, and  wild conspiracy theory that do not make scientific or physical sense, when analyzed and when proper methods of evaluation, and calculations are applied. If it looks like a CD, has all the characteristics of a CD, and when the scientific methods are applied, and it is added all up, has a higher percentage....SCIENTIFICALLY,AND PHYSICALLY of being a CD....OVER OTHER THEORIES....then it is a CD. NIST has not proved otherwise, and there is much evidence that shows were and how NIST is wrong...



> You see some other scientist rebut that and say, "That was a strawman, that didn't take everything into account, that isn't the same circumstances as 9/11" etc.  I, on the other hand, see the first scientist and say, "Well, that sounds somewhat convincing.  I wonder if there are any opposing views.".  Then I see the other scientist and say, "Oh, I see.  That first guy was jumping at shadows.".


 You speak like you only read statements regarding the opinions of these "scientist" How about you look at their body of work for yourself, compare it the body work for NIST, and make up your own mind?
It is good to see if there are opposing views, but without understanding the details, some admittingly complicated, you have nothing to make a sound decision on.
Again the sources of the information, what their vested interests may be that may be an influence on them etc...all come into play, along with the correctness of the calculations that form the basis for agreement, or disapproval.



> Maybe one of you truthers should try to get elected to public office.  Work from within the system, either to change things or to gather evidence.  Of course, you'd have to hide your beliefs about 9/11, but it would be worth it, wouldn't it?  I wonder if there are any truthers who are under the radar enough yet charismatic enough to give it a try.


 Many have tried to get their work looked at, but what has America come to when the government we created to protect our rights can accuse us of lying and then prohibit us from presenting a defense in a court of law? Or we accuse them of lying and have a grievance against them and they refuse to hear us, and intimidate others in the process?
 The willful ignorance and lack of civic accountability from the general population has contributed to this.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 15, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Your 'growing segment' is pretty much the outer fringe.  That element has always been around, probably throughout human history rather than just the US; those who always see hidden daggers in the darkness, those who explain the bad things in the world by blaming some mysterious, powerful 'they'.
> ...



Defense of what? You don't seem to understand how our justice system works. Perhaps you should bone-up on it and add cyber-attorney to your cyber-physicist resume.     

You have the right to form your own opinions, not your own facts.


----------



## paulitician (Feb 15, 2013)

Come on ya'll, why you questioning Big Brother? You know he knows what's best for ya. So just STFU!...Or else.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 15, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Defense of what you ask....Are you drunk or stoned? You have not, and probably never will, understand what we are discussing in these threads. You don't address anything with a coherent or reasonable post or reply that is relevant to what is being discussed! LOL! To clarify,....My opinion is attained by the process I explained above, that you obviously intentionally missed as is evident by you only commenting on the very last sentence of my post.
 Why don't you just stop making a foolish ass out of yourself already, it's shameful the way you just glance at a post and then ask a stupid question like "defense of what"?
And BTW, I'm not the one who alluded to being some kind of cyber representative or attorney, with grandiose aspirations of representing people. And since when does understanding a little physics about the WTC buildings equal being a cyber-physicist?

What we can infer from your responses is 1-You don't know anything about what you are here to discuss/debate. 2-You suffer from delusional thinking, and grandiose over estimations of your abilities. 3-You run away from any challenge that necessitates you having to assert your belief in your wild conspiracy theory with actual details and facts..
You never address what is actually in anyone's posts while slithering and sliding away
Among other shameful traits, that make you an extremely poor advocate for the OCT.
INWs.....You suck so bad you make an ass out of yourself..


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 15, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Defense of what I ask? You are truly the poster girl for raving CT loons, Princess, but I'm gonna let you in on a little secret. My challenge was absolutely facetious. Real experts have always had the option of hiring law firms to take their cases to court yet none have. This thread was intended to get nutters like you to realize you are just engaged in cyber-masterbation. Most did and slithered away. Desperate, shrill, fools like you tried futilely to bait me into some half-assed pseudo-scientific debate. Neither of us are scientists but you like to pretend to be one. 
In fact, you seem to do a lot of pretending about a lot of things. Clearly reality just isn't for you.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 15, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Defense of what I ask? You are truly the poster girl for raving CT loons, Princess, but I'm gonna let you in on a little secret. *My challenge was absolutely facetious. *Real experts have always had the option of hiring law firms to take their cases to court yet none have. This thread was intended to get nutters like you to realize you are just engaged in cyber-masterbation. Most did and slithered away. Desperate, shrill, fools like you tried futilely to bait me into some half-assed pseudo-scientific debate. Neither of us are scientists but you like to pretend to be one.
> In fact, you seem to do a lot of pretending about a lot of things. Clearly reality just isn't for you.


I knew you'd pussy out! It was just a matter of time. Princess.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 16, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Defense of what I ask? You are truly the poster girl for raving CT loons, Princess, but I'm gonna let you in on a little secret. *My challenge was absolutely facetious. *Real experts have always had the option of hiring law firms to take their cases to court yet none have. This thread was intended to get nutters like you to realize you are just engaged in cyber-masterbation. Most did and slithered away. Desperate, shrill, fools like you tried futilely to bait me into some half-assed pseudo-scientific debate. Neither of us are scientists but you like to pretend to be one.
> ...



You're not just stupid, Princess ... you're monumentally stupid. Please don't look up when it rains ... you'll drown.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> > Defense of what I ask? You are truly the poster girl for raving CT loons, Princess, but I'm gonna let you in on a little secret. My challenge was absolutely facetious.
> 
> 
> We've known this all along idiot. It was obvious you don't know what you're talking about.
> ...


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 16, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > > Defense of what I ask? You are truly the poster girl for raving CT loons, Princess, but I'm gonna let you in on a little secret. My challenge was absolutely facetious.
> ...


----------



## georgephillip (Feb 16, 2013)

"Often, the negative responses to the evidence presented by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have a subtext that could be fairly titled, 'kill the messenger.' 

"Why do so many people respond this way? 

"As discussed by psychology experts, one explanation involves the issue of 'nationalist faith.' What this entails, for certain Americans, is the steadfast view that the U.S. government is always 'the good guy,' and that anyone not in sync with this view is 'anti-American' and not to be trusted. 

"Those who blindly cling to nationalist faith simply cannot entertain the idea that America&#8217;s leaders would do anything wrong."

Are you silly enough to believe US leaders would never do anything wrong?
Are you one of those "Americans" who believes his government is "always the good guy?"
Sure you are.
Troll.

World Trade Center Building 7 Demolished on 9/11? | AE911Truth


----------



## paulitician (Feb 16, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> "Often, the negative responses to the evidence presented by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have a subtext that could be fairly titled, 'kill the messenger.'
> 
> "Why do so many people respond this way?
> 
> ...



Great observation. It's their fear and conditioning. It's all they know. This could help explain their irrational loyalty to Big Brother...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okPnDZ1Txlo]SCHOOL SUCKS: The American Way - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## paulitician (Feb 16, 2013)

Programmed to conform. That's what its all about. So get with the program...Or else.


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 16, 2013)

Irony, thy name is paulitican.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Many have tried to get their work looked at, but what has America come to when the government we created to protect our rights can accuse us of lying and then prohibit us from presenting a defense in a court of law?



Defense of what? You don't seem to understand how our justice system works. Perhaps you should bone-up on it and add cyber-attorney to your cyber-physicist resume.     

You have the right to form your own opinions, not your own facts.    [/QUOTE]

I know enough about it to understand when it is not working, when information, witnesses and data are being suppressed, I know enough to know when a conflict of interest is present.
You seem to be the type of person that does not care when these instances occur. You insist
that everything you are told is true because the fabricators who are in positions of authority say so. You are so obtuse that even when your fellow citizens are being treated unfairly by a system of checks and balances that were designed to protect them are not present, you don't care or even care to know.

I have facts and evidence of instances to back up my position, theory and opinion, while all you can muster is the same old line claiming there is none while never addressing what we present with any of your own that discount them. 
I don't use my own facts all the time either, I use credible sources with verifiable documentation, while you have nothing, and hide under the false assumptions, non provable theories and a wild CT that we show does not physically make any sense.

You claim that you can't discount our facts because you aren't smart enough to even understand them, yet somehow think this is a valid reason for saying they don't exist or that they aren't credible.....You don't even make any sense, in the reasoning you state that our positions don't? You are a fucking loon who hides behind any excuse you can find to avoid directly establishing and verifying your own reasoning...
If you have nothing to offer, and our theories and opinions have been "debunked" why are you still hanging around? Have you not made a big enough fool of yourself already?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 16, 2013)

paulitician said:


> Programmed to conform. That's what its all about. So get with the program...Or else.
> 
> Little boxes-Malvina reynolds - YouTube


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 16, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> "Often, the negative responses to the evidence presented by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have a subtext that could be fairly titled, 'kill the messenger.'
> 
> "Why do so many people respond this way?
> 
> ...



The question isn't whether all who doubt the 9/11 CT movement believe US leaders would never do anything wrong (that's a classic baseless, self-serving, Straw Man argument) but rather is there real evidence they did so on 9/11?
The more honest question is: are you actually stupid enough to leave critique of the 9/11 "truth" movement's critics to the 9/11 "truth" movement?
Are all those who doubt your "facts" either part of what you deem to be a conspiracy or just blind sheeple or are you CT Nutters just plain nutters?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 16, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> "Often, the negative responses to the evidence presented by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have a subtext that could be fairly titled, 'kill the messenger.'
> 
> "Why do so many people respond this way?
> 
> ...



that last paragraph describes Montrovent.He only sees what he wants to see and doesnt believe our us leaders can do no wrong.the handlers of sock puppet troll sayit love him because he is the kind that they know will listen to his lies and propaganda his handlers have sent him here to troll and post.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 16, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Defense of what I ask? You are truly the poster girl for raving CT loons, Princess, but I'm gonna let you in on a little secret. *My challenge was absolutely facetious. *Real experts have always had the option of hiring law firms to take their cases to court yet none have. This thread was intended to get nutters like you to realize you are just engaged in cyber-masterbation. Most did and slithered away. Desperate, shrill, fools like you tried futilely to bait me into some half-assed pseudo-scientific debate. Neither of us are scientists but you like to pretend to be one.
> ...



what are you talking about? he did that several months back when he first started trolling these boards refusing to address these facts only coming back posting patheitc one liners as his rebutalls  like he always does when he is cornered.

Like all paid shills,he always runs off everytime he is cornered by these facts.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 16, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



whats so amazing about that ignorant post from those brainwashed Bush dupes is the majority of congress is corrupt. bought off and paid for by the zionists so we cant expect to have a reali investigation into this.also its a well known fact that not too long ago,our corrupt court system spit in the familys face when they objected to Bushs cousin being the judge in the lawsuit they filed against the government.

In the ultimate insult to April Gallop in her 9/11 lawsuit against the government,the establishment has made sure her lawsuit gets sabatoged from the get go.The government has insulted Gallop by denying her appeal that Bush's cousin Judge John Walker be dismissed from the panel.

The fact that Bush's cousin is the judge of this case should raise red flags to even the most die hard 9/11 official conspiracy theory apologists that defend the official version of the governments here that this is a fair trial.

Matter of fact not only have they thrown out her appeal to have Judge Walker removed,the message is clear you cant even file a lawsuit against the government without being punished.as you can see from the link below,her attorney representing her has been fined $15,000 for no good reason.

Oh and Judge Walker really IS Bush's cousin for the OCTA'S that want to say he isnt.All you got to do is look at a photo of him and just like Bush jr is a spitting image of his dad,so is Judge John Walker a spitting image of Bush.

Enjoy.tons of information with very good links


http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/tag/george-bush/feed/


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 16, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "Often, the negative responses to the evidence presented by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have a subtext that could be fairly titled, 'kill the messenger.'
> ...



You are absolutely right.  I don't believe our leaders can do no wrong.  

Oh, the irony of you CT posters talking about others seeing only what they want to see.  Oh, the irony of you CT posters talking about others believing the government can do no wrong (I assume that's what you actually meant to say) when you assume the government only does wrong.

CT posters : can only believe that people who disagree with them are government-paid trolls, or else believe the government is an infallible father-figure.  It certainly couldn't be that someone simply disagrees!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 16, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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



thats where you have been brainwashed.You arent  paid shill.Your just a loyal Bush dupe afraid of the truth and in denial and afraid to acknowledge you dont live in a free country,that you oonly  see what you WANT to see as you have proved so many times.

SAYIT troll on the other hand is a sock puppet who has been sent here by his handlers to try and derail any kind of government corruption.he defends ANY kind of government wrong doing no matter how many times he has been proven wrong.typical troll.he knows perfectly well it was an inside job.You are just afraid and in denial,big difference there.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 16, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


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



     
Yeah, that's it. If one disagrees with the CT loons one can only be either brainwashed sheeple or has been sent here by some nefaroius handlers to torment the loons. It's just not possible that any rational person wouldn't be a CT Nutter.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 16, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



That is the typical paranoid CT Nutter expanation for their inability to convince America of the "truth" of their CTs.
Circular thinking at its most perverse: there can be no investigation because the Zionists have bought and paid for our Congress. How convenient for the loons.


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 16, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Oh, now I'm a loyal Bush dupe, eh?  Is that loyal to Bush, or loyal to the country but duped by Bush, how exactly does that work?

And just what is your definition of a free country?  I'll happily admit we aren't entirely free, as that would be anarchy.  Compared to most other nations of the world, past and present, the US enjoys a large amount of freedom, though.  

But I imagine you think anyone who doesn't believe the government perpetrated 9/11, faked the moon landing, shot JFK, hid evidence of alien life at Roswell, and any number of other conspiracy theories is either a 'loyal Bush dupe' or 'paid government troll'.  It's amazing, your ability to both ferret out the truth of the most powerful, resourceful men in the history of the world, as well as so easily determine the nature of a person's personality based on some posts in the conspiracy theory section of a message board!  There must be a way you can cash in on such immense talents.


----------



## georgephillip (Feb 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "Often, the negative responses to the evidence presented by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have a subtext that could be fairly titled, 'kill the messenger.'
> ...


The question is whether you're too stupid to know the difference between "often" and "all:"

"*Often*, the negative responses to the evidence presented by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have a subtext that could be fairly titled, 'kill the messenger.'

The question was never about "*all who doubt*" the truth about 911.
Those who doubt the OCT call for an independent and public investigation.
Those who embrace the "nationalist faith" are afraid to look for any "real evidence."
Maybe you're chicken-shits?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 17, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



But you are a CT nutter. You believe in one of the most outrageously nutty CT, and whats worse is that you have no solid proof that substantiates it!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 17, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


Israel controls the US congress, as evidenced by their attacking Hagel during the nomination hearings for starters. These treasonous congressmen have displayed more loyalty to Israeli interests then to the nation they are supposed to be working for.
The evidence of this loyalty is pervasive throughout "our" government, courts, and media.
You wouldn't bother to notice or care tho..


----------



## paulitician (Feb 17, 2013)

Anyone who thinks we haven't lost Liberties since 911, is truly living life in ignorant Goose Stepper Bliss. Definitely Red Pill time for them.


----------



## georgephillip (Feb 17, 2013)

The various pieces of legislation depriving Americans of rights they were born with are all in place, just waiting for the right "crisis" for deployment:

"The fate of the nation, we understood, could be decided by the three judges who will rule on our lawsuit against President Barack Obama for signing into law Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

"The section permits the military to detain anyone, including U.S. citizens, who 'substantially support'&#8212;an undefined legal term&#8212;al-Qaida, the Taliban or 'associated forces,' again a term that is legally undefined. 

"Those detained can be imprisoned indefinitely by the military and denied due process until 'the end of hostilities.' *In an age of permanent war this is probably a lifetime*. Anyone detained under the NDAA can be sent, according to Section (c)(4), to any 'foreign country or entity.' 

"This is, in essence, extraordinary rendition of U.S. citizens. It empowers the government to ship detainees to the jails of some of the most repressive regimes on earth."

Chris Hedges: The NDAA and the Death of the Democratic State - Chris Hedges' Columns - Truthdig

When this economy crashes loudly enough to focus US attention spans the same way 911 did...


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 17, 2013)

paulitician said:


> Anyone who thinks we haven't lost Liberties since 911, is truly living life in ignorant Goose Stepper Bliss. Definitely Red Pill time for them.



You keep sayin' that but everytime you are asked to describe how your freedoms have been dented you slither away. Is it a prob for you that you can no longer carry a bomb or a boxcutter aboard a commercial airliner?


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 17, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who thinks we haven't lost Liberties since 911, is truly living life in ignorant Goose Stepper Bliss. Definitely Red Pill time for them.
> ...



As I understand it, the Patriot Act allowed for easier surveillance by the government on US citizens.  The rules for beginning various types of surveillance were loosened.

I can't remember the exact circumstances of incidents at the moment, but I also seem to recall more than one occurrence of innocent citizens being detained for long periods without representation based on the Patriot Act. 

And more, I am pretty sure there have been complaints that law enforcement has used provisions of the Patriot Act in pursuing other criminals, not just terrorists.  

So I would agree that some liberties have been lost, or at least degraded, since 9/11.  Have I felt that personally?  The closest I personally have come that I know of is having to get a new ID for my little local bank, because the one I had been using was expired.  No loss of liberty, just a minor inconvenience.  However, the fact that I have not personally experienced any of the negative effects does not mean I am immune to them or that my freedoms haven't been at all lessened.  If it were to become illegal to travel from the east coast to the west coast I would have lost some freedom, but since I never have and never expect to do such traveling, I wouldn't experience it personally.  

Paulitician may be a crazy CT nut, but he's not always completely wrong.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 17, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



I neither said nor inferred that the rules of engagement haven't been changed. I specifically asked the OP who has repeatedly whined about his loss of freedom to describe how _his_ freedoms have been lost. Methinks this is a case of Pauli making a mountain out of a molehill. 
BTW, the Left Coast ain't so bad and the trip is still perfectly legal.


----------



## georgephillip (Feb 17, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


*"If we lose in Hedges v. Obama*and it seems certain that no matter the outcome of the appeal this case will reach the Supreme Courtelectoral politics and our rights as citizens will be as empty as those of Neros Rome. 

"If we lose, the power of the military to detain citizens, strip them of due process and hold them indefinitely in military prisons will become a terrifying reality. 

"Democrat or Republican. 

"Occupy activist or libertarian. Socialist or tea party stalwart. It does not matter. This is not a partisan fight. 

"*Once the state seizes this unchecked power*, it will inevitably create a secret, lawless world of indiscriminate violence, terror and gulags. I lived under several military dictatorships during the two decades I was a foreign correspondent. 

"*I know the beast*."

I don't know what Chris Hedges's views on 911 are, but he's covered enough war zones to be worth listening to regarding the loss of US freedoms since that fateful day.

Chris Hedges: The NDAA and the Death of the Democratic State - Chris Hedges' Columns - Truthdig


----------



## paulitician (Feb 18, 2013)

Nothing to see here folks. Everything is fine. Big Brother's got your back. So stop your complaining and STFU!...Or else!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 19, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



thats because like I said,he is afraid of the truth and only sees what he WANTS to see.like paid shill SAYIT, and all shills and Bush dupes afraid like Montrovent,he has NO ANSWERS for that five minute video or the facts in the video on this thread of mine or the facts in the videos posted by myself and Paulitician in out opening posts on this thread of his.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...solved-names-connections-details-exposed.html

Montrovent like all OCTA'S and like all paid shills like Sayit troll,have no debating skills whatsoever,they never try and counter these facts everytime they are presetned to them. and they call US loonys? at least we dont run off when presented with facts in videos that cant be debunked and then keep trolling pretending like our opponent never posted any evidence.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


> Anyone who thinks we haven't lost Liberties since 911, is truly living life in ignorant Goose Stepper Bliss. Definitely Red Pill time for them.





thats why the OCTAS and paid shill trolls like sayit wont look at this video,they only see what they WANT to see.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 19, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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





thats the understatement of the century.He of course wont watch this video here as he has proven throughout this whole thread he closes his eyes and closes his ears everytime videos are presented to him.Have YOU seen this video by chance? the proof is in the pudding right there how Israel controls congress and Obama and all presidents let the prime minister rule the roost when they come visit at the white house.

the only thing that missing for Bibi here is the red carpet treatment with flowers being thrown on it before he walks.Obama is pretty much bowing down to him as the the video clearly shows. so HAVE YOU seen this video before by chance? I cracked up when i first saw it watching Obama bow down and worship Bibi like he did.


yep the zionist jews dont control congress alright and zionist jew larry Silverstein even though he proffited at least in the millions from the attacks,had no involvement in this alright.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 19, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Woo. The guy is a carnival freak. He fits right in with this board's CT loons, even wearing a foil lined helmet. No wonder Sista Jones and 9/11 Hand Job dig him.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 20, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



You're a childish idiot. Try listening to what is being said and see if you can muster up some semblance of an intelligent comment, instead of  pretending to be a judge in a fashion show...Once again you have absolutely no rational comment that is relevant to the information that is posted.
Can you request a transfer so they can at least have someone with _some _smarts regarding what they send you to ridicule or try to debunk? I mean all you have is a very limited repertoire
that is based on ad hominem, and you've been relegated to cheer leader .....and bottom of the rung status

The government of the USA has been infiltrated and subverted by Israeli loyalists, and all you can say about it is a comment about someones attire??? 
You seriously suck BAD at what you try to do...It's not your calling.


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 20, 2013)

This guy actually DOES seem a bit like a carnival barker....I very much question if he's serious or just joking based on this video.  I find it funny how he goes on about body language during the interview, when his own body language, with the constant twisting back and forth and occasional thrust forward when he's trying to be frightening, is so odd.

His overly dramatic, stage-voiced proclamations are ridiculous.  He offers no evidence, merely pointing out that Obama has declared the US remains a strong ally of Israel, as presidents have been doing for years.  In fact, there are many who have complained that Obama is not a strong enough supporter of Israel, that he hasn't been a vocal enough ally, and here you are supporting this video which claims that his vocal support is somehow an indication that Israel controls our elections.

Maybe it's inevitable that CT people would latch onto the Jews, who have been blamed for people's problems in different places for many years.  Still, it's a tired refrain.  And if you really believe that the president declaring the strength of US relations with Israel is proof that Israel controls our government, you are truly beyond hope.  That's not anything approaching proof, it's nothing but speculation.  At least based on this video, it's not even speculation based on evidence, but more like wild-assed accusation.

But hey!  Maybe thinking 'the Jews did it!' lets you sleep better at night.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 20, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> This guy actually DOES seem a bit like a carnival barker....I very much question if he's serious or just joking based on this video.  I find it funny how he goes on about body language during the interview, when his own body language, with the constant twisting back and forth and occasional thrust forward when he's trying to be frightening, is so odd.
> 
> His overly dramatic, stage-voiced proclamations are ridiculous.  He offers no evidence, merely pointing out that Obama has declared the US remains a strong ally of Israel, as presidents have been doing for years.  In fact, there are many who have complained that Obama is not a strong enough supporter of Israel, that he hasn't been a vocal enough ally, and here you are supporting this video which claims that his vocal support is somehow an indication that Israel controls our elections.
> 
> ...



You would dismiss evidence anyway. Anyone with 2 working braincells would research these allegations, instead of judging this mans "body language". There is historical proof that the US has been controlled by Israeli Zionist interests for years now. If you gave a shit about it as a caring American citizen should, you'd know already by doing your own search. You don't so you didn't. You really make yourself look foolish by protesting once again about something you don't bother to learn about.
I wonder if any of you people who come onto the USMB and engage in these discussions are actually even Americans...If you are in fact Americans, then why are you seemingly oblivious when it comes to these issues of importance?


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > This guy actually DOES seem a bit like a carnival barker....I very much question if he's serious or just joking based on this video.  I find it funny how he goes on about body language during the interview, when his own body language, with the constant twisting back and forth and occasional thrust forward when he's trying to be frightening, is so odd.
> ...



Hah!  One of the 'proofs' of the video is body language, but you think I should dismiss that same indicator in regards to the video?  

More, you now think that wild-assed accusations based on no supporting evidence should be researched thoroughly.  So, instead of the need for someone to support an argument, you think it makes sense that any unsupported bs should be taken as worthy of vetting?  That sounds like the CT mindset in a nutshell!  

And now we've gotten to Jew-blaming and calling into question the citizenship of posters who disagree with you.  Is that an attempt to blame foreigners and not have to think that people from YOUR country are bad?  But wait, I thought rabid nationalism was one of the big brother ploys?

I can't wait to see the historical proof that Zionist Israel controls the US.  Perhaps, as one of the few caring Americans, you could show the rest of us how the evil Jews are secretly running everything?  I'm sure your ironclad proof will be beyond reproach, just like your proof that 9/11 was perpetrated by the government!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 20, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Wow, it's hard to believe you claim to be so ignorant about this nation, but then again like I said if you don't give a shit, then this is to be expected, and showing you any proof of what is generally well known here in America would be a long waste of anyone's time.
So once again I get no answer to what was asked of you in regards to being an actual American citizen, only a demand to show you readily available evidence, that if you were truly interested in you would already have known about. Why don't you stop wasting your time and move along with your views?
I believe they are that-
Massive steel buildings can explode and fall into the path of most resistance close to FF accelerations by kerosene fires.
The NIST report doesn't have to show anyone it is based on sound science and physics to be considered accurate.
And that the American political scene is not at all heavily influenced by Israeli interests and lobby's. I think that about sums it up...
It doesn't matter to me what you think, just as nothing I just mentioned matters to you.


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



So you ignore the fact that the very video in contention makes body language a large part of it's evidence, insisting I ignore the same evidence in regards to the video.

You for some reason think disagreement with your many conspiracy theories means a lack of US citizenship.  I'm a United States citizen, born in NY state.  I have a perfectly valid ID and birth certificate.  I'm not sure how that relates to my posts, but there ya go.

You again claim that there is no need for presenting evidence when making a claim, now using the excuse that I wouldn't believe your evidence anyway.  Why present the damn argument in the first place, then?  If you want to make a claim, back it up, or you are just pissing in the wind.

Now it's generally well known in America that Israel is in control of the US government?  I hate to break it to you, but your circle of CT friends does NOT constitute all of America.  I feel pretty confident that your claim is untrue, but if you have evidence of it, feel free to present that.  Oh, wait, I forgot, you don't think bothering presenting evidence is important to making an argument.  Especially with generally accepted knowledge which, strangely enough, is not something I or anyone I know has ever claimed or presented as generally accepted.  

I also find myself quite amused by the moving goalposts.  So now it's Israel influences the US government?  Looking back, looking at the video, it seems pretty clear that the claim was that Israel CONTROLS the US government.  What does it matter though, right?  Why should you bother presenting evidence, or backing up claims, or even arguing the same thing from post to post?  I won't believe you anyway, so you don't need to bother with silly things like evidence or consistency!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 20, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I already went around in circles with you regarding the WTC, and you did not bother to post any data or evidence that substantiated your position on that, so why should I bother to appease you by looking up something that if you truly cared about or were concerned with, you'd have already done it?
You say I made a claim, that you don't seem to agree with, so why not post something that discredits my claim?
You don't agree with claims of how ones body language can be interpreted? Then perhaps you can post something relative to that or how police agencies are so wrong when incorporating the technique during interrogations? 
My claim is that Israel influences, and thereby controls aspects of the American government. Hell just google it and you'll get information about this. If you care that is.
I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your CT regarding the WTC buildings and how it is feasible to assume kerosene from 2 planes can destroy 3 buildings on the same day....


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Are you reading what's being posted?

YOU complained that I shouldn't be bothering with the body language of the man in the video.  I don't know how you get from that to me claiming body language cannot be interpreted.

You said, "There is historical proof that the US has been controlled by Israeli Zionist interests for years now.".  Now it is that Israel influences the US government.  Is this where we're going to stay, or is the claim going to change again?

I have never claimed that kerosene destroyed 3 buildings.  I  have accepted that impact damage and fire destroyed 2 buildings, and fire alone a third.  You have posted some evidence that you believe disproves that.  I disagree with the conclusions drawn, and in some cases the data used, but I appreciate that you have at least backed up your claims with SOMETHING.  The points is not that I believe you, but that I can at least see some sort of reason for what you propose; without any evidence, as in the case with the video we've been discussing, there's no reason for anyone to take anything said seriously.  I could claim that the Scientologists are actually secretly running the US government, but unless I give some evidence, why would you possibly have reason to believe it, or even waste any time looking into it?  If you research every claim anyone makes, you'd never have time for anything else!

In other words, until you have SOMETHING to substantiate a claim, there is no reason for me to try and debunk it.  That's a common tactic, asking someone to disprove something rather than having to prove it in the first place.  It's ridiculous, it shows a lack of depth to an argument, it's childish.  The Olsen twins are controlling the US government.  Disprove it!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 20, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



You act incredulous about this as if it's never been mentioned before...For the sake of trying to stay within the theme of the OP. There were people within the Bush administration that are Israeli loyalists. In fact many connections regarding the Israeli's and 9-11 have been made. 

The recent Hagel confirmation hearings confirm the power of the Israeli lobby, in fact you and the senator from S Carolina have at least one thing in common regarding Israeli influence in American politics....You both play stupid regarding how obvious it is..

Scientology, the Olsen twins? Really? Wow what a spot on comparison.....

So are you now denying that kerosene played no part in the WTC destruction? You do know that jet fuel is glorified kerosene....don't you?
 How can you say you accept that plane damage and fires destroyed them, when there is no verifiable proof that backs up that theory? Are you prepared to post anything that substantiates this theory, instead of wild guesses?


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Let me try this one last time.  You said that ISRAEL CONTROLS THE US GOVERNMENT.  You have since changed your tune.  It was that first claim about which I was incredulous.  I'll readily admit that Israel has influence in the US government, it was the claims of control that I found ludicrous and smacking of all too common anti-Jew hatred.

Do you not understand the analogy I was making?  It is one of claims without evidence.  The wilder the better when making an example to show how silly it is!  I don't know how you could misunderstand that.  Also, I notice you didn't refute either claim.  Why is that?  Or does making claims without evidence only work for you, not for others?  

As far as there being no verifiable proof that the planes and fires brought down the towers......what there is is plenty of evidence that planes hit the towers, and that fires raged within the towers for a long time afterward, and that the towers then collapsed.  If I'm not mistaken, the twin towers started their collapses at about the points where the planes impacted.  So my claims are based merely on what I and millions of others saw.

As I've said in the past, I understand some questions about the collapses.  It was one of my first reactions to wonder how the towers could collapse in such a compact manner, rather than at least one of them having the top tip to the side.  The evidence I've seen that the fires could cause sufficient damage (such as seeing fires weaken beams to the point they buckle in temperatures which could have occurred within the buildings) have led me to accept that what I saw was, in fact, what happened.  You, on the other hand, claim that what I saw was nothing but a charade, window-dressing for what REALLY occurred.  I've looked at evidence you have presented for that and found it lacking, at least enough to convince me of your ideas.  Even before we started arguing about the subject, I was pretty sure that was how it would end up.  How often do opinions really change based on message board arguments?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Perhaps I can clear this up for you. The fact that you have mentioned what you claim to be Israeli loyalists within the Bush Admin doesn't mean they were Israeli loyalists nor does it mean they influenced our gov't to benefit Israel. It simply means you have an irresitible need to blame them and Israel.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



Clearly the 9/11 CT movement has been infiltrated by Nazi slimeballs.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > This guy actually DOES seem a bit like a carnival barker....I very much question if he's serious or just joking based on this video.  I find it funny how he goes on about body language during the interview, when his own body language, with the constant twisting back and forth and occasional thrust forward when he's trying to be frightening, is so odd.
> ...



No, there isn't, but as Monty says if it helps you sleep...


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Lame deflection. Monty noted you have a predilection to blame the Jews. You changed the subject. We all know why.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 22, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Why? Could it have something to do with the Israeli loyalists in our government, or how many had positions of authority and control regarding 9-11? Please explain YOUR insinuation?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 22, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



You called me a Nazi? On what grounds?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

Quote=Montrovant
Hah! One of the 'proofs' of the video is body language, but you think I should dismiss that same indicator in regards to the video? 

More, you now think that wild-assed accusations based on no supporting evidence should be researched thoroughly. So, instead of the need for someone to support an argument, you think it makes sense that any unsupported bs should be taken as worthy of vetting? That sounds like the CT mindset in a nutshell! 

And now we've gotten to Jew-blaming and calling into question the citizenship of posters who disagree with you. Is that an attempt to blame foreigners and not have to think that people from YOUR country are bad? But wait, I thought rabid nationalism was one of the big brother ploys?

I can't wait to see the historical proof that Zionist Israel controls the US. Perhaps, as one of the few caring Americans, you could show the rest of us how the evil Jews are secretly running everything? I'm sure your ironclad proof will be beyond reproach, just like your proof that 9/11 was perpetrated by the government! 



Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



No one claimed Jews do not serve in American administrations and no one claimed they do not influence policy but your claim that they control America on Israel's behalf isn't just unfounded but, as Monty noted, it smacks of traditional Nazi nonsense.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Quote=Montrovant
> Hah! One of the 'proofs' of the video is body language, but you think I should dismiss that same indicator in regards to the video?
> 
> More, you now think that wild-assed accusations based on no supporting evidence should be researched thoroughly. So, instead of the need for someone to support an argument, you think it makes sense that any unsupported bs should be taken as worthy of vetting? That sounds like the CT mindset in a nutshell!
> ...



Really how so? Is it considered Nazi nonsense to love America. Is it considered as antisemitic to point out what you just admitted to?
The Israeli loyalists serve in American government to influence American policy that is beneficial to Israel and is actually a detriment to American interests.
Go look it up, better yet point out how better served America is as a result of all this "influence"
I keep reading the same shit from you, but,  explain YOUR insinuation?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 23, 2013)

FOUR FARTS IN A ROW FROM SOCKPUPPET TROLL SAYIT.then two more after that i see. His handlers are pleased that loyal Bush dupe Montorvent only sees what he wants to see and has been brainwashed by sayit trolls posts.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



Childish idiot is the UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE CENTURY of what this sock puppet troll is.as usuaul,this dumbfuck when is cornered,changes the subject and evades the facts posted  in this video.of course he never even bothered to watch what Obama did in the video or said.

Must suck being this sockpuppet trol sayit the fact that he is so predictable.Hey everyone,didnt he do EXACTLY what i said he would do,not bother watching the facts presented in that video or bother to address them? these shills are so predictable and such a joke,its pathetic that i can predict them so well.just like i called it.this coward troll ran away like the chickenshit coward he is without looking at the facts.so predictable.

the proof is in the pudding on that since like clockwork,like always,everytime he is cornered as he is here,the chickenshit coward wont talk about the actions of Obama in that video.He evades and changes the subject talking about the speaker.what a fucking coward.this guy is a complete joke. as always,it makes him feel good to shoot the messenger while trolling the boards here.He cant refute the facts presented,so all this idiot dumbfuck can do is evade the facts talking about something so irrelevent like the way this guy is dressed. you  shills are a fucking joke.

 your handlers sure pay you well the way you keep coming back for your constant ass beatings here.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 23, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



yoru posts are almost as pathetic as sayit trolls.you also didnt watch a single thing past this video other than the guy talking and then trurned it off after that obviously.you are also being a troll putting words in his mouth saying he is a jew hater when all he has said is tell the truth how its well known here in american that Israel is in control of america.

all he said is zionist Isreal which is the truth and you make up crap that he is a jew hater.pathetic.yeah you wont believe him cause we we both know,you are afraid of the truth and only see what you want to see as you just proved and have proved time and time again ever since you started trolling this section. we pressnted evidence,your just oo much of a coward as you just proved to look at it.get over it.

if you werent such a coward afraid to look at the facts and evidence you would know that elections are rigged all the time and that we dont elect these people,that they are selected by the establishment. that whoever they want in office,they make sure he gets elected.they discuss all that in the yearly bilderberger meetings you wont look into.

The establishment did not care if Romney got elected or if Obama was reelected just as long as one of them did because they are both pro zionists.its a FACT they are both invited to AIPAC meetings.they did not care which one got elected as long as it was one of them and not Ron Paul who they sabotgoed the campaine of to make sure he did not get the republican nomination.more facts you are ignorantly unaware of and dont want to learn about. Ron Paul actually believes in world peace and not a war mongrel like obama and Bush before him which is why Paul unlike,romney,Bush and Obama never get invited to AIPAC meetings.

god you are an ignraont sheep.so ignorant that you dont get it that Obama unlike Bush is clever at fooling the sheople like you,Like Romney,he flip flops.he says one thing about Israel that he is agains them,but as evidenced  in this video,his actions then show he says another and then supports him.Bush was transparent that he supported Israel.Obama is just a much more clever basrtard at it and fools sheople like you who resfuse to look at that video. you're hopeless,as always,you prove you only see what you WANT to see and are afraid of rh truth which is why sockpuppet troll SAYIT loves you.CONGRATS.


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 23, 2013)

How fragile is your ego, that you must assume so many posters are actually being paid to come try and refute your internet message board conspiracy theory posts?  

Oh, and is this more evidence of your amazing debating skills, 9/11 IJ?  Weren't you recently complaining about how none of the many paid trolls who hound you are able to effectively argue?  Quick!  Toss out some more fart comments to show them how it's done!  Be sure not to use punctuation, capitalization or proper sentence structure as well!  Oh, and add some poop smileys to really add that bit of style to your impressive postings!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 23, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> How fragile is your ego, that you must assume so many posters are actually being paid to come try and refute your internet message board conspiracy theory posts?
> 
> Oh, and is this more evidence of your amazing debating skills, 9/11 IJ?  Weren't you recently complaining about how none of the many paid trolls who hound you are able to effectively argue?  Quick!  Toss out some more fart comments to show them how it's done!  Be sure not to use punctuation, capitalization or proper sentence structure as well!  Oh, and add some poop smileys to really add that bit of style to your impressive postings!



No wonder your such an idiot.you obviously have reading comprehension problems because you keep saying that I have said your a paid troll when i have said MANY times as i just said in my last post, that you're just a brainwashed Bush dupe  who is afraid and only sees what he wants to see.

I have only said the obvious that sock puppet troll SAY IT is  a paid shill. thanks for proving that you're a troll as well except that your UNPAID.Yiou just have a said life and nothing bettert to do so you troll these boards. 
congrats on your pathetic debating skills you just prove you have.

You're no different than sayit in the fact that when i cornered you with facts and evidence you could not refute,you did what paid shill SAY IT always does,evade the facts and change the subject retreating by comparing grammar skills.nice.

well since you just proved in spades that you have reading comprehension and memory problems then you are clearly not worth my time anymore. congrats on that.showing you cant remember anything and you do the say it troll thing,like a chickenshit coward,evade the facts and change the subject.way to go troll.Have fun making a fool out of yourself talking to yourself like sayit does quoting me and replying  to my posts addressing them like i actually read them. in the future since you are so much like him and worship him,i have no doubt you will.


that paid troll is desperate for attention and you are as well the way you keep trolling these boards and keep coming back for constant ass beatings from Mr Jones. what a sad life you have.at least say it is doing it for money.you're just doing it cause you are a sad troll with no life.pitiful.


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 23, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



I watched the whole video.  That's how I knew about the whole body language as evidence bit, it was a ways into that video.  But since I don't agree with it, you will just spout off in your nearly incomprehensible fashion about how ignorant I am and how I didn't watch it at all.

To be clear about this, I'm not being fooled by Obama regarding Israel.  I have little doubt that Obama supports Israel, as all our presidents have.  To do otherwise is bad politics.  Hell, I think the formation of Israel, at least where it is, was a terrible idea.  It's there now, though, and as one of our biggest allies, positioned in the middle of the Arab world, the US certainly isn't going to jeopardize that relationship any time soon.  Look at what kind of radical Islamic craziness goes on in Saudi Arabia, but we maintain cordial relations with them.  

There is a difference, though, between being allied to Israel, even to Israel having influence in US politics, and Israel being secretly (or not so secretly, since apparently all the CTs know about it) in control of the US government.

Of course Ron Paul couldn't have lost any elections on his own, they must have been sabotaged.  No other explanation is possible, since you support him!  I wonder if he ever cringes thinking about the large fringe element he seems to attract?

As to the video I watched but you claim I did not, as I said before, it's wildly speculative conjecture with little to no evidence presented to support the claims.  It's a bunch of 'The Jews!  The Jews!'.  I could go back and look, maybe he never mentioned Jews and only talked about Zionist Israel, I'm not sure.  I feel pretty confident, however, that the distinction is merely window dressing to try and make it sound more presentable.  In the end, I think it boils down to wanting someone to blame and finding the Jews an easy target.

Awaiting fart comment and poop smiley......


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Quote=Montrovant
> ...



You're too far in the weeds to see 'em, Princess. Now reread what I said and see how it differs from what you claim. You have not proven that Jews who serve America do so for Israel or to the detriment of America. That's just the Nazi nonsense you desperately cling to.


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 23, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > How fragile is your ego, that you must assume so many posters are actually being paid to come try and refute your internet message board conspiracy theory posts?
> ...



I didn't say anything about ME being a paid troll, just that you make the claim about many posters.  Have you said it about every name in your sig, I wonder?  It's certainly not as though you started with Sayit!

Perhaps you should use the correct version of your/you're when calling someone an idiot?  See the part I put in bold.  Idiot.  

When I evade a fact you post, it will be the first time, on multiple levels.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > How fragile is your ego, that you must assume so many posters are actually being paid to come try and refute your internet message board conspiracy theory posts?
> ...



You're not just an idiot, you're a liar.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Again with the Nazi name calling. Why don't you show us how beneficial having agents of a foreign state influence, and control America's foreign policy?
Actually Israel is using tactics that are closer to what the Nazi's did.
The veil has been lifted and more Americans are becoming aware of what is going on regarding Israeli influence.
One can start with the 9-11 attacks, and work their way back.


----------



## georgephillip (Feb 24, 2013)

"WASHINGTON (AP)  The CIA station chief opened the locked box containing the sensitive equipment he used from his home in Tel Aviv, Israel, to communicate with CIA headquarters in Virginia, only to find that someone had tampered with it. He sent word to his superiors about the break-in.

"The incident, described by three former senior U.S. intelligence officials, might have been dismissed as just another cloak-and-dagger incident in the world of international espionage, except that the same thing had happened to the previous station chief in Israel."

Israel doesn't exist as a Jewish state without the support of the US government.
Some Jews repay that existential debt with espionage.
Chutzpah or another good reason for BDS?

US sees Israel, tight Mideast ally, as spy threat - Yahoo! News


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 24, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Except there is no evidence that Israel had anything to do with the 9/11 attack on America and none that Jews who serve America are "agents of a foreign state influence" who "control America's foreign policy." These are the kind of suppositions a Nazi makes and you have been recognized as such. See how easy that was?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip (Feb 24, 2013)

"Critics of the Project for the New American Century, including Austin American-Statesmen book reviewer Kip Keller, highlighted the following quote from PNAC's report 'Rebuilding America's Defenses':

"And advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target&#8221; specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a *politically useful tool*.'"

Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Politically useful tool"...sounds like the current administration and all its predecessors genuflecting in the direction of Jerusalem.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 24, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Nothing in your link either claims nor proves that Israel had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks or that Jews who serve America are agents of a foreign state who control America's foreign policy but thanks for posting.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



You want me to do all your homework for you, and I won't do it. It's like putting lipstick on a pig with you, at the end of the day you're still a pig.

Do a little research on that list of PNAC officers, members and supporters. You might be surprised at what you find, I know I was.


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 24, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Another example of a CT poster making claims but not feeling any need to provide evidence for the claims.  Good show!


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 24, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



You know, I did all the research on those guys about 15 years ago, and it took me WEEKS to accomplish it. If you or any other motherfucker around here expects me to re-do all that work just because you're too fucking lazy to do it yourself you can kiss my rosy red American ass!

Slack ass bitch!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 24, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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



Naw I only do that to the paid shills like sayit who is desperate for attention from me.  thats obvious in the way he talks to himself all the time when i have made it clear MANY times I have him on my ignore list. I know "I " dont address people when they put ME on their ignore list.thats pathetic and thats what sock puppet troll sayit does if you have followed his posts. 

all those paid shills in my sig are on ignore and they continue showing what retards they are addressing me as though I still read their posts.talk about someone who needs to be in a mental institution.at least I dont go around talking to myself all the time like those lunatics like sayit does once they tell me i am on thier ignore list,I wise up unlike them and dont keep addressing them like they do.thats a sign of someone mentally unstable ans seeking attention

yeah sure you watched all the video.yeah right, if you had, your posts  wouldnt be so idiotic all the time.

we both know you are afraid of the truth and only see what you want to see, so when it gets too intense for you,you leave the video.again you got reading comprehension problems cause I said yeah you watched it, but thats all you obviously did was watch him move around. you have no answers for what he talked about  it.

see thats not what you said before,your doing what flip floppers Romney and Obama do all the time.saying one thing then saying the opposite.

Nope AGAIN,you got no answers for the facts in that video,you just keep evading them with pathetic posts all the time changing the subject like a troll talking about irrelevent crap like his body language and how he dresses. great debating skills there.

you have NO ANSWERS of the important stuff it talked about.you NEVER  do.

this comment on ron paul by you just  proves  in spades hiow ignorant you are and how you have been brainwashed by the corporate media and dont pay any attention to the facts.Hate to break your heart but it was even all over the mainstream news amazingly how the RNC came up with last minute rule changes that day which sabatoged Ron Paul's strategy he was using to get delegates to win the republican nomination.

Plus our corrupt court system throughout a lawsuit that delegates of Romneys filed against Romney because they were being forced to be delegates of Romneys when they wanted to be delegates of Pauls. yep,no conspiracy there against ron paul.

there were all kinds of threads made in the political section posting those facts when it happened as well. I knew that court thing would never happen.When I first heard about it, how many delegates of romneys were filing that lawsuit against him,I called it that very day after learning it that our corrupt courts would throw out their lawsuit they had against him and knew it would happen,that nothing would come about of it because unlike you,I dont ignore facts and evidence that proves our government and court system is all corrupt.that  the majority of congress is bought off and paid for by the zionist jews.

Unlike you,I am open minded and dont worship the government and corporate media to no end like you do and ignore facts.I actually do research and look at alternative news sources not bought off and and paid for by the corporations.you live in denial that you have been brainwashed.

oh and congrats on evading the FACTS that the establishment did not care if Romney or Obama got elected as well.evading the FACTS,that Paul unlike Romney and Obama,is never invited to attend AIPAC meetings because he actually belives in the constitution and actually is not a war mongrel who actually belives in a peaceful solution instead of war. as usual,like always,you evade everything and change the topic.

The establishment did not care if Romney got in or if Obama was reelected.As long as it was one of those two and not ron paul not only because he belives in the constitution unlike Obama and Romney and is not a war mongrel as they both are and isnt a supporter of the zionists jews like them,but also because he is not a member of that evil organization the CFR-council on foreign relations dummies style for YOU. 

Its a well known fact that the CFR consists of the most evil,greedy, corrupt people in the world.Thats the only kind of people that get admitted into that evil organization.you cant become president unless you are a member. 

This election reminds me of the 92 election between Bush Sr and his long time friend and pal Bill Clinton.If you deny that fact then you are ignorant to the extremes and just invited to be taken to school on that by many truthers here like you always get taken to school here everyday because even many of bill clintons arkansas troopers have testified to that.thats all on recored.

 Just like in this election,the establishment did not care if Bush sr got relected or if Clinton got elected because they also both were CFR members.Just as long as Ross Perot did not get elected they were happy because Perot like Paul,is also not a member of the CFR.THEY determine who is going to be the next president.

you just want to keep posting all this garbage and crap you keep coming up with because it makes you fell secure fooling yourself that our government is not corrupt.Its so plain as day thats the case,that you're in denial and want to convince yourself everything is fine and dandy,that our politicians and presidents are not evil and here to serve us instead of wall street and the zionists.

all you can do is clearly troll at these boards so I wont waste anymore time with you anymore on this thread.I have wasted enough as it is.cant educate someone who only sees what he WANTS to see.

the only reason i decided to address you this one last time is because your posts are so laughable and easy to shoot down its kinda fun to actually come back and waste my time on you proving to everyone is spades how ignorant you are to whats really going on in the world and have no debating skills.

But I have wasted way too much time on you as I have,i wont anymore on this thread.your debating skills are ALMOST that being the key word,as laughable and pitiful as paid shill SAYITS are,thats why I at least bother with you sometimes because they are a LITTLE better than his and not quite near as pathetic as his are.which is why I wont put you on ignore like i have with him.I'll bother with you again sometime in the future when Im bored but not anymore on this thread.there is an old saying.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 24, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



translation-another one of my posts where I show everybody I have no debating skills and wont look at the evidence presented because I am afraid of the truth and only see what I want to see.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 24, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> "Critics of the Project for the New American Century, including Austin American-Statesmen book reviewer Kip Keller, highlighted the following quote from PNAC's report 'Rebuilding America's Defenses':
> 
> "And advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target&#8221; specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a *politically useful tool*.'"
> 
> ...



Take it easy on him George.You're making WAY too much sense for his little tiny brain to comprehend these facts here you listed.He might have a nervous breakdown from being so much overloaded with logic and facts here. pesky little facts after all is something he has a really hard time dealing with and facing.hee hee.


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 24, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



And the reason anyone should take your claims seriously and do weeks of research to look them up is.......

Again, if you make a claim, but provide no evidence, you are just pissing in the wind.  You only make it worse by then blaming the people you make the claim to for not doing research about it.  

Maybe if you are trying to reach people who are likely to simply take you at your word, it's different.  But making a claim to people who are likely to disagree with you, or not take you seriously, or not trust you, means those same people are unlikely to do much in depth research to attempt to verify your claim.  

If you don't feel it's worth your time/effort to provide such evidence, that's fine.  Just don't expect anyone to believe you or be willing to look into it on merely the strength of your word.


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 24, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


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



And again!

The video provided no evidence.  It was nothing but speculation.  My answer to the 'facts' presented?  Give me some evidence or I'm not going to take you seriously.  That's especially true when the presentation is so....unusual.  

Another CT poster who considers making claims without providing evidence a good tactic.  Got it!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 24, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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



thanks for proving what a pathetic liar to all the truthers here. You not only evaded the facts just  posted by George and Guy here dismissing them and as usual,showing off and proving to everyone that you're "since YOU'RE so obsessed with grammar."  a paehtic liar who has been called out for it.

you never even attempt to try and debunk them,you just dismiss it saying we never proved anything,sorry but that doesnt work in the real world son and you obviously dont know anything about the rules of debate.you got actually attmept try and counter the facts presented by your opponent when they presetn then to you instead of cowardly running off maming posts like this one.


oh and thank you for showing that you have to lie when you are cornered and cant refute facts as well  making up lies that you dont evade facts,Not only did you evade the facts George and Guy just posted,but you proved that you evade my facts as well and do the say it troll thing also.

that when cornered and cant refute them,you evade them and change the subject. Here you are in your first post on this thread evading the facts and evidence in this video i  posted on this thread..You have been caught red handed that you are liar.congrats.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...ld-7-or-lost-libertys-since-9-11-alright.html

thank you again for demonstrating you have no debating skills.

Nort only that,you have NO ANSWERS OR EVIDENCE to refute these facts in these videos I posted on Pauliticians thread ,nor do you have any evidence to refute the facts in his video either he posted either.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...solved-names-connections-details-exposed.html

WHY anybody wastes their time with you is beyond me since you clearly cant debate as you have proven is spades and have so many other times as well,I know I no longer am going to waste it on you.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 24, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Here's the thing, Monty, I don't give a rat's ass whether you believe me or don't. I find it absolutely mind-boggling that anyone who considers themselves 'up to speed' on our government doesn't have a clue about who PNAC was, what they espoused, how they ran the Bush White House and what their dreams of empire entailed.

You probably don't know squat about the Carlyle Group, either. 
(They're a trans-global cabal populated by the retired heads of state from a dozen different countries.)


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 24, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...





Nor does he have any answers or facts to refute this short 5 minute video that any logical open minded person can see proves it was an inside job and the governments version is a sick joke.


Its best to do what I have decided to do with him on this topic and government corruption for now,just ignore him,he's clearly not worth the effort.Its kinda pointless trying to lead a horse to the water when he wont drink the water ya know?


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 24, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


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



I think, perhaps, you may have a bit of confusion concerning the definitions of the words fact, conclusion, and speculation.  It's a fact that many people watched planes fly into the Twin Towers on television.  It's speculation that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition.  Maybe that's based on factual evidence, but the conclusions drawn from that evidence by truthers are different from the conclusions I and others have arrived at.  That includes relevant scientists and engineers.  So, no, it is not a fact that the towers were brought down by anything other than the planes and fires.  It is a conclusion that is in contention.  The specifics of how they supposedly came down, the involvement of the US or Israeli governments, is speculation with little to no evidence behind it.

I am certain you have no idea about what makes sense in argument or debate, if you think claims need to be rebutted even if they have no evidence behind them.  For example, "9/11 IJ is actually part of the global cabal responsible for the events of 9/11".  There's a claim.  Do you need to seriously try to debunk that?  Why would anyone believe it to be true, when I've provided no evidence that it is?  That's pretty much what you are doing.  

In my first post of the thread I pointed out how you connected belief in loss of liberty since 9/11 and belief in controlled demo.  In the OP, you stated, "Yep,according to the official conspiracy theory apologists in denial here, we havent lost libertys and freedoms since 9/11 and bld 7 wasnt a controlled demolition.".  Those two things are not inherently connected.  A person can believe one and not the other, or both.  Are you claiming this isn't the case?  

As far as the videos on the other thread, sorry, I'm not going to waste 4 hours of time watching youtube videos from an anonymous message board poster who I consider to have no credibility.  If you have a problem with that, my heart bleeds.


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 24, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



If you truly don't care if I believe you or not, why in the world would you possibly talk to me about it?  Obviously you care at least a little.  Otherwise it would be like you saying the same things to an inanimate object; do you do that often?  

Did I make a claim about being 'up to speed' on our government?  I'm not sure I understand your use of quotation marks there.  Anyway, I'm fairly certain you are, again, engaged in speculation when you say that PNAC ran the Bush White House.  Not that it isn't true, but your implication that it should be obvious to anyone is pretty ridiculous.

Meh, why am I bothering with this anyway?  Apparently you don't care if I believe what you say or not.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 24, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Just the insane hope that someone with a spark of curiosity would bother to educate themselves. If not you, maybe a lurker or two who reads these threads but never posts to them.

No, you didn't make the claim, and you've demonstrated quite clearly that you're incapable of doing so.

18 PNAC members were associated with the Bush White House, including V.P. Dick Cheney. That's not speculation, Monty... (There is a list at the Wiki link if you want to find out who else...)

I care only to the extent that you might look this stuff up for yourself. Judging by the adversarial nature of our conversation so far, I believe that is the ONLY way you'll believe ANY of it.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 24, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Once more for the monumentally thick:
Nothing in your link either claims or proves your contention that Israel had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks or that Jews who serve America are agents of a foreign state who control America's foreign policy. The names I recognize from your link are high profile, often well educated Americans many of whom have served us at very high levels. 
PNAC was a D.C. think tank with a specific vision and agenda just like most think tanks. There was nothing un-American about their vision or agenda. The same can be said for PNAC's members and supporters.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 24, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



"I find it absolutely mind-boggling that anyone who considers themselves 'up to speed' on our government..."  - GuyPinHead

I've never seen any post from Montro in which he made that claim although he is clearly miles ahead of you, Princess. 
What I find it absolutely mind-boggling is how anyone who has posted here as long as you have is still constantly reduced to creating Straw Man arguments. 
In order to fully vent your "superiority" you must lie about what others say and then trash them for it. 
What you are actually exposing is your inferiority. Carry on.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 24, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



And what do you think it proves, Princess? 
D.C. think tanks are filled with some of our brightest, best educated and often most ambitious peeps. There was nothing un-American about PNAC or its members and nothing in your link claims or proves otherwise.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



God, you're a pretentious little prick! Would you care to quote my 'contention', dumbass? I really don't remember asserting one, perhaps you could refresh my failing memory?

As for PNAC's 'vision and agenda', it's the most un-American thing I've ever read from the minds of so-called Americans. Everything it promotes goes 180 degrees against everything our Founders believed, fought, bled and died for. 

America as empire? Puh-leeeeeze...


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 24, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



I have to tell you Guy, when you respond to Sayit's post with a link to PNAC, it at least strongly implies that you consider PNAC evidence that Israel had to do with 9/11 or that Jews serving America are agents of a foreign state influence.  I'm not sure why else you would post that link in response to that quoted post.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 24, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Imply, it does. Assert, it does not.

The PNAC 'connection' is something that you won't be able to make from a Wiki page, but that connection can be made. Anyone who wants to understand it will have to put in the hours upon hours of research that it takes. Many of these men's connections and aspirations literally go back GENERATIONS.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 24, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



What a smarmy little bitch. First you respond to my claim that there is no evidence that Israel had anything to do with the 9/11 attack on America and none that Jews who serve America are "agents of a foreign state influence" who "control America's foreign policy" with that Wiki PNAC link. Then you try to deny you meant it as your response and finally you reiterate that the PNAC "connection" was indeed what you were selling. Either you haven't a clue about the meaning of what and how you post or you are a lame CT bitch. Take your choice.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 25, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Your claim is bullshit, and anyone willing to go beyond a Wiki page can find that out. I'm not here to nursemaid little bitches like you and spoon feed you knowledge just so you can puke it up like the crying little baby you are. You play all these semantic games and the first time someone turns it back on you you get you panties all in a wad over it.

Tell you what, SAYIT. You don't like what I post or how I post it, tough shit little girl. All your bitching isn't going to change a single letter. Got a problem with it? GOOD!

Whiny little pissant.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 26, 2013)

Sayit is a whinny little bitch that has been relegated to dufus cheerleading duties of BS.


----------



## MisterBeale (Mar 1, 2013)

I don't usually like to post in this sub-forum.  In fact, since I found out this forum is monitored and posts are censored for content, I am no longer doing anything but occasionally stopping by and reading.  But I was asked to provide some input.  Fat lot of good it will ever do.

At this point it would be well to reconsider what has been posted before;



> The professional debunkers use four primary tactics to accomplish their propaganda feats:
> 
> 1) They refuse to mention, much less attempt to disprove, the most irrefutable and damaging evidence.
> 
> ...



Does it really matter if WTC was a controlled demolition?  Does it really matter if it was brought down due to "terrorists?"  The official government line was, "they hate us because of our freedoms."  Well I have news for you all, if that is the case, the terrorists won, we now have less freedom than we had before.  Same with that shit that went down in Sandy Hook.

If we were really proud and true Americans, we would take our licks, take _reasonable_ precautions, but not let big government infringe upon our liberties.  Yet any sane and reasonable individual can identify who the _real terrorists_ are, they are the cultural, financial, and political elites that seek to control the common man, no matter what means they employ to get the job done.  Whether it is by the use of covert intelligence agencies or uneducated dirt poor radical fundamentalist religious nuts with box cutters.  One man's conspiracy is another man's incredible fortuitous coincidence for the ruling elites.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdTjmufw8vM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdTjmufw8vM[/ame]


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 2, 2013)

MisterBeale said:


> I don't usually like to post in this sub-forum.  In fact, since I found out this forum is monitored and posts are censored for content, I am no longer doing anything but occasionally stopping by and reading.  But I was asked to provide some input.  Fat lot of good it will ever do.
> 
> At this point it would be well to reconsider what has been posted before;
> 
> ...





Excellent stuff on the paid shills that have penetrated this forum.I have a few of them that have been exposed mentioned in my sig below.However I dont think thats true that this forum monitors and cencors content though.Have you had that happen to you here before? I never have. THIS forum seems to be one of the few out there that actually allows free speech.Thats why I have stayed here as long as i have.I like this site.Except for the fact that its called conspiracy theories and stuff liek this can only be posted here.somehow the mods around here consider facts as conspiracy theories.

I think you must be thinking about the times when Gunny was here.Now back THEN,I could believe it that posts were monitored and censored by him.That idiot,when he was the site administrater,i thought many times about leaving.That guy is such an idiot he still thinks Oswald killed Kennedy.seriously. any kind of facts you presented him that proved otherwise or that 9/11 was an inside job,he ignored and never even TRIED to counter them. but that troll is gone thank god. Gunny was either a shill,or a compete idiot in denial thats for sure.Liek i said,thank god he's gone.

 that might have been the case when he was here but I seriously doubt thats the case anymore now.after all,if it was,they never would have allowed you post what you just did just now.think about it.great stuff there on the shills.you exposed them for who they are.


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 2, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


"The U.S. provides Israel $8.5 million in military aid each day,
while it gives the Palestinians $0 in military aid."

Some Jews are easily confused about American "friendship."
Maybe the IDF could take over in Afghanistan (or Africa)?

US Aid to Israel and the Palestinians


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 2, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> "The U.S. provides Israel $8.5 million in military aid each day,
> while it gives the Palestinians $0 in military aid."
> 
> Some Jews are easily confused about American "friendship."
> ...



US aid to Israel is in no way an indication that Israel controls the US government.

I don't think anyone would argue that Israel has influence with the US.

Why is it assumed that Israel is the one in control, getting all the benefits from this aid?  Could it be that the US is actually the one influencing Israel with their dependence on our help?  Might Israeli policy be what the US government wants it to be?

I'm just not sure why, if there is going to be secret control of a government, it must be the Israelis in control of the US and not the other way around.

Oh, and why would you expect military aid to be given to the Palestinians?  How would it be in US interests to give military aid to someone in conflict with our strongest ally in the region?  I would think it would make more sense to at least cut of the aid to Israel before we gave military aid to Palestinians.


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 2, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "The U.S. provides Israel $8.5 million in military aid each day,
> ...


Elites in the US and Israel have grown rich from total direct US aid to Israel which now exceeds $140 billion (2003) dollars. Judging by the reaction of our trained seals in the US Congress applauding every lie Bibi spouts, it would seem like the tail wagging the dog, at least. 

"Israel is now a wealthy, industrial state with a per capita income about the same as South Korea or Spain, yet is continues to extort roughly one-fifth of the entire US foreign aid budget. IMHO, this is just another example of rich parasites in both countries controlling their governments to enhance their private fortunes by socializing cost and privatizing profits.

US Aid to Israel and the Palestinians


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 8, 2013)

georgephillip said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



No surprise there.thats our corrupt government for ya.No surprise one bit at all sense the CIA and mossad work hand in hand together in covert operations.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 8, 2013)

Look man, Big Brother says you ain't lost no liberties. So that's that. Now quit your complaining...Or else.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 25, 2019)

Mad Scientist said:


> Normally when a Plane crashes, the area is cordoned off and an investigation is done which can take months or years. Not so with the twin towers after 9/11.
> 
> The steel was hauled off to China and India *within a month*. The Chinese firm Baosteel purchased 50,000 tons at a rate of $120 per ton, compared to an average price of $160 paid by local mills in the previous year.
> 
> ...



a pesky fact the Bush dupes ignore and wont face.


----------

