# Choose your "Facts" about what happened on 911



## slackjawed (Mar 15, 2010)

from;
Conspiracy - 9/11 Misconceptions, Rumors & Urban Legends - Flight 93 - World Trade Center - Nostradamus Quatrain
9/11 Misconceptions, Rumors & Urban Legends
by Alternative Reel Staff

    * United States fighter jets shot down Flight 93 over western Pennsylvania. [Editors Note: Evidence strongly suggests passengers heroically took action against their hijackers. (eots piloted the plane?)]

    * Some dude, usually described as a police officer, actually surfed the wreckage from the 82nd floor of the World Trade Center as it collapsed.(curvelight?)

    * CNN footage depicting Palestinians celebrating after the attack was actually filmed in 1991 during Iraqs invasion of Kuwait.

    * Survivors of the World Trade Center collapse made phone calls from under the rubble.

    * Authorities developed a roll of film found in the wreckage of the World Trade Center that depicted a tourist on the observation deck seconds before the first plane made impact. [Editors Note: The guy is all bundled up like its in the middle of winter. Nice try!]

    * Approximately 4,000 Jewish employees of the World Trade Center stayed home from work on September 11 after getting tipped off about the attack.



    * A list of possibly offensive or insensitive songs such as You Dropped a Bomb on Me are officially banned from U.S. radio stations.



    * The water supply [in your town] is poisoned.

    * The four hijacked jetliners were actually operated by remote control without any crew or passengers. [Editors Note: This one is also popular on the streets of Pakistan.]

    * Osama bin Laden once dated Princess Diana.


    * An escaped mental patient danced around nude high atop of the debris of the World Trade Center before being hauled off by FBI agents. (christophera or terral?)

   read more and make your choices here;
Conspiracy - 9/11 Misconceptions, Rumors & Urban Legends - Flight 93 - World Trade Center - Nostradamus Quatrain



mix and match into your own cohesive conspiracy theory!


----------



## ProudTwoofer (Mar 16, 2010)

Anybody who thinks it was the "Jews" is an idiot. Most people that think the Jews run the world usually believe the Holocaust never happened.


----------



## slackjawed (Mar 16, 2010)

ProudTwoofer said:


> Anybody who thinks it was the "Jews" is an idiot. Most people that think the Jews run the world usually believe the Holocaust never happened.


----------



## Fizz (Mar 16, 2010)

ProudTwoofer said:


> Anybody who thinks it was the "Jews" is an idiot. Most people that think the Jews run the world usually believe the Holocaust never happened.



i'm thinking about starting a World War II Denial Group just to see how many idiots i can get to believe world war two never happened.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 16, 2010)

I think I'll just stick with the truth, you know: 

What WTC?


----------



## slackjawed (Mar 16, 2010)

who's sock do you think it is?


----------



## CurveLight (Mar 16, 2010)

Glad to see you sick fuks still celebrating that day.  It makes all the more sense why you treat it like a game because you don't care about the people who died, lost friends and family, nor the amount of sacrifices made by civil servants nor soldiers.  You don't give a shit about anything so stop pretending to be Americans you sooper sik fuxxing parasites.


----------



## slackjawed (Mar 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Glad to see you sick fuks still celebrating that day.  It makes all the more sense why you treat it like a game because you don't care about the people who died, lost friends and family, nor the amount of sacrifices made by civil servants nor soldiers.  You don't give a shit about anything so stop pretending to be Americans you sooper sik fuxxing parasites.



hey clown, how ya been little guy?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 16, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Glad to see you sick fuks still celebrating that day.  It makes all the more sense why you treat it like a game because you don't care about the people who died, lost friends and family, nor the amount of sacrifices made by civil servants nor soldiers.  You don't give a shit about anything so stop pretending to be Americans you sooper sik fuxxing parasites.
> ...



And I was actually thinking about taking him off ignore. DUH!


----------



## eots (Mar 16, 2010)

what a bunch of morons


----------



## slackjawed (Mar 16, 2010)

eots said:


> what a bunch of morons



and just think eots, like it or not your one of the bunch.........


----------



## eots (Mar 16, 2010)

hardly..you people are complete idiots


----------



## slackjawed (Mar 16, 2010)

eots said:


> hardly..you people are complete idiots



and you?

your only half an idiot maybe?


----------



## eots (Mar 16, 2010)

Totally disingenuous pathetic attempts to distract from the very real issues of 9/11
by treasonous scums  is all your post is

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


OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## slackjawed (Mar 16, 2010)

eots said:


> Totally disingenuous pathetic attempts to distract from the very real issues of 9/11
> by treasonous scums  is all your post is
> 
> Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
> ...



Dude, get real the thread was started to be disingenuous!

So, pick your facts and present your theory, you can choose all the ones inthe op, and anything else you like.

Tell us a story eots...........


----------



## Fizz (Mar 16, 2010)

eots said:


> Totally disingenuous pathetic attempts to distract from the very real issues of 9/11
> by treasonous scums  is all your post is
> 
> Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
> ...



so stop playing on the internet and go investigate.


----------



## eots (Mar 16, 2010)

YOU are the one playing on the internet my objective is this


Remember, remember, the 11th of September The Gunpowder Treason and plot;
I see of no reason why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.....


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 16, 2010)

eots said:


> YOU are the one playing on the internet my objective is this
> 
> 
> Remember, remember, the 11th of September The Gunpowder Treason and plot;
> ...


and figures, a dipshit like YOU even got THAT wrong

Gunpowder Plot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

dont you ever actually research anything for FACTS?

it had NOTHING to do with Sept 11th


----------



## eots (Mar 16, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > YOU are the one playing on the internet my objective is this
> ...



I was born on _guy Fawkes day.._are you really that stupid you don't get it  ?...


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 16, 2010)

eots said:


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


as if that fucking matters

Guy Fawkes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

dipshit


----------



## eots (Mar 16, 2010)

What your stupidity ? for once you are right ..it doesn't matter


----------



## Fizz (Mar 17, 2010)

eots said:


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



too bad you lived through it.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 17, 2010)

Fizz said:


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


hey, dont go there


----------



## elvis (Mar 17, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



I'm glad he lived through it.


----------



## Fizz (Mar 17, 2010)

elvis said:


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



i meant it in the nicest way, of course. its a shame he needed to go through being born on a famous day.


----------



## slackjawed (Mar 17, 2010)

I was sure I would log in this am and eots would have laid out his complete theory about 911.

Boy am I disappointed.

Guy Fawkes day, geez, give me a break!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 17, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Glad to see you sick fuks still celebrating that day.  It makes all the more sense why you treat it like a game because you don't care about the people who died, lost friends and family, nor the amount of sacrifices made by civil servants nor soldiers.  You don't give a shit about anything so stop pretending to be Americans you sooper sik fuxxing parasites.



so very true.well said.this thread title is so appropriate for slackass because it is so true about him,he only chooses his OWN facts "lies and disinformation" that he wants to hear and listen to.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 17, 2010)

eots said:


> Totally disingenuous pathetic attempts to distract from the very real issues of 9/11
> by treasonous scums  is all your post is
> 
> Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
> ...



thats exactly what it is.


----------



## slackjawed (Mar 17, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Glad to see you sick fuks still celebrating that day.  It makes all the more sense why you treat it like a game because you don't care about the people who died, lost friends and family, nor the amount of sacrifices made by civil servants nor soldiers.  You don't give a shit about anything so stop pretending to be Americans you sooper sik fuxxing parasites.
> ...



All i need to know about 911insidenutjob is the quote I have in my signature.

And the quote from clownlite is pretty ironic as well.


I guess you two could start the discredited twoofer club, or maybe a new club called the "traitor and the loon lodge".


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 17, 2010)

I guess we just need to spell this out.

The WTC never existed there could have been no attack, The Pentagon is not a building but a geometric symbol how do you crash a plane into that? And Shakersville PA doesn't even show up on a Map. And Elvis is alive and well on USMB.

There, every one got it now?


----------



## eots (Mar 17, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> I guess we just need to spell this out.
> 
> The WTC never existed there could have been no attack, The Pentagon is not a building but a geometric symbol how do you crash a plane into that? And Shakersville PA doesn't even show up on a Map. And Elvis is alive and well on USMB.
> 
> There, every one got it now?



what a moron the only way he can _debate_ is to avoid the issues with this nonsense


----------



## Fizz (Mar 17, 2010)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I guess we just need to spell this out.
> ...



the issue is you dont have any facts, which is nothing but nonsense.


----------



## eots (Mar 17, 2010)

really and what facts do you possess ?


----------



## Fizz (Mar 17, 2010)

eots said:


> really and what facts do you possess ?



the fact that DNA was recovered from flight 93 victims from the flight 93 crash site would be exactly one more fact than all the facts you have presented.


----------



## eots (Mar 17, 2010)

proof ?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 17, 2010)

eots said:


> proof ?


proof doesn't seem to be able to get past your drug induced state of paranoia


----------



## Fizz (Mar 17, 2010)

eots said:


> proof ?


About half of New York remains have been identified - USATODAY.com


----------



## eots (Mar 18, 2010)

> the fact that DNA was recovered from flight 93 victims from the flight 93 crash site would be exactly one more fact than all the facts you have presented.



We were not disscusing the wtc remains ..were we fizzle


----------



## eots (Mar 18, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > proof ?
> ...



I rarely drink..I smoke weed a few times a week..I take no medications of anykind..I have raised two Wonderful children  and am now doing it all again.. I have good relationships with family and freinds and..I am more of a Diver than you will ever be ...give it up all ready loser


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 18, 2010)

eots said:


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


^^^^more TPP


----------



## eots (Mar 18, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



^^^^ more proof of your...lameness


----------



## 86DuDE (Mar 18, 2010)

So allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment eventhough I don't have a position on 9-11 conspiracy theories. Let me ask this 1 question: If we are to believe the pancake theory then wouldn't we have seen floors stacked upon one another at some point?


----------



## eots (Mar 18, 2010)

86DuDE said:


> So allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment eventhough I don't have a position on 9-11 conspiracy theories. Let me ask this 1 question: If we are to believe the pancake theory then wouldn't we have seen floors stacked upon one another at some point?



After  _truthers_ ..pointed out the flaws in that theory it was discarded and replaced with the _thermal expansion theory_ ..then _proved _through a tweaked and unverified computer model and assuming temperatures for which there was no forensic proof of exsisting in the salvaged materials tested...._true story_

*Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation*


_although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings_ 


_4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that. _


OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## 86DuDE (Mar 18, 2010)

The coincidences about 9-11 are what makes the conspiracy compelling. I mean, what a coincidence that you have the worst president in human histories little brother running security at world trade. What a coincidence that all of these buildings collapsed into nice little piles of rubble etc. What a coincidence that after the end of the cold war future BA officials were writing about how they sought a modern day "pearl harbor" to solidify public opinion in order to enact their foreign policy in the mideast. The coincidences are huge and I think instead of belittling "truthers" because they are trying to prove something that ultimately they'll never be able to prove is a bit rash. Crashing a plane into a building is no different than burning down your own Reichstag so if the history of war in western culture is any indicator, then the destruction of those towers is a fluke because the government wasn't involved in their destruction.


----------



## Fizz (Mar 18, 2010)

eots said:


> > the fact that DNA was recovered from flight 93 victims from the flight 93 crash site would be exactly one more fact than all the facts you have presented.
> 
> 
> 
> We were not disscusing the wtc remains ..were we fizzle



no. were were discussing flight 93. which is why i provided you with a link that has information on the DNA from flight 93 in it, moron!! 

stoned again??


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 18, 2010)

86DuDE said:


> The coincidences about 9-11 are what makes the conspiracy compelling. I mean, what a coincidence that you have the worst president in human histories little brother running security at world trade. What a coincidence that all of these buildings collapsed into nice little piles of rubble etc. What a coincidence that after the end of the cold war future BA officials were writing about how they sought a modern day "pearl harbor" to solidify public opinion in order to enact their foreign policy in the mideast. The coincidences are huge and I think instead of belittling "truthers" because they are trying to prove something that ultimately they'll never be able to prove is a bit rash. Crashing a plane into a building is no different than burning down your own Reichstag so if the history of war in western culture is any indicator, then the destruction of those towers is a fluke because the government wasn't involved in their destruction.


so, the troofer in you comes out


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 18, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > > the fact that DNA was recovered from flight 93 victims from the flight 93 crash site would be exactly one more fact than all the facts you have presented.
> ...


i would say STILL


----------



## eots (Mar 18, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > > the fact that DNA was recovered from flight 93 victims from the flight 93 crash site would be exactly one more fact than all the facts you have presented.
> ...




The title of your link was newyork....there is however a paragraph at the end claiming Pentagon and flt 93 dna..which is proof of nothing but I think flt 93 was most likely shot down which would not necessarily exclude some DNA and the only certainty I have about the Pentagon is that the truth is being covered up..but I also do not believe that DNA could be isolated and identified and uncontaminated when people sitting side by side were blown into tiny fragments and I dont belive this DNA evidence could stand up to cross examination


----------



## eots (Mar 18, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



Classic debwunking..Divemoroncons...little Imaginings


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 18, 2010)

eots said:


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


no, dipshit, i just call you a dipshit because you are one
i dont have to debunk anything
you have to prove your claims
and you cant


----------



## eots (Mar 18, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



debwunkers don't have to prove anything and _dont_..they just need to say ...dipshit


----------



## Fizz (Mar 18, 2010)

eots said:


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



thats great. now that we have your semi-coherant rambling out of the way let's see your evidence.

or did you forget what we were discussing already?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 18, 2010)

eots said:


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


again, it is YOU making the claim, i have to prove NOTHING
you have to prove the claim is valid and you CANT


----------



## 86DuDE (Mar 18, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> 86DuDE said:
> 
> 
> > The coincidences about 9-11 are what makes the conspiracy compelling. I mean, what a coincidence that you have the worst president in human histories little brother running security at world trade. What a coincidence that all of these buildings collapsed into nice little piles of rubble etc. What a coincidence that after the end of the cold war future BA officials were writing about how they sought a modern day "pearl harbor" to solidify public opinion in order to enact their foreign policy in the mideast. The coincidences are huge and I think instead of belittling "truthers" because they are trying to prove something that ultimately they'll never be able to prove is a bit rash. Crashing a plane into a building is no different than burning down your own Reichstag so if the history of war in western culture is any indicator, then the destruction of those towers is a fluke because the government wasn't involved in their destruction.
> ...



No, unlike most of you I'm actually pretty well read when it comes to U.S. history.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 18, 2010)

86DuDE said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > 86DuDE said:
> ...


and typical for a troofer, thinks they know more than anyone else


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 18, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> 86DuDE said:
> 
> 
> > The coincidences about 9-11 are what makes the conspiracy compelling. I mean, what a coincidence that you have the worst president in human histories little brother running security at world trade. What a coincidence that all of these buildings collapsed into nice little piles of rubble etc. What a coincidence that after the end of the cold war future BA officials were writing about how they sought a modern day "pearl harbor" to solidify public opinion in order to enact their foreign policy in the mideast. The coincidences are huge and I think instead of belittling "truthers" because they are trying to prove something that ultimately they'll never be able to prove is a bit rash. Crashing a plane into a building is no different than burning down your own Reichstag so if the history of war in western culture is any indicator, then the destruction of those towers is a fluke because the government wasn't involved in their destruction.
> ...



Oh my god we've got another one. The only conspiracy was carried out by Muslim extremists. Our Government had nothing to do with the planning or execution of these attacks. Nor did they have any prior knowledge. And there isn't one piece of Physical evidence that proves any major point of the 911 Commissions Report wrong.

I trust you can understand this, DUDE.


----------



## 86DuDE (Mar 18, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> 86DuDE said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Judging by the amount of bandwith wasted by your flaming animosity and lack of substance so far I would have to agree with you.


----------



## 86DuDE (Mar 19, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > 86DuDE said:
> ...




And I'll trust that you will understand this SARGE: I don't claim to have an opinion either way. I think there are compelling arguments to be made by either side of this debate. History is replete with conspiracy especially in the U.S., but the facts take decades to come forth if they ever do. And history repeats itself. So with that in mind it is WISE IMO to at least maintain some form of OBJECTIVITY which I know is hard for you soldiers and veterans. My central problem with the conspiracy theory is the ability to cover up such an endeavor and not leave a money trail. Likewise, my problem with the official story is the relative neatness of the chaos and of course the staggering amount of coincidence, not proof, but coincidence.  I also haven't been able to debunk the presence of nano-thermite. No, this was not the work of Steven Jones of BYU fame, and given the chain of custody problem with sampled material it would never hold up in court eventhough the claims of this particular scientist seem to pass peer review and seem otherwise solid. Nevertheless, this research is thrown into the junk pile of history because without a proper pass down in the chain of custody there is NO evidence. 

That's my stance on it so you can take it or leave it.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 19, 2010)

86DuDE said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > 86DuDE said:
> ...


considering that i wouldn't need to make those posts if the massive amount of stupidity flowing from troofers and birfers and other Alex Jones devotees would just shut the fuck up and seek out professional help


----------



## 86DuDE (Mar 19, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> 86DuDE said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Yes, when flaming fails to stop hard questions the second recourse of the weak mind is to call into question the authors mental state! Very predictable.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 19, 2010)

86DuDE said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > 86DuDE said:
> ...


when facts dont work, and you continue to state things that have been proven to be WRONG< then YES i will challenge your mental state


----------



## 86DuDE (Mar 19, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> 86DuDE said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



But I have made no such statements so the only thing you'll be arguing with is your own self.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 19, 2010)

86DuDE said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > 86DuDE said:
> ...


bullshit
you have implied it
i recognize your shtick


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> 86DuDE said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



dwivecon
the morom debwunker
i think your funny


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 19, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > 86DuDE said:
> ...


fuck off, dipshit


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 19, 2010)

86DuDE said:


> The coincidences about 9-11 are what makes the conspiracy compelling. I mean, what a coincidence that you have the worst president in human histories little brother running security at world trade. What a coincidence that all of these buildings collapsed into nice little piles of rubble etc. What a coincidence that after the end of the cold war future BA officials were writing about how they sought a modern day "pearl harbor" to solidify public opinion in order to enact their foreign policy in the mideast. The coincidences are huge and I think instead of belittling "truthers" because they are trying to prove something that ultimately they'll never be able to prove is a bit rash. Crashing a plane into a building is no different than burning down your own Reichstag so if the history of war in western culture is any indicator, then the destruction of those towers is a fluke because the government wasn't involved in their destruction.



yeah exactly,thats why it is so appropriate to call the people who accept the 9/11 fairy tales of the governments coincidence theorists.


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2010)

Rules and Guidelines 
Please read our rules carefully before starting to post in our Forums. - - - 
 Int*roduce Yourself (5 Viewing)* 


I
ntroduce yourself to the rest of the community. Peace 
by Gatekeeper Today 02:26 PM   871 17,500 
 Announcements and Feedback 
Announcements from the USMB staff. Also post your feedback and questions here. What is a reputation comment? 
by Xenophon Today 01:40 PM   555 13,357 
 US Discussion  

*Current Events (23 Viewing) *
Homeland issues and news Modern Day Civil War. 
by Gunny Today 02:28 PM   13,366 283,003 
*Politics (52 Viewing) *
Discuss government policies and candidates... Leaked: Democrats Lied Again 
by Zoom-boing Today 02:35 PM   15,593 421,880 

*Congress (5 Viewing)* 
The latest greatest antics of our elected representatives. The Most Ethical and... 
by Mr.Fitnah Today 11:54 AM   3,790 91,192 
 Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare (34 Viewing)  Great News! Just Wait Until... 
by rdean Today 02:34 PM   1,064 31,094 
 Media (18 Viewing) 

Media personalities, coverage, etc Fair & Balanced My Ass 
by Dogbert Today 02:34 PM   921 33,300 

*
 Immigration/Illegal Immigration (4 Viewing)  Killing of 3 from US*... 
by Angelhair Today 07:06 AM   370 8,285 

* Stock Market (1 Viewing*) 
Investing in the stock market. Stocks, ETFs, Mutual funds and more.  Federal Reserve Lost in Court... 
by Dogbert Today 12:27 PM   204 2,951 

*
 Law and Justice System (5 Viewing*) 
For those who want to speak about legal issues  Mississippi School does the... 
by tha malcontent Today 02:10 PM   1,416 55,636 
 Environment (1 Viewing)  Americans' Global Warming... 
by mdn2000 Today 02:24 PM   793 25,262 


* Education and History (7 Viewing) *
Past US events and the basis for our future Whether or not this is... 
by mdn2000 Today 02:34 PM   820 22,375 
 Energy (1 Viewing) 
Oil, Drilling & Alternative Energies Extreme Nuclear Makeover 
by mdn2000 Yesterday 10:09 PM   159 5,027 

*
Economy (5 Viewing*) 
Discuss economic policy and wallstreet Who gave us this debt? Well,... 
by Vast LWC Today 02:01 PM   2,816 49,785 

*
 Science and Technology (3 Viewing*) 
Developments that shape how we live our lives Immortality 
by midcan5 Today 11:42 AM   802 12,685 
 Religion and Ethics (19 Viewing) 
Religion, Philosophy and the discussion of right and wrong Islam forbids 
by Tom Clancy Today 02:10 PM   2,802 127,346 


* Health and Lifestyle (4 Viewing)* 
Physical, Mental, Relationship Issues Salt Limits in Prepared Meals... 
by Annie Today 06:59 AM   1,109 35,161 

*
 Military (7 Viewing) *
Armed force strategies, news and comments US General says gays played a... 
by &#9773;proletarian&#9773; Today 01:23 PM   953 19,017 


* Conspiracy Theories (39 Viewing) *
The eots Zone Choose your "Facts" about... 
by 9/11 inside job Today 02:35 PM   1,103 52,943 

* Race Relations/Racism (19 Viewing*)


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 19, 2010)

Coincidence means absolutely nothing.

Show me a video that picked up the audio of hundreds of explosions that would have been necessary to bring down the towers. With out that the 911 commissions report stands.


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Coincidence means absolutely nothing.
> 
> Show me a video that picked up the audio of hundreds of explosions that would have been necessary to bring down the towers. With out that the 911 commissions report stands.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg]YouTube - EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY! / MacQueen NYFD 9/11 witnesses[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 19, 2010)

ah, that must have been the one that was over dubbed with expolsive sounds

Id-Eots is such and Id-Eot


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2010)

Dwivecon can not address the testimony of first responders


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 19, 2010)

eots said:


> Dwivecon can not address the testimony of first responders


Id-Eots can only find doctored youtube vids that are fucking useless


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2010)

strawman to avoid the wittiness testimony a ...._dwiveconspiracy theory_


----------



## Toro (Mar 19, 2010)

86DuDE said:


> The coincidences about 9-11 are what makes the conspiracy compelling. I mean, what a coincidence that you have the worst president in human histories little brother running security at world trade. What a coincidence that all of these buildings collapsed into nice little piles of rubble etc. What a coincidence that after the end of the cold war future BA officials were writing about how they sought a modern day "pearl harbor" to solidify public opinion in order to enact their foreign policy in the mideast. The coincidences are huge and I think instead of belittling "truthers" because they are trying to prove something that ultimately they'll never be able to prove is a bit rash. Crashing a plane into a building is no different than burning down your own Reichstag so if the history of war in western culture is any indicator, then the destruction of those towers is a fluke because the government wasn't involved in their destruction.



I love the historical false flag analogies.  

"Oh, once it happened in Nazi Germany.  And once it happened at the Gulf of Tonkin."  

Yeah, and what about the billion other times when it was foreigners, not people's own governments, who attacked their people?

THAT logic doesn't seem to register with twoofers....


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2010)

Toro said:


> 86DuDE said:
> 
> 
> > The coincidences about 9-11 are what makes the conspiracy compelling. I mean, what a coincidence that you have the worst president in human histories little brother running security at world trade. What a coincidence that all of these buildings collapsed into nice little piles of rubble etc. What a coincidence that after the end of the cold war future BA officials were writing about how they sought a modern day "pearl harbor" to solidify public opinion in order to enact their foreign policy in the mideast. The coincidences are huge and I think instead of belittling "truthers" because they are trying to prove something that ultimately they'll never be able to prove is a bit rash. Crashing a plane into a building is no different than burning down your own Reichstag so if the history of war in western culture is any indicator, then the destruction of those towers is a fluke because the government wasn't involved in their destruction.
> ...



 Say what debwunker ? a billion other times we were attacked by foreign terrorist or nations ?...link please ?


----------



## Rozman (Mar 20, 2010)

Some dope on here posted a video that showed some guy being interviewed. Being interviewed was an employee that worked the weekend before 9-11 in which the Towers were powered down for 30+ hours for maintenance on the buildings. The suggestion is that this was when two of the biggest buildings in the world were wired with explosives.Just think of the huge amount of explosives needed to accomplish this.Just think of how much time would be needed to get into the core of the building or to plant the explosives around the outside of the buildings where the true support of the towers were.We are dealing with people here who say crazy shit because they want attention,want to be different from any sane person who saw what happened that day.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 20, 2010)

The facts are that there are no existing tapes of any type or quality that were recorded that day, which captured any type of demolition explosions.

This is what a demolition looks like and sounds like.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ng5qwtR59A]YouTube - coolest building implosion[/ame]

Notice the explosions and flashes before the building actually falls. These things were absent on 9-11-01.


----------



## eots (Mar 20, 2010)

Rozman said:


> Some dope on here posted a video that showed some guy being interviewed. Being interviewed was an employee that worked the weekend before 9-11 in which the Towers were powered down for 30+ hours for maintenance on the buildings. The suggestion is that this was when two of the biggest buildings in the world were wired with explosives.Just think of the huge amount of explosives needed to accomplish this.Just think of how much time would be needed to get into the core of the building or to plant the explosives around the outside of the buildings where the true support of the towers were.We are dealing with people here who say crazy shit because they want attention,want to be different from any sane person who saw what happened that day.



so your bullshit explains the collapse of three buildings how ?


----------



## Rozman (Mar 20, 2010)

My BS is that two planes crashed into the twin towers full of jet fuel,the crashes severely compromised the integrity of the structure and the fires fueled by jet fuel weakened the beams.The weight of the floors above combined with the weakened floors below it caused the upper floors to fall,the accumulating weight of each floor added up and the building collapsed from the weight of the floors above.

Your explanation,thermite charges,black OPS MISSION,Dick Cheney,Bush and at the end you scream out.....HALIBURTON....then go on your way.


----------



## eots (Mar 20, 2010)

Rozman said:


> My BS is that two planes crashed into the twin towers full of jet fuel,the crashes severely compromised the integrity of the structure and the fires fueled by jet fuel weakened the beams.The weight of the floors above combined with the weakened floors below it caused the upper floors to fall,the accumulating weight of each floor added up and the building collapsed from the weight of the floors above.
> 
> Your explanation,thermite charges,black OPS MISSION,Dick Cheney,Bush and at the end you scream out.....HALIBURTON....then go on your way.



the lead fire investigator at NIST seriously questions this report and the procedures used in the investigation


OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

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


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 20, 2010)

eots said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > My BS is that two planes crashed into the twin towers full of jet fuel,the crashes severely compromised the integrity of the structure and the fires fueled by jet fuel weakened the beams.The weight of the floors above combined with the weakened floors below it caused the upper floors to fall,the accumulating weight of each floor added up and the building collapsed from the weight of the floors above.
> ...


but he doesn't think it was an inside job


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Mar 20, 2010)

Rozman said:


> Some dope on here posted a video that showed some guy being interviewed. Being interviewed was an employee that worked the weekend before 9-11 in which the Towers were powered down for 30+ hours for maintenance on the buildings. The suggestion is that this was when two of the biggest buildings in the world were wired with explosives.Just think of the huge amount of explosives needed to accomplish this.Just think of how much time would be needed to get into the core of the building or to plant the explosives around the outside of the buildings where the true support of the towers were.We are dealing with people here who say crazy shit because they want attention,want to be different from any sane person who saw what happened that day.


 

Oh it's all very simple... ya just slap super-hi-tech charges... at key locations... and crash a couple of jumbo jets into your target.

Old school black-ops stuff....  although still very hush hush.

And that the WTC was not 'powered-down' and that such is otherwise impossible... is meaningless; and it should never be used to try and disprove an otherwise really good story.


----------



## candycorn (Mar 20, 2010)

86DuDE said:


> The coincidences about 9-11 are what makes the conspiracy compelling. I mean, what a coincidence that you have the worst president in human histories little brother running security at world trade.


Amazingly, Marvin Bush resigned from the firm that oversaw security for the Twin Towers in 2000, a year before the attacks.  Even when he was with Securacom, its not as if he had a keyring on his belt allowing access to the entire building.  You see doofus, corporate officers usually don't walk security details.



86DuDE said:


> What a coincidence that al of these buildings collapsed into nice little piles of rubble etc.


What are they running from if there were "nice little piles"?







86DuDE said:


> What a coincidence that after the end of the cold war future BA officials were writing about how they sought a modern day "pearl harbor" to solidify public opinion in order to enact their foreign policy in the mideast.



First, the actual full quote is this.


> "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event &#8211; like a new Pearl Harbor".


The odd word here seems to be "transformation". What do they mean? Let's look back to the beginning of the same chapter.



> "To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies,in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence".



Not a damn thing about the "mideast"



86DuDE said:


> The coincidences are huge


If by "huge" you mean "non-existent" you may have a point but they make special hats for that.



86DuDE said:


> and I think instead of belittling "truthers" because they are trying to prove something that ultimately they'll never be able to prove is a bit rash.


The difference is that the "truthers" are making accusations; if you accuse X of doing something you'd probably want to have some proof.  No truther has ever come in contact with proof of any kind.


----------



## eots (Mar 20, 2010)

86DuDE said:


> What a coincidence that al of these buildings collapsed into nice little piles of rubble etc.





> What are they running from if there were "nice little piles"?





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



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

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


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 20, 2010)

eots said:


> 86DuDE said:
> 
> 
> > What a coincidence that al of these buildings collapsed into nice little piles of rubble etc.
> ...


i guess he doesnt think it fell into nice little piles, huh


----------



## Fizz (Mar 21, 2010)

one twoofer claims massive structural members were hurled horizontally and the other twoofer says they collapsed into nice little piles of rubble.

neither one calls the other out on the obvious contradiction. twoofers dont care what the truth is. as long as somebody blames the government its all good!!


----------



## Jaaaman (Mar 21, 2010)

Fizz said:


> twoofers dont care what the truth is. as long as somebody blames the government its all good!!




That's it in a nutshell.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 21, 2010)

Jaaaman said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > twoofers dont care what the truth is. as long as somebody blames the government its all good!!
> ...


and a nutshell is the perfect word for it


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > 86DuDE said:
> ...



Who has credibility ..Deets or dwivemorncon ?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 21, 2010)

eots said:


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


i guess you missed where he disagrees with you, eh, dipshit?


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



the debris fell into a pile ,the cloud of dust did not ,some debris was expelled horizontally from the rest of the collapse....he believes explosives were used ,his credibility is impressive, yours is not....dipshit


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 21, 2010)

eots said:


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


you are another total fucking dipshit troofer
LOL
like i give a rats ass what YOU think about me
go smoke another joint, dipshit


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



Exactly I could listen to this pointless drivel of dwivecon the debwunker or the opinion of honored intellects like Deets


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 21, 2010)

eots said:


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


and you prove once again what a fucking dipshit you are
i have never claimed to be any kind of a debunker
I dont have to debunk shit
its already been done multiple times over by MILLIONS of people
you troofers are so fucking delusional you cant accept the facts


----------



## candycorn (Mar 21, 2010)

Fizz said:


> one twoofer claims massive structural members were hurled horizontally and the other twoofer says they collapsed into nice little piles of rubble.
> 
> neither one calls the other out on the obvious contradiction. twoofers dont care what the truth is. as long as somebody blames the government its all good!!


*
Post of the year; right there.  That is why you see the term "the elite" now used instead of the Bush Administration since they are no longer there to ignore these loons. 

As for the collapse, as the building fell, stuff was hurled upward momentarily and after the progressive collapse started.

As the floors and ceilings bowed inward, they brought the walls in with them since they were bolted to those walls as shown here:





Finally, as the welds and bolts holding the walls to the floors and ceilings gave way, the walls "snapped" back into place and broke away. 






 If the angle of deterioration was intense enough, the "snap back" was almost upward--from an 8 to a 2 on the clock for example.  So that is why you see upward debris.  

When one considers that the fire was hotter in some places than others and fire retarding compounds were likely still intact opposite the impact zone, the bolts and welds in those less-effected areas would be responsible for holding up entire floors; sort of like you trying to pick up your entire dining room table by grabbing one edge with one hand and lifting it above your head while holding it perfectly still.  So when the weight caused it to fracture, the steel on the outside of the building fell away as well or fell inward in many cases depending on where the load was at the time.

For the "sideways" hurling; I have no doubt that as the progressive collapse progressed downward, pieces were hurled onto the opposite side of the unbalanced load; much like you'd see is you were sitting alone on a see-saw and Jupiter collided with the other end of the device; you'd end up on the opposite side of Jupiter from where you started.*


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 21, 2010)

Still waiting for the video which actually captured the sound of the explosions that would have preceded the collapse. 


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ng5qwtR59A]YouTube - coolest building implosion[/ame]


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > one twoofer claims massive structural members were hurled horizontally and the other twoofer says they collapsed into nice little piles of rubble.
> ...



OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg]YouTube - EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY! / MacQueen NYFD 9/11 witnesses[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 21, 2010)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...


i emailed the guy, he wishes you morons would stop using him to support your bullshit as he doesnt support ANYTHING you do


----------



## Fizz (Mar 21, 2010)

eots said:


> OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation



so go ahead and investigate. nobody is stopping you.


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



stop lying divemoroncon you sent no such E-mail and received no such reply..you just lie


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 21, 2010)

eots said:


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


^^^^ more TPP

because YOU lie, you assume i did


----------



## Toro (Mar 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...





No doubt...


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 21, 2010)

Toro said:


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


of course, Id-Eots says i'm lying, like he does


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2010)

toro said:


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



no doubt... A deceived fool like you would believe divemoroncons lies


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



yOU ARE LYING ,YOU NEVER SENT ANT SUCH E-MAIL OR RECEIVED ANY SUCH RESPONSE..YOU ARE A SHAMELESS LIAR


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 21, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


^more TPP
because he LIES so often, he ASSUmes i do as well


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2010)

You never sent any such Email or received any such reply..you lied..it is that simply


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 21, 2010)

eots said:


> You never sent any such Email or received any such reply..you lied..it is that simply


I never lie, dipshit, thats YOUR shtick


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2010)

back your claims or shut the fuck up liar..YOU lied about sending an e-mail and the response you claimed   you reached up into your ass a pulled that lie out and posted it


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 21, 2010)

eots said:


> back your claims or shut the fuck up liar..YOU lied about sending an e-mail and the response you claimed   you reached up into your ass a pulled that lie out and posted it


wrong and no
i will not post the full content of the email because it contains personal info that you do not need

i wont post my or his personal contact info so fucking retarded troofers can harass either of us


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2010)

divecon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > back your claims or shut the fuck up liar..you lied about sending an e-mail and the response you claimed   you reached up into your ass a pulled that lie out and posted it
> ...



you lie..you made the story up, it has no bases in fact...you could remove any personal information ..but you can not because it is all a fabrication a  lie and you couldn't even draft a believable fake due to your limited abilities


----------



## Fizz (Mar 21, 2010)

eots said:


> yOU ARE LYING ,YOU NEVER SENT ANT SUCH E-MAIL OR RECEIVED ANY SUCH RESPONSE..YOU ARE A SHAMELESS LIAR


prove your accusations please.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 21, 2010)

eots said:


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


and even if i did post it
you would do just the same fucking bullshit you are doing NOW
claim it was made up
so NOPE, you suck, he thinks you fucking morons are CRAZY


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 21, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > yOU ARE LYING ,YOU NEVER SENT ANT SUCH E-MAIL OR RECEIVED ANY SUCH RESPONSE..YOU ARE A SHAMELESS LIAR
> ...


he cant


----------



## Fizz (Mar 21, 2010)

eots said:


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



bases like first, second and third??

or bases like nellis, fort dix and andrews?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 21, 2010)

Fizz said:


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


he needs to go smoke another joint


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2010)

Right, divecon sent a email to.Dr. Quintiere .because he has secret acess to his e-mail adress twoofers are not privy to and received a response saying twooofers piss him off and he supports nothing they do..but it is a secret to be kept just between  him divemoroncon...lol...I can see it all now


dear dr Quintiere
i thnk twoofers are MORONS
LIARS  what do you think ?

sincerly divemoroncon


----------



## Fizz (Mar 21, 2010)

eots said:


> Right, divecon sent a email to.Dr. Quintiere .because he has secret acess to his e-mail adress twoofers are not privy to and received a response saying twooofers piss him off and he supports nothing they do..but it is a secret to be kept just between  him divemoroncon...lol...I can see it all now
> 
> 
> dear dr Quintiere
> ...



thats it? thats your proof? you dont know the email address so divecon must not know it too?


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2010)

The proof is his story cant not stand up to reason and he refuses to substantiate it in anyway..thats all the proof required


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 21, 2010)

eots said:


> The proof is his story cant not stand up to reason and he refuses to substantiate it in anyway..thats all the proof required


there is no way to substantiate it to a fucking moron like you


----------



## Fizz (Mar 21, 2010)

eots said:


> The proof is his story cant not stand up to reason and he refuses to substantiate it in anyway..thats all the proof required



no jackass. YOU are making the claim he never sent the email.

now back it up. where is your proof?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 21, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Right, divecon sent a email to.Dr. Quintiere .because he has secret acess to his e-mail adress twoofers are not privy to and received a response saying twooofers piss him off and he supports nothing they do..but it is a secret to be kept just between  him divemoroncon...lol...I can see it all now
> ...


see? he is just another fucking moronic troofer


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 21, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > The proof is his story cant not stand up to reason and he refuses to substantiate it in anyway..thats all the proof required
> ...


he is assuming that i couldnt find the mans email address
he is WRONG


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > The proof is his story cant not stand up to reason and he refuses to substantiate it in anyway..thats all the proof required
> ...



I would just love to see you humiliate yourself trying to write even a few lines that would appear to come from anyone with any intellect..How did you acquire his email address,why would he respond to a stranger but fear the information going public..Why would he trust you ?


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2010)

Satire

I just received a email from the editor of popular mechanics he said the 9/11 article was all lies but don't tell divecon...true story..you have been debwunked


----------



## Fizz (Mar 21, 2010)

eots said:


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



why wouldnt he respond? i wrote to the firm of the architect for the world trade center on one of their general email addresses listed on their site. to my surprise i received a reply from the head of the firm, robertson himself.

he had some pretty nasty things to say about people spreading the concrete core hoax. while i have no proof one way or the other of divecon's claims it certainly doesnt seem unreasonable. 

the fact that you only blindly follow any info that is anti-government and immediately dismiss anything that supports the official version proves you are not interested in seeking the truth at all.


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2010)

satire 

I emailed the same guy he says you are a liar


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 21, 2010)

eots said:


> satire
> 
> I emailed the same guy he says you are a liar


see now, Fizz is believable, YOU are not


----------



## Fizz (Mar 21, 2010)

eots said:


> satire
> 
> I emailed the same guy he says you are a liar



satire requires wit. something you are extremely lacking.


----------



## eots (Mar 22, 2010)

Only an idiot debwunker would enter into making a claim to have received secret information from key figures in the 9/11 debate too sensitive to be disclosed


----------



## Fizz (Mar 22, 2010)

eots said:


> Only an idiot debwunker would enter into making a claim to have received secret information from key figures in the 9/11 debate too sensitive to be disclosed



only an idiot would think divecon's statement or mine fits your description.

stoned again, eh?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 22, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Only an idiot debwunker would enter into making a claim to have received secret information from key figures in the 9/11 debate too sensitive to be disclosed
> ...


and Eots keeps being an Id-Eot


----------



## eots (Mar 22, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Only an idiot debwunker would enter into making a claim to have received secret information from key figures in the 9/11 debate too sensitive to be disclosed
> ...



divecon cant post the email  because Dr. Quintiere told him he did not want twoofers to harass him therefore his email address is _secret_..lol..he cant post it without the email addresses because.. it contains personal information ??...


----------



## eots (Mar 22, 2010)

divecon said:


> fizz said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



No I am disputing it as a reason for not posting your alleged email if you can find his email address anyone could so there would be no reason not to post it or post the email without the address


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 22, 2010)

eots said:


> divecon said:
> 
> 
> > fizz said:
> ...


i'm not gonna post it, and you wouldnt believe it if i did
you are a delusional fucktard


----------



## eots (Mar 22, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



you need serious psychiatric help, seek it out before you hurt yourself or someone else


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 22, 2010)

eots said:


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


^^^^^ classic TPP


----------



## eots (Mar 22, 2010)

> i emailed the guy, he wishes you morons would stop using him to support your bullshit as he doesnt support anything you do


 Liar!


----------



## candycorn (Mar 22, 2010)

eots is garbage


----------



## eots (Mar 22, 2010)

candycorn said:


> eots is garbage



cuntycorns is cuntycorns


----------



## Fizz (Mar 22, 2010)

eots said:


> > i emailed the guy, he wishes you morons would stop using him to support your bullshit as he doesnt support anything you do
> 
> 
> Liar!



prove it.


----------



## eots (Mar 22, 2010)

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world&#8217;s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. &#8220;I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,&#8221;

OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## Fizz (Mar 22, 2010)

eots said:


> Dr. Quintiere, one of the worlds leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,
> 
> OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation



doesnt mean he believes it was an inside job 

so go investigate. nothing is stopping you.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 22, 2010)

eots said:


> > i emailed the guy, he wishes you morons would stop using him to support your bullshit as he doesnt support anything you do
> 
> 
> Liar!


yes, you are


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 22, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. Quintiere, one of the worlds leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,
> ...


he doesnt
and that has already been shown to him in another thread where he kept posting that over and over
the good Dr has issues with the thermal expansion as the cause of the collapse of WTC7


----------



## eots (Mar 22, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. Quintiere, one of the world&#8217;s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. &#8220;I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,&#8221;
> ...



Really... because Dr Quintiere complained he was stopped..blocked..evidence witheld..questions ignored ...that fact finding was deterred


----------



## eots (Mar 22, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



No he offered one possible alternative theory to the collapse of the towers as for wtc as of 2007 he complained he had received no information..wittness  testimony ...photographic evidence...nothing in regard to the wtc 7

Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST&#8217;s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. &#8220;And that building was not hit by anything,&#8221; noted Dr. Quintiere. &#8220;It&#8217;s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. *I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!*
&#8221;OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 22, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. Quintiere, one of the worlds leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,
> ...





> Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NISTs conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was *not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives.* If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the *conspiracy theories that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, its one of the floors falling down*.



OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

OOps did somebody not do their research?


----------



## eots (Mar 22, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


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


*

This is not relevant to the fact he calls for a reinvestigation and makes serious accusations of cover-up.. he simply theorizes that it MOST LIKELY one of the floors falling down.. then calls for his peers to be conspiracy theorist..the fact is the only thing he commits to is.. the investigation was blocked...it was not conclusive.. in question and needs a re-investigation*


----------



## slackjawed (Mar 26, 2010)

Stumbled across this, I found it pretty good so I am sharing.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl37fER8gTk]YouTube - Why most Conspiracy theories stink[/ame]


----------



## slackjawed (Mar 26, 2010)

another........

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuZSmjfBe5A]YouTube - When Did 9/11 Happen?[/ame]


----------



## eots (Mar 26, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> Stumbled across this, I found it pretty good so I am sharing.
> 
> YouTube - Why most Conspiracy theories stink



so buddy needs to break a vast and monolithic conspiracy into what he precises as isolated unconnected events until he cant see the forest for the trees....and what ?


----------



## eots (Mar 26, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> another........
> 
> YouTube - When Did 9/11 Happen?



so ignorance knows no bounds...you are all the example of that required


----------



## chikenwing (Mar 26, 2010)

Wow and double wow!!!

Its unnerving that people really believe this conspiracy stuff. It was not the government,it was Boris Baddenoff and Natasha,they got pissed that Bullwinkle got all the upsydasuim.

Get it right!!!


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 26, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> Stumbled across this, I found it pretty good so I am sharing.
> 
> YouTube - Why most Conspiracy theories stink


hmmmm, interesting, he's railing on conspiracy theorists, while shouting his own conspiracies about "Palestine"
LOL


----------



## slackjawed (Nov 6, 2010)

Just so the new guys can choose their facts about 911......


----------



## slackjawed (Dec 23, 2010)

eots said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > another........
> ...



It was awful generous of you to add to the demonstration of ignorance, when by your own measure, I had provided enough.


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 3, 2011)

slackjawed said:


> Just so the new guys can choose their facts about 911......



Elvis is responsible for 911, why do you think he faked his death?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

hortysir said:


> So nothing was in free fall.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> ...





> Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, &#8220;This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].&#8221;[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7&#8217;s free fall descent could have occurred.





> BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - Free Fall Collapse



This proves controlled Demolition.  I choose to accept this fact, but no one else seems to, out of fear.


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > So nothing was in free fall.
> ...



No it doesn't. But your claim proves your a moron, or worse, a traitor to your country.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

slackjawed said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.

*Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.*

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - Free Fall Collapse

Care to address THESE facts?  You arent man enough.


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...




this thread is the one where you can choose your own facts, see the title. Your welcome here, the truth doesn't matter in this thread, you get to make up any facts you want in this one.

won't stop me and others from ridiculing your treasonous ass though.......


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

slackjawed said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...



Care to address the FACTS in my post? Or are you going to keep running scared?

*Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.*


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 3, 2011)

one twoofer writing down his delusional bullshit and having another twoofer "peer review it" is not the stuff facts are made of little boy.

there simply are no morre facts in your post than in one of adjernutjob, president of iran, speeches.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

slackjawed said:


> one twoofer writing down his delusional bullshit and having another twoofer "peer review it" is not the stuff facts are made of little boy.
> 
> there simply are no morre facts in your post than in one of adjernutjob, president of iran, speeches.



Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

You're in my sig for a reason, child.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > So nothing was in free fall.
> ...


it does no such thing


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > one twoofer writing down his delusional bullshit and having another twoofer "peer review it" is not the stuff facts are made of little boy.
> ...



and your in mine for the same reason boy


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

slackjawed said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 3, 2011)

Lets see now, if we remove all the support columns over 8 floors all at once, we have to use that new secret quiet explosive stuff so it doesn't show up on audio tape. Then we also have to figure out how to make the east penthouse disappear a few seconds before anything else..... 

Add that to the unmelted rebar and the unburnt paper in the "meteorite"....


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Lets see now, if we remove all the support columns over 8 floors all at once, we have to use that new secret quiet explosive stuff so it doesn't show up on audio tape. Then we also have to figure out how to make the east penthouse disappear a few seconds before anything else.....
> 
> Add that to the unmelted rebar and the unburnt paper in the "meteorite"....





> Explosive Residues
> Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site.  In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:_
> 
> &#8220;[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.&#8221;_


_

REFERENCES

 Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, &#8220;Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,&#8221; Bentham Open Access, 2009.  http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf/quote]_


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Lets see now, if we remove all the support columns over 8 floors all at once, we have to use that new secret quiet explosive stuff so it doesn't show up on audio tape. Then we also have to figure out how to make the east penthouse disappear a few seconds before anything else.....
> 
> Add that to the unmelted rebar and the unburnt paper in the "meteorite"....



Let's look at the Facts, shall we.



			
				Craig Bartmer said:
			
		

> Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit&#8217;s hitting the ground behind me.  And the whole time you&#8217;re hearing, &#8216;THOOM! THOOM! THOOM! THOOM! THOOM!&#8217; So, I, I think I know an explosion when I hear it, you know?





			
				Kevin McPadden said:
			
		

> And, at the last few seconds, he took his hand off [the radio] and you heard &#8220;3-2-1&#8221;, and he was just saying, &#8216;Just run for your life, just run for your life.&#8217;  And then it was like another two, three seconds, you heard explosions.  *Like BA-BOOOOOM!  And it&#8217;s like a distinct sound&#8230;BA-BOOOOOM!*  And you felt a rumble in the ground, like, almost like you wanted to grab onto something.  That, to me, I knew that was an explosion.  There was no doubt in my mind.





			
				Peter DeMarco said:
			
		

> &#8220;[T]here was a rumble.  The building&#8217;s top row of windows popped out.  Then all the windows on the thirty-ninth floor popped out.  Then the thirty-eighth floor.  Pop! Pop! Pop! was all you heard until the building sunk into a rising cloud of gray.





First Year NYU Medical Student interviewed on 1010 Wins Radio only a few minutes after the building&#8217 said:


> &#8220;We heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder.  Turned around, we were shocked to see that the building was &#8211; well, it looked like there was a shock wave ripping through building, and the windows all busted out.  It was horrifying.  And then, about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that.  And we saw the building collapse down all the way to the ground.&#8221;



*&#8220;The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.&#8221;*

_Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building._

Care to address these FACTS Ollie?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Lets see now, if we remove all the support columns over 8 floors all at once, we have to use that new secret quiet explosive stuff so it doesn't show up on audio tape. Then we also have to figure out how to make the east penthouse disappear a few seconds before anything else.....
> ...


and which buildings were they talking about?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



World Trade Center 7
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site
*&#8220;[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.&#8221;*


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


if they are all talking about WTC7 then how come it took HOURS after they all got out of it for it to collapse, if these explosions happened while they were still inside?
see, you dont even know what the fuck you are talking about


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Lets see now, if we remove all the support columns over 8 floors all at once, we have to use that new secret quiet explosive stuff so it doesn't show up on audio tape. Then we also have to figure out how to make the east penthouse disappear a few seconds before anything else.....
> ...



On former Firefighter hears the building falling and describes it as Thoom Thoom Thoom; OK you go ahead and run with that. Cameras only blocks away did not register those thooms.... Neither did the seismic equipment.

A reporter who describes windows breaking out floor by floor going Pop pop pop..
I don't even think that's what we could see in the videos...

Then you have a nameless college student who saw the bottom floor cave out. Hmm. Where was he to see this happen since everyone to include first responders had been moved back away from the building because it was too dangerous to be near it?

And still; no audio......


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



This is NISTs collapse model






Does this look like what we could see in the videos?

Fact: Despite adjusting its inputs to achieve the desired result, the NIST model does not come close to reproducing the observed collapse


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 3, 2011)

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.


----------



## Talismen (Jan 3, 2011)

"Truthers" are friggin' priceless.

They ignore the sound of floors pancaking and CHOOSE to believe the "boom, boom, boom" is explosives.
They ignore eye-witness accounts that a *PLANE* flew into the Pentagon, and not a missle.
They ignore the multitudes of complicity that would've had to been employed with virtually EVERYONE the direct attacks affected, including the jumpers, in order for this to have been any degree of an 'inside job'.

And they ignore this:

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

I've seen pictures of some of the bodies that were *inside* that supposed "missle" that slammed into the Pentagon. The pictures were presented in evidence against Moussaoui at his trail. I'll refrain from posting the proper links to those pictures without someone asking to see them first. The pictures are quite graphic.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

Talismen said:


> "Truthers" are friggin' priceless.
> 
> They ignore the sound of floors pancaking and CHOOSE to believe the "boom, boom, boom" is explosives.
> They ignore eye-witness accounts that a *PLANE* flew into the Pentagon, and not a missle.
> ...


The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

Explosive Residues
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site.  In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:_

[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.

REFERENCES

 Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Bentham Open Access, 2009.  http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf_


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Talismen said:
> 
> 
> > "Truthers" are friggin' priceless.
> ...


_
you do understand that those are NOT facts, but just someones OPINION
right?_


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Talismen said:
> ...


_

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall._


----------



## Talismen (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Talismen said:
> 
> 
> > "Truthers" are friggin' priceless.
> ...


_

Ignoring my link ay?
Ok...I ignore yours too.

_


----------



## Talismen (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


_

Because YOU say so, right?

LMAO!!!_


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

Talismen said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Talismen said:
> ...


_

*Explosive Residues
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site.  In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:

&#8220;[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.&#8221;

REFERENCES

 Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, &#8220;Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,&#8221; Bentham Open Access, 2009.  http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf*_


----------



## Talismen (Jan 3, 2011)

Oh and, badgering me in PM isn't going to get you anywhere.
So - don't waste your time.

Because *I* say so.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


_
again, an opinion, not a fact
and the actual FACTS do not support that opinion_


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

Talismen said:


> Oh and, badgering me in PM isn't going to get you anywhere.
> So - don't waste your time.
> 
> Because *I* say so.



You are a coward.
_Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site.  In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:_

&#8220;[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.&#8221;

REFERENCES

_ Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, &#8220;Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,&#8221; Bentham Open Access, 2009.  http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf_


----------



## Talismen (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Talismen said:
> 
> 
> > Oh and, badgering me in PM isn't going to get you anywhere.
> ...



Let me guess....Because *YOU* say so right?




> *Independent researchers* have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site.  In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:



The "money words" are bolded.
"Independent researchers" will find whatever they are PAID to find. They will also go in to a project, WITH an agenda in mind, and set out to prove it is correct.

Next....


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

Talismen said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Talismen said:
> ...


there was nothing "independent" about these people they were all fucking moronic troofers


----------



## Talismen (Jan 3, 2011)

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

Read it.

Because I say so.


----------



## Talismen (Jan 3, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Talismen said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



Indeed.

It's equal to saying the Warren comm., initiated by LBJ, is the final say on the JFK assassination.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

Talismen said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Talismen said:
> ...


actually, it was the final say, from the government
you can disagree with their findings, but they were the final say


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 3, 2011)

Talismen said:


> http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf
> 
> Read it.
> 
> Because I say so.



Excellent link, but no, they will not read it.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

Edited to bypass Divecon distractions


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Talismen said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf
> ...


the usual troofer response to this is "they are in on it"


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Talismen said:
> ...





SFC Ollie said:


> Talismen said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf
> ...




*A link from 2006, and before Nanothermite was found.  This is the type of information you use to debunk facts?  Dude, its disgraceful.*



> In August 2006, a report was written by Brent Blanchard, Senior Editor for Implosionworld.com and Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. Conveniently appearing one month prior to the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and entitled "A Critical Analysis of the collapse of the WTC 1,2 and 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint", the report was written in an attempt to "debunk" the claim that explosives and/or similar catalysts contributed to the collapse of the World Trade Center. You can read the text of the report here:
> http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%...209-8-06 .pdf
> 
> However, there are many problems with this report which I have detailed below:
> ...


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


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


Liar, nanothermite was never found


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 3, 2011)

5 years to find this mysterious Nano Thermite? (Now let me put on my prosecutors hat here.)

"Where is the chain of custody for the samples where this so called Nano thermite was found covering these 5 years?

Your Honor, there being no chain of custody we cannot presume that these samples were ever even in the State of NY. "

Judge: "Case dismissed."


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 3, 2011)

I urge all you sane folks to remember that this thread is called "choose your facts". That said, I started it to finally get some of the twoofertards to post what it is they believe. It is so fucking hard to get them to stand up for something as they are usually just casting dispersions and being turds.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

slackjawed said:


> I urge all you sane folks to remember that this thread is called "choose your facts". That said, I started it to finally get some of the twoofertards to post what it is they believe. It is so fucking hard to get them to stand up for something as they are usually just casting dispersions and being turds.



2.25 seconds of freefall is not debatable.  

The only way for freefall to occur in a steel high rise is explosives.

*The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.*

_Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building._

 [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related[/ame]

That is a fact.  You choose to avoid it.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > I urge all you sane folks to remember that this thread is called "choose your facts". That said, I started it to finally get some of the twoofertards to post what it is they believe. It is so fucking hard to get them to stand up for something as they are usually just casting dispersions and being turds.
> ...


no one has avoided it, dipshit
but your analysis of it is faulty as is AE911's
they had a conclusion to fit before they came to an analysis


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 3, 2011)

PE, I started wading through the bullshit you posted until I got to the first outright lie.  Here it is:



> 2. Explosives can be engineered so that heat alone will not detonate them. The plastic explosive C4, for example, requires the simultaneous delivery of high heat and pressure to induce detonation.



I have a friend who was in Vietnam.  C4 does take high pressure and heat to detonate.  That doesn't mean it won't burn without detonating.  They use to burn bricks of C4 little pieces at a time to keep warm.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 3, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> PE, I started wading through the bullshit you posted until I got to the first outright lie.  Here it is:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



C4 usually has a distinguishable boom and residue as well.  None of which was heard; none of which was found.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 3, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> PE, I started wading through the bullshit you posted until I got to the first outright lie.  Here it is:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> An electrical detonator, for example, uses a brief charge to set off a small amount of explosive material. When somebody triggers the detonator (by transmitting the charge through detonator cord to a blasting cap, for example), the explosion applies a powerful shock that triggers the C-4 explosive material.


HowStuffWorks "C-4 Plastic Explosives"

Yep you can light it with a match and it will simply burn like a fake fire log....


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > PE, I started wading through the bullshit you posted until I got to the first outright lie.  Here it is:
> ...



The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.




_ National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7  Draft for Public Comment, Washington, DC. August 2008. Chapter 3 p.41. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

[ii] NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008.  http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf Transcript p.16

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Quoted by David Ray Griffin, The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NISTs Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False, GlobalResearch.ca, September 14, 2009.  The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven

[v] NIST NCSTAR 1A, Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Washington, DC. November 2008. p.45 NIST and the World Trade Center

[vi] [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related[/ame]

Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site.  In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:

[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.

REFERENCES

 Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Bentham Open Access, 2009.  http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf_


----------



## candycorn (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...


_

yawn...nobody cares.  Nobody has cared for quite a while CD.  

The fact that nobody is suffering from thermite poisoning proves it wasn't there; just like the fact that nobody was hit by falling melted steel proves it wasn't there.  Just like the fact that you can't wire 3 occupied buildings for demolition proves the bombs weren't there._


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 3, 2011)

There were no explosions that could be misconstrued as being that of a controlled demolition.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> There were no explosions that could be misconstrued as being that of a controlled demolition.





> The fact that nobody is suffering from thermite poisoning proves it wasn't there; just like the fact that nobody was hit by falling melted steel proves it wasn't there. Just like the fact that you can't wire 3 occupied buildings for demolition proves the bombs weren't there.



Disgusting.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU[/ame]


----------



## PixieStix (Jan 3, 2011)




----------



## elvis (Jan 3, 2011)

PixieStix said:


>



and I survived it....


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > There were no explosions that could be misconstrued as being that of a controlled demolition.
> ...



Disrespecting the Facts with your own opinion.


----------



## PixieStix (Jan 3, 2011)

elvis said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Irrefutable proof that you live


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 3, 2011)

Wait a minute, you mean Elvis planted the explosives?


----------



## candycorn (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > There were no explosions that could be misconstrued as being that of a controlled demolition.
> ...



Yes you are disgusting.  Tell us something we don't know.  In fact, please explain to us how you wire 3 buildings for demolition with nobody noticing fuckwad?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


what YOU call facts, are not


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

This is a controlled Demolition:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQFmjYPXt1g&feature=related[/ame]

The 2.25 seconds of freefall proves it.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> This is a controlled Demolition:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQFmjYPXt1g&feature=related
> 
> The 2.25 seconds of freefall proves it.



What exactly fell at freefall? We do know that something happened inside the building before the facade fell; remember the penthouse sort of disappeared, How much internal damage was done before your 2 seconds? 

Don't bother answering, because we know that you haven't a clue.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> This is a controlled Demolition:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQFmjYPXt1g&feature=related
> 
> The 2.25 seconds of freefall proves it.


wrong, again


----------



## PixieStix (Jan 3, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Wait a minute, you mean Elvis planted the explosives?



Yes  A hunka burnin love, sorry I could not resist 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bxxIvPZwG4[/ame]


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > This is a controlled Demolition:
> ...



*Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7s free fall descent could have occurred.*
 All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - Free Fall Collapse
Stop avoiding these facts Ollie, you look like a coward and any dignity you have left you are completely neglecting.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



And they did it with silent explosions too!
I must be right look how big my font is.....


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



No audio recorded perfectly doesnt mean no audio happened. 
But freefall collapse proves controlled demolition.
You are in denial, and its gross.



			
				Kevin McPadden said:
			
		

> &#8220;And, at the last few seconds, he took his hand off [the radio] and you heard &#8220;3-2-1&#8221;, and he was just saying, &#8216;Just run for your life, just run for your life.&#8217;  And then it was like another two, three seconds, you heard explosions.  Like BA-BOOOOOM!  And it&#8217;s like a distinct sound&#8230;BA-BOOOOOM!  And you felt a rumble in the ground, like, almost like you wanted to grab onto something.  That, to me, I knew that was an explosion.  There was no doubt in my mind.&#8221;



*&#8220;The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.&#8221;

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.*

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


funny how the building didnt collapse right then, did it?

and an explosive sound doesnt always mean explosives


----------



## candycorn (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



You lost your dignity long time ago sock girl.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



OK, let me put my operations Sergeant hat on here for a moment.

"What the fuck son, you actually fucking believe that one damned secondary explosion is going to bring down the whole fucking building. Get the fuck away from me before I go ballistic around here."

OK, I'm done....


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



You've lost.  You know it.

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?

AE911Truth.org

The truth hurts, its gross watching your reaction with such distinct denial and immaturity.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


you have only confirmed what most people already knew long ago
you are a fucking idiot


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 3, 2011)

Oh shit I lost.... Damn, and just when it was getting fun too.

Fucking idiot.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Oh shit I lost.... Damn, and just when it was getting fun too.
> 
> Fucking idiot.



*Notice how you only post immature remarks and misconstrue the discussion at hand?  This is called denial and immaturity.*

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, &#8220;This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].&#8221;[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7&#8217;s free fall descent could have occurred.

*&#8220;The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.&#8221;*

These are FACTS.  and you cannot handle them, and its proven by your lack of maturity and denial when handling them.  Get a grip, physics are physics.

2.25 seconds of freefall in WTC7 = Controlled Demolition 100% guaranteed


----------



## candycorn (Jan 3, 2011)

Fuck you.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Oh shit I lost.... Damn, and just when it was getting fun too.
> ...


do you not wonder just how many of the internal supports were already gone before you see the main part of the building collapse?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


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



*The Chinese would really like their wall back.*


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 3, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Oh come on, that would mean they would have to accept facts.


----------



## Talismen (Jan 3, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Talismen said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



From the government...yes.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7s free fall descent could have occurred.

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - Free Fall Collapse

You are a coward.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


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



You must have a pair of brass balls to call me a coward. How about you answer the question dipshit. 

What part of building 7 fell at freefall?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



What is with your insults and cowardly remarks?  You sound like a child in denial.  Its gross just stop it.

What do you mean WHAT part of the building?  You're a joke, nothing but a coward who cannot face the facts because he is scared of the reality it brings.  YOU. ARE. A. COWARD.

*NIST CONCLUDES FREEFALL AFTER BEING CONFRONTED BY AE911TRUTH*
This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds]" - *NIST THEMSELVES IN THEIR REPORT*

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsJQKpnkZ10[/ame]

Use your eyes, you have no self respect.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



You really do have a problem don't you?

The question is simple;  what part of the building fell at free fall speeds? 
 You cannot answer the question because the answer disproves your entire theory. 
And calling me a coward repeatedly will not get me to ignore you, You are too much fun and way to easy.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

Edited to bypass divecon's distractions.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


there is no evidence in that video that supports a controlled demolition


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



8 floors freefell. or 2.25 seconds. or 105 feet of freefall.

You are a *coward*.  Freefall proves controlled demolition, it does not matter WHERE it happened, that question doesnt even merit a response.  You are in such a deep case of denial it IS DIS-GUS-TING. 

You are a *coward* for not acknowledging the facts.  What a joke.
*NIST CONCLUDES FREEFALL AFTER BEING CONFRONTED BY AE911TRUTH*
&#8220;This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds]" - *NIST THEMSELVES IN THEIR REPORT*



BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - 
What is Building 7 ? Wake up from your trance, *coward*.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 3, 2011)

OK Dufus, I'll answer for you. The Facade fell at free fall speed for 2 seconds. Why? Because the internal structure of the building had already collapsed. How do we know this? Because we can see the penthouse disappear into the center of the building several seconds before the facade starts to move.

Now take your coward ass somewhere and lick it from the ass beating you have received from numerous sources on the boards today.


----------



## Talismen (Jan 3, 2011)

Pardon me PE, but, I believe I warned you once, earlier, NOT to harass me via PM.

I don't give two shits who your parents are...
I could care less what school you attended...
I don't care what conspiracy bunny hopped out of a hole and planted this shit in your ear...

But you need to know this right now....

Your posting style is a bunch of self-absorbed paranoia, followed by major bouts of chest-thumping, and still longer bouts of obama-style nose-in-the-air stuck-uppity attitude.

Guess what?

No....One....Cares.
See, here's how it is...We have our own opinions on the matter. We follow actual facts, and not "facts" posted by our very own website.

We remember that day,...Remember what it was like to *watch, on live tv, those people choosing to end their lives in a final leap into the flames of hell, as opposed to staying in those towers and accepting the hands dealt to them.*

We watched, *on live tv*, those towers collapse.
We watched, *on live tv*, WTC 7 collapse. Yes, I said *collapse*. *I SAID COLLAPSE!!! IN BIG BOLD COLORFUL FONT....COLLAPSE, COLLAPSE COLLAPSE!!!!*

And, judging by your posting standards...Because I just bolded/colorized and used large font in that there commentary,...Well, shit, IT MUST BE TRUE! BECAUSE I SAY SO!!!!



Listen....You aren't the first of your 'kind' I've run into, and I'm quite certain you won't be the last. But you need to know something VERY IMPORTANT:

*YOU and those like you, are taking this horrid event, and turning it into your very own little hobby*. A hobby maintained by .02 cent websites, self-published "facts" based on pure speculations and rumors. NOTHING...I repeat....*NOTHING* you post is of any value to those left to forever mourn their loss that day. Many of those folks will never get even so much as a sliver of a finger-nail returned to them in the form of remains. And what do people like you do? You play with the memory of their loved ones, as if it's a tonka toy. Something to occupy your shallow minds and empty lives.

Aside from actual facts escaping your diatribes, there's something else that always seems to be missing....*Compassion*. You rant and rave at those who DARE to disagree with your endless baseless assertions that are made up of your very own opinions and, oh yes, "independent research". But there is never a hint of compassion in any of your posts.

That says much about the person behind the posts.

And I'm forced to wonder....From where in this world do you hail? Where do your loyalties lie? Do you know how to say "allahu akbar" with the proper dilect? See, you seem to be going through a great deal of trouble just to put the blame onto ANYONE or ANYTHING else besides those who were piloting those planes that day. You make a great deal of noise, flopping your arms about, yelling and screaming, using big bold fonts, attempting to distract from the truth...The REAL truth, shown on video, of the jihadi pilots at the airports, ready to take flight.

Yes...Thou doth protest too much.

Too much indeed.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

Talismen said:


> Pardon me PE, but, I believe I warned you once, earlier, NOT to harass me via PM.
> 
> I don't give two shits who your parents are...
> I could care less what school you attended...
> ...



Nanothermite was found in the WTC dust.
*Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site.  In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:

&#8220;[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.&#8221;*
_ Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, &#8220;Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,&#8221; Bentham Open Access, 2009.  http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf_

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall?  NIST&#8217;s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object &#8220;has no structural components below it.&#8221;[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives.  If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST&#8217;s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7&#8217;s destruction, NIST&#8217;s claim contradicted &#8220;a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.&#8221;[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, &#8220;Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.&#8221;[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, &#8220;This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].&#8221;[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7&#8217;s free fall descent could have occurred.

*FREEFALL PROVES 100% CONTROLLED DEMOLITION*

&#8220;The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.&#8221;

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

You cannot accept the facts, and only try and refute them with fallacies. you are a coward.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

same shit, different post


----------



## candycorn (Jan 3, 2011)

Talismen said:


> Pardon me PE, but, I believe I warned you once, earlier, NOT to harass me via PM.
> 
> I don't give two shits who your parents are...
> I could care less what school you attended...
> ...



Its a mix of paranoia and imagination; too much of both.


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 3, 2011)

LOL,  It was Col. Mustard in the Library with a Candlestick.

That is all i have for this thread and it was too much.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

```

```



uscitizen said:


> LOL,  It was Col. Mustard in the Library with a Candlestick.
> 
> That is all i have for this thread and it was too much.



BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 3, 2011)

I am still hiding out from killing Kennedy.
shhhh


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> I am still hiding out from killing Kennedy.
> shhhh



Explosive Residues Found
*Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site.  In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:*

_[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material._

REFERENCES

_ Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Bentham Open Access, 2009.  http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf

NYC Coalition For Accountability Now_


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 3, 2011)

Are you really a human or a bot?


----------



## Obamerican (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > I am still hiding out from killing Kennedy.
> ...


_BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.................................................................................

This fucking dumbass posts the same shit over and over. He thinks that just because he believes this shit that everyone else is stupid for not believing it, like he is soooooo much smarter than everyone else. He's like them cocksuckers at Ground Zero. You want to just shove their teeth down their fucking throat._


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > I am still hiding out from killing Kennedy.
> ...


_

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOg2wL9W_Vs[/ame]_


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Are you really a human or a bot?


yeah, its kinda wash, rinse, repeat, isnt it?


----------



## Ringel05 (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> 8 floors freefell. or 2.25 seconds. or 105 feet of freefall.
> 
> You are a *coward*.  Freefall proves controlled demolition, it does not matter WHERE it happened, that question doesnt even merit a response.  You are in such a deep case of denial it IS DIS-GUS-TING.
> 
> ...



Here, take two, any two.  It will work wonders!


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

Ringel05 said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > 8 floors freefell. or 2.25 seconds. or 105 feet of freefall.
> ...


oh hell no
he doesnt need any abilify, that shit will make you hallucinate
LOL


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

Ringel05 said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > 8 floors freefell. or 2.25 seconds. or 105 feet of freefall.
> ...



why do you deflect from the facts?  are you afraid of your reality being not what you wish it to be? what is it? freefall proves 9/11 was a controlled demolition, why do you avoid the truth, and post irrelevant responses?  you look scared

* NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7s free fall descent could have occurred.*


----------



## Ringel05 (Jan 3, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



It might make him think he can fly.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

Ringel05 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...


well, at least so far, this one hasnt called everyone that disagrees with him "agent"
LOL


----------



## Ringel05 (Jan 3, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...





> he doesnt need any abilify, that shit will make you hallucinate



Personal experience......? 
(Got any left?)


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

Ringel05 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...


nope
LOL
never taken anything like it
thanks God, and hope i never need to either


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

Ringel05 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...



I'm serious when I ask, are you man enough to even look into these facts im presenting before disrespecting them?

buildingwhat.org/free-fall-collapse/

_&#8220;The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.&#8221;

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building._
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg&feature=player_embedded[/ame]


----------



## Ringel05 (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I've seen this bull shit and I've read this crap and I am indeed serious when I say you need professional help.  It's a form of paranoia with mild to sever schizophrenia, very well documented in CTs and very treatable.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 4, 2011)

Ringel05 said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...



2.25 seconds of free fall is not "bull shit" and "crap".  It proves a controlled demolition took place on 9/11 in WTC7.  This is a HUGE problem.

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 | Stand with the 911 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?

*According to NIST, &#8220;This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds]*

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



Hey, shit for brains.

Why don't you tell us once and for all if you believe the twin towers had concrete cores?

I would be fascinated by your answer.


----------



## Ringel05 (Jan 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



The only valid response to delusionals like yourself is:


----------



## Douger (Jan 4, 2011)

There aren't "facts" in The Great Satan. Just lies.
911 was another test to see how stupid murkins are.
The results came in the form of Chinese made flags and patriot "acts".

It was an overwhelmingly successful evaluation.
There is no longer any question that ' they" can lead you to slaughter with zero resistance.
Mission accomplished. Gawd Save duh Queen.........and her beloved IsNtReal. !


----------



## Talismen (Jan 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Nanothermite was found in the WTC dust.
> *Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site.  In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:
> 
> [T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.*
> ...



Oh ok. I get it now.
You think that if you keep posting the same shit, it will make a difference.

 Yeah...it doesn't.

So, maybe I'll just do the same, and then we'll be playing the same game, ay?

Here you go:



> Pardon me PE, but, I believe I warned you once, earlier, NOT to harass me via PM.
> 
> I don't give two shits who your parents are...
> I could care less what school you attended...
> ...


----------



## Talismen (Jan 4, 2011)

candycorn said:


> Talismen said:
> 
> 
> > Pardon me PE, but, I believe I warned you once, earlier, NOT to harass me via PM.
> ...



Indeed....

I once heard someone attempting to explain the mentality of those who REALLY get into conspiracy theories. They said something like: Usually the event they are obsessed with was so horrific, and so mind-numbingly shocking, they continually pour over the evidence at hand, in an attempt to make themselves feel better about the whole thing.

It's like, in this case, PE cannot believe that a handful of jihadis piloting planes had the power to do what they did on that day. It just had to be something else.

Now granted, if a majority of *credible eye-witness accounts* suggested differently from the "official story", I'm sure more people would be on this. But, they're not. Because they don't.

It's kinda like with the JFK thing. I've studied that for years.
And, ever since it happend people have doubted the govt's "official story", _because of_ *credible eye-witness accounts* from people who were harassed by "authorities" for even speaking of what they saw or heard. THAT says alot, IMO. Not only that, but the Zapruder film, and all other pictoral evidence suggest otherwise as well. THAT kind of circumstance is when I can understand interest in a conspiracy theory.


----------



## Talismen (Jan 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Translation:


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 4, 2011)

Talismen said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...



I'm serious when I ask, are you man enough to even look into these facts im presenting before disrespecting them?

You are as much of a coward as Ollie.  www.NYCCAN.org


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Talismen said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



Child, when you want to call me names, at least be man enough to address me directly.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 4, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Talismen said:
> ...


I have addressed you directly  You are a coward and run away from me everytime I address you.  You are in fear and in denial.  You are the definition of a coward, because you will not address the facts, but will continue to say they are lies.

*NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].*

*The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.
*

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related[/ame]

You are a coward, I will state that indirectly, or directly to you.  Address the facts, or continue your sad case of denial.

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 | Stand with the 911 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?


----------



## Ringel05 (Jan 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Talismen said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



There seems to be a skip in your vinyl.  Just sayin'........
(On the good ship, Lollypop........)


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 4, 2011)

Ringel05 said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Talismen said:
> ...



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFPobKeSzKQ&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

You are too immature to watch this video and respond with intelligent input.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



Please do let us know when this paper you keep pushing at us has been peer reviewed by experts who are not part of the .01% of the engineers and architects who are part of the truther movement. Or should I say truther trickle?


----------



## Ringel05 (Jan 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



I saw that vid when it first came out.  As usual Geraldo was inanely hysterical, the fact that you use him as a source speaks volumes.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 4, 2011)

Ringel05 said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...



The fact I use Geraldo as source speaks volumes?

The fact that I use PHYSICS speaks volumes.  Stop ignoring the physics, you are afraid.

*Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.
*

This. Is. A. Fact.

You can't handle it.  You are weak lol


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 4, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

You are a coward dude, stop.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



I'll stop when you actually can present some real facts and actually prove them to be facts. So far all you've got is one non-reviewed paper and name calling. I sit here in my little man cave and I see you call me a coward, then I look at my wall full of medals and certificates for different achievements and I laugh so hard my wife comes in to see what is so funny.


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.
> 
> You are a coward dude, stop.



So, coward.   Explain how this massive explosion isn't even heard right before the collapse?  You can hear the collapse, so you know you're close enough to hear any explosions, but not even a pop.  Quit running away from the facts and grow a pair of balls for once in your pathetic life.


----------



## Ringel05 (Jan 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


According to physics bumble bees are not supposed to be able to fly and you honestly think physics holds the only answers.  
Damn dude, you DO need some serious psychiatric intervention.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 5, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Talismen said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



Here's an idea. Since you and Christophera both live in Santa Barbara, why don't the two of you meet up somewhere so you can discuss your competing theories of 9/11?

The resulting argument would be epic!

Make sure you bring a camera crew to film it. You could release it to the public, and probably make enough money to fund the new investigation you so desire.

Just title it, "My Dinner with Stupid".


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 5, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Talismen said:
> ...



Because I have facts, not theories. 


I'm serious when I ask, are you man enough to even look into these facts im presenting before disrespecting them?

buildingwhat.org/free-fall-collapse/

&#8220;The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.&#8221;

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 ov


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 5, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Talismen said:
> ...



Because I have facts, no theories. You ignore the facts and act like an immature kid.  You have no self respect, and it's gross




> I'm serious when I ask, are you man enough to even look into these facts im presenting before disrespecting them?



buildingwhat.org/free-fall-collapse/

*&#8220;The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.&#8221;*

*Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.*


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 5, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



Whenever you get around to posting some facts, I'll look at them.

Right now, all you are posting is your theories.

Post a video with the sounds of the hundreds of explosions it would take to blow out the supports in your 8 stories, and I'll watch it.

But don't keep posting the same video you have been showing. I watched it, and guess what? No sounds of CD blasting to be heard.

And I do think you and Chris should get together, so you both can get your facts straight.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 5, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...



You need audible recordings of explosions to be convinced physics existed on 9/11?  You are in denial.
NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories,

Fact.

*The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.*

Fact.

You are scared of addressing the facts.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 5, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



Again, please post some facts.

According to NIST, a portion of the northern facade collapsed at free-fall, not the entire building.

And here's another question. If it was a CD, and fell at free-fall into it's own footprint, how did the debris damage the Verizon Building, and the Post Office, and land on the roof of Fiterman Hall?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 5, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...



Please cite your sources.  Your opinions do not change the fact that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.  Freefall proves it. How hard is this to grasp?  

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST&#8217;s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7&#8217;s destruction, NIST&#8217;s claim contradicted &#8220;a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.&#8221;[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, &#8220;Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.&#8221;[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, &#8220;This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].&#8221;[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7&#8217;s free fall descent could have occurred.

http://buildingwhat.org/free-fall-collapse/

Address the facts.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 5, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



OK, I will.



> This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time&#8212;compared to the 3.9 second free fall time&#8212;was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. *During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above.* In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.



Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 5, 2011)

Fiterman Hall damage


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 5, 2011)

Verizon Building damage - east facade


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 5, 2011)

2.25 Seconds of freefall in WTC7 proves controlled demolition. 

You are afraid to accept this fact.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 5, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> 2.25 Seconds of freefall in WTC7 proves controlled demolition.
> 
> You are afraid to accept this fact.



We accept that the facade of building 7 may have reached Free fall speed for 2 seconds.

Now what about the penthouse?


----------



## Talismen (Jan 5, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Talismen said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



First of all, I'm not a man...I'm a woman.
Hence the "Lady Templar" moniker just below my username near my avvy.

Duh!

Secondly...I've read all this bullshit before, and it's the same bullshit from that assplug alex jones, and loosecoins.

Lastly -- you've still not answer my questions.
Where do you hail from? Where do your loyalties lie?

Much ado you make...distraction is your game.
Pray tell -- why?


----------



## Talismen (Jan 5, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



Essentially this means:

*"I'm mad because you won't drink down the kool-aid I'm offering up. You act as if it's not truthful! Well damn you! Damn you all to hell! SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!!"*


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 5, 2011)

Talismen said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Talismen said:
> ...



Distraction is my game?  Have you even looked over the BuildingWhat? - Building 7 | Stand with the 911 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ? website? 

You do know this was on the news correct?  

You do know that the Japanese Democrat majority leader is in support of a reinvestigation after being informed of the facts by ae911truth right?


> Democratic Party of Japan lawmaker Yukihisa Fujita addresses the Diet and Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda on his doubts about the official story of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S



Lawmaker takes 9/11 doubts global | The Japan Times Online

You do know that Aussie union leader of over 400,000 people has publicly questioned 9/11 because of the facts learned from physics and ae911truth, right?
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-...ident-kevin-bracken-–-true-working-class-hero

You do know AE911truth has enlightened over 1409+ Architects and engineers?  

You do know that WTC7 was a controlled demolition right?  It's a fact. these aren't distractions or debates.  It. Is. A. Fact.

Where do my loyalties lie?  The truth, the US, and our soldiers overseas.  9/11 needs to be reinvestigated.  You do not even care to debate the facts, and just type bunk.

2.25 seconds of freefall PROVES controlled demolition.  Fact.

Are you able to digest this, or are you going to continue to accept the Government's lies?

It's embarrassing......


----------



## Talismen (Jan 5, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Distraction is my game?  Have you even looked over the BuildingWhat? - Building 7 | Stand with the 911 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ? website?



Hmmm...Let's see.
I said I've read all the bullshit, and now you're asking me again if I've read it.

Something tells me you have a comprehension problem.
I'll just wait for you to catch up.

In the meantime -- how much do you pay in hosting fees to maintain that site, and push your very own agenda on the subject?




> You do know this was on the news correct?



And THAT makes it truth? 

Yes....comprehension.





> You do know that the Japanese Democrat majority leader is in support of a reinvestigation after being informed of the facts by ae911truth right?
> 
> 
> > Democratic Party of Japan lawmaker Yukihisa Fujita addresses the Diet and Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda on his doubts about the official story of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S
> ...



Good for him.
Now, what should that matter to me? HE'S IN JAPAN!





> You do know that Aussie union leader of over 400,000 people has publicly questioned 9/11 because of the facts learned from physics and ae911truth, right?


Great. Australia is a nice country.
But, it IS Australia. Good on them, ay mate?




> You do know AE911truth has enlightened over 1409+ Architects and engineers?


Oh really?

Do you know how many UNENLIGHTENED architects and engineers there are in the world? In Japan?! IN AUSTRALIA!!!!????





> You do know that 9/11 was a controlled demolition right?  It's a fact. these aren't distractions or debates.  It. Is. A. Fact.



Beeeecauuuussee....YOU SAY SO!





> Where do my loyalties lie?  The truth, the US, and our soldiers overseas.  9/11 needs to be reinvestigated.  You do not even care to debate the facts, and just type bunk.
> 
> 2.25 seconds of freefall PROVES controlled demolition.  Fact.
> 
> ...



Yep....a clear lack of compassion. As I noted a page or two ago.

Your little "hobby" has the blood of over 3000 lives splashed all over it.
Care to see a few crisped bodies from the Pentagon?
How about body parts laying in the streets of Manhattan?

I told you about the pictoral evidence, available to anyone, brought fourth in the Moussaoui trial...But, interestingly enough, you ignored it.

Don't you want more evidence for your little "hobby"?
A "hobby" that grinds its heals into the bodies that hit the ground after leaping to their deaths. Don't you think more people would've jumped, had they heard explosion after explosion?

Odd...that. Ay?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 5, 2011)

Talismen said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Distraction is my game?  Have you even looked over the BuildingWhat? - Building 7 | Stand with the 911 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ? website?
> ...



You claim to have read that website, but claim it's ''bullshit''?

Are you human?  You do know what Physics are right?

*&#8220;The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.&#8221;

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.
*

This is a fact.  You are too afraid to accept the reality that 9/11 consisted of controlled demolitions.  

Denial.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 5, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Talismen said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



Why are you in denial? You keep putting up the same BS statement and then call people cowards when we tell you it is wrong. Yet you never make any attempt to answer the questions that prove it is wrong. Once again,  The penthouse fell into building 7 before most truther videos show the collapse of the facade. Yet you keep claiming that the upper half of the building *"remains intact and uncrumpled.* I'm terribly sorry, but it simply does not fit the real facts of the day.

Care to comment?


----------



## Talismen (Jan 5, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Talismen said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


Yes...Yes I do.

Wanna know why? Lean in, I'll tell you a secret....

*BECAUSE I DON'T NEED "INDEPENDENT RESEARCHERS", OR .0004% OF THE WORLD'S ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS, OR ANY OF **YOUR** OPINIONS TO TELL ME ABOUT AN AGENDA-DRIVEN BASELESS MIND-GAME CLUSTER-FUCK OF RUMORS AND SPECULATIONS!!!!*

Your entire 'game' wouldn't exist without them!




> Are you human?  You do know what Physics are right?
> 
> *The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.
> 
> ...



No...it's not called "denial". 


It's called:

Repeating the same thing over and over again, because you have nothing else to say.

It's called:

Repeating the same thing over and over again, because you think it will make it an absolute truth.

It's called:

Repeating the same thing over and over again, because you think you'll get someone to admit that they not only set off the explosives in building 7, but also hid the weapon used on the grassy knoll.

It's called:

Repeating the same thing over and over again, just to hear yourself say it.

It's called:

Repeating the same thing over and over again, hoping that you will convince YOURSELF that something *other than* a handful of jihadis boarding planes must have been the reason for the event....Because to admit that it WAS those men, is to admit that your life...And ALL our lives...Are really truly THAT fragile after all, and that sometimes, we are NOT in control, and sometimes we are at the mercy of horrible people doing horrific things.

You want to have a mental melt-down...Have it.
Take a bath in it.

But either STFU, or double your medication.
We're tired of hearing it.

We're tired of hearing it.

We're tired of hearing it.

We're tired of hearing it.

....Savvy?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 5, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Talismen said:
> ...



What planet do you choose to live on?  I'm on Earth, and physics exist.  You choose to pretend other scenarios could account for free fall speed.  YOU are in denial.  YOU are the coward.

If you'd actually have some self-respect and look into the information I present to you, you'd realize this.  But you instead ignore the facts and state opinions.  Physics PROVE controlled demolition in WTC7 100% not 99% not 50%.  100%

What don't you understand?  It's THAT simple.

FREE FALL for 2.25 IS IMPOSSIBLE unless EXPLOSIVES were used

Open your eyes man, stop looking so ignorant and cowardly...
*Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall?* NISTs lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object has no structural components below it.[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives.  If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

*A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NISTs initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7s destruction, NISTs claim contradicted a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7s free fall descent could have occurred.*

_Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building._

There's nothing for you to miss here unless you choose to ignore it.  The information and FACTS are RIGHT there and you will avoid them because you fear that your reality will crumble......IT WONT.  THE TRUTH will set us free.  stop. playing. your. games.

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 | Stand with the 911 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?

Look over the FACTS before sticking to one side.  It's embarrassing


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 5, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



God you're stupid. I have shown you time after time that your precious website is wrong. 
You are dismissed. Go tell your mother she wants you.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 5, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I didn't think you could become more of a disgrace with your cowardly behavior, but then you post this and it just proves how afraid you really are.

*You have not proved ANYTHING about that site being wrong.*  Disgusting claim from a disgusting person.

YOU HAVE NOTHING.  You are in denial.  so once again.

YOU IGNORE the facts I post.  

YOU. Are. a. C-o-w-a-r-d.  

*how many times do i have to say it?  You cannot look at the facts of physics because you ARE SCARED. *Once you understand that, you will be able to accept the facts.  But until then YOU'LL CONTINUE to look like a coward.  i'll say it every post until you ACKNOWLEDGE that FREE FALL for 2.25 seconds is ONLY possible with ZERO resistance, WHICH CANNOT BE DONE WITH FIRE/NATURAL COLLAPSE.  only with explosives.  Why are you so blind *ON PURPOSE*?????????????????????????

How do you get 2.25 seconds of freefall?  NIST admitted it happened after AE911truth.org FORCED them to change their report.  

*Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.*


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 5, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...





I guess the child has a comprehension problem. Not only does he not understand that calling me a coward simply makes me laugh, but he also doesn't understand the word dismissed. A mind is such a terrible thing to waste.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 5, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



You are the epitome of cognitive dissonance.

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 | Stand with the 911 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 5, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> You are the epitome of cognitive dissonance.


naw, that would be YOU

still waiting on your take on goof-o-phera's concrete core


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 5, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...



Hey "MyspecialversionofPhysicsExists", why haven't you responded to this?

Are you afraid of the facts, chump?

But, to your credit, you're not claiming WTC7 had a concrete core. That's very generous of you.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 6, 2011)

The child still has no arguments against any of the real facts we have presented to him. And my guess is that he never will. All he has is 2 seconds.


----------



## Talismen (Jan 6, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




Perhaps the jihadi-excuser would understand the term:

*GO RING THE BELL! YOU'RE DONE!*


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 11, 2011)

Here's a fact about 911 twoofers;

"Mistrust of government was Loughner's defining conviction, the friends said. He believed the U.S. government was behind 9/11, and worried that governments were maneuvering to create a unified monetary system ("a New World Order currency" one friend said) so that social elites and bureaucrats could control the rest of the world."  read more at;
CONFIRMED! Arizona Shooter a 9/11 Truther - Gabrielle Giffords - Zimbio
and
tucson shooter a truther - Google Search [/I]


I am not able to share just how, but I also have personal knowledge related to this fact. 

I suspect that the 911 twoofer who attacked us in Tucson has posted on this board in the past.


Here is a fact that this incident has proven;
911 truthers prey on the mentally ill, this can (and now has) result in attacks against the USA.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 11, 2011)

slackjawed said:


> Here's a fact about 911 twoofers;
> 
> "Mistrust of government was Loughner's defining conviction, the friends said. He believed the U.S. government was behind 9/11, and worried that governments were maneuvering to create a unified monetary system ("a New World Order currency" one friend said) so that social elites and bureaucrats could control the rest of the world."  read more at;
> CONFIRMED! Arizona Shooter a 9/11 Truther - Gabrielle Giffords - Zimbio
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 11, 2011)

slackjawed said:


> Here's a fact about 911 twoofers;
> 
> "Mistrust of government was Loughner's defining conviction, the friends said. He believed the U.S. government was behind 9/11, and worried that governments were maneuvering to create a unified monetary system ("a New World Order currency" one friend said) so that social elites and bureaucrats could control the rest of the world."  read more at;
> CONFIRMED! Arizona Shooter a 9/11 Truther - Gabrielle Giffords - Zimbio
> ...


 You post bullshit as facts, they are also trying to run with a scenario that he was an "antisemite" too bad he was a Jew himself! You can't argue what is presented so you have to resort to making up lies and and try to pass them off as "facts". You're a pathetic whinny little loser


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 11, 2011)

slackjawed said:


> Here's a fact about 911 twoofers;
> 
> "Mistrust of government was Loughner's defining conviction, the friends said. He believed the U.S. government was behind 9/11, and worried that governments were maneuvering to create a unified monetary system ("a New World Order currency" one friend said) so that social elites and bureaucrats could control the rest of the world."  read more at;
> CONFIRMED! Arizona Shooter a 9/11 Truther - Gabrielle Giffords - Zimbio
> ...






			
				sackjawed said:
			
		

> *These "facts" have been debunked repeatedly by showing that the measurement of the time it took the building to fall is NOT 2.25 seconds. The time it took to fall cannot be measured from a video-FACT! The reason is that the fall starts before it can be seen in the video. Additionally the so-called "experts" you have quoted cherry picked the time they used knowing full well that they were using misleading data, and point to a video taken from outside the building to "prove' their point...*


AE911Truth forced NIST to change their findings. Fact.
*"NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how."*
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related[/ame]
*Why are you so ignorant?*

You're the same guy in my sig, you are a lying, deceiving, disgusting, illogical human being that cannot use his common sense to realize wtc7 was a controlled demolition, specifically because of the 2.25 seconds of free fall.  Which is only possible with controlled demolition.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 11, 2011)

Why did Bob McIlvaine waffle and evade when Geraldo Rivera asked him if the architects and engineers agreed with his theory?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 11, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Why did Bob McIlvaine waffle and evade when Geraldo Rivera asked him if the architects and engineers agreed with his theory?


didnt you love how he totally ignored everything he quoted and just posted the same bullshit spam he has posted several times before?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 11, 2011)

It just might be time to place this sock on ignore. I mean, I don't know about the rest of you but I can only listen to wash, rinse, repeat so many times.....


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 11, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> It just might be time to place this sock on ignore. I mean, I don't know about the rest of you but I can only listen to wash, rinse, repeat so many times.....



The facts you ignore will be posted until you acknowledge them as facts.  They are facts, physics are facts, videos are facts, you cannot ignore them.

In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration._

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall?  NISTs lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object has no structural components below it.[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives.  If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NISTs initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7s destruction, NISTs claim contradicted a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7s free fall descent could have occurred.

However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]

In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure.  None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building.  The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.

Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:

What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall.  Acceleration doesnt build up gradually.  The graph [measuring the buildings descent] simply turns a corner.  The building went from full support to zero support instantly.

Secondly:

The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.

Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building._


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 11, 2011)

Well, what do you know? PEchickenshit did it again.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 11, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Well, what do you know? PEchickenshit did it again.


yup
shocking, isnt it?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 11, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> God you're stupid. I have shown you time after time that your precious website is wrong.
> You are dismissed. Go tell your mother she wants you.



In all seriousness, no one on here has been able to dispel the probability that the likelihood of a CD was used on those 3 buildings that day, especially taking into account how fast they fell.There is an alternate and more plausible explanation for what happened instead of the absurd story you need to believe. But then you would be faced with a dilemma you are not equipped to handle I guess.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 11, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > God you're stupid. I have shown you time after time that your precious website is wrong.
> ...



So, step by step, what is this alternate explanation?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 11, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


 Step by step, are you kidding? There's so much to put together to even begin to start, but I was referring to the destruction of the buildings, and when all is taken into account, the theory of CD is IMO more easily explained, but they positively can not go that route, at least not now. They could have in the very beginning though, that way all the witnesses saying they heard, felt, and saw explosions would not be a problem, or the time it took the buildings to collapse would be easily explained, they would still have to do some explaining as to who/how rigged it and how they got access and such and need some scape goats at the ready to throw under the bus, but the way it stands now they are looking like they lied and have to stick with what they say, even though it's crazy.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 11, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



I believe the witnesses who say they heard explosions, but I don't thinks they were hearing explosives. There are a lot of things that blow up in a fire that are not explosive charges. Transformers, computer monitors, battery backup systems, and compressed air tanks can all explode when heated.

My take is that the towers were extremely poorly designed, and that when the upper portion let go, the rest of the structure was unable to take the weight. Whoever decided that connecting the inner and outer columns by floor trusses connected by 4 bolts on each side should be taken somewhere and beaten to within an inch of their lives. And spray-on fireproofing??? That's just plain criminally negligent. They should have encased the trusses in concrete when they poured the floors.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 11, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...


it couldnt have taken the weight
the entire design of the building would have had to have been changed and it would have required a much larger core structure
and that would have taken the floor space away from the building to the point it wouldnt have been cost effective
since then new lighter weight types of concrete have been developed that make if possible to encase the steel for the fire protection, but doesnt increase the weight by the same factor


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 11, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> > I believe the witnesses who say they heard explosions, but I don't thinks they were hearing explosives. There are a lot of things that blow up in a fire that are not explosive charges. Transformers, computer monitors, battery backup systems, and compressed air tanks can all explode when heated.
> 
> 
> All true, and valid points. I've heard transformers explode and they are loud as hell, I've also seen a garage fire that had paint, and thinner etc blow, which were not as loud. I honestly think the loudest noise in that particular fire was the owners scream when his 440 6 pack 'Cuda was destroyed. But anyway, these folks description of the explosions, and the concussion they felt, taken together with the symmetrical collapse is just too much to ignore IMHO. Plus you got 3 buildings coming down the same way? I mean there are valid reasons to be skeptical and concerned. Plus the investigations were all fucked up, the put options, the flood of currency into the economy just prior to the attack, and scores of other coincidences and attachments people had....I just wish there was honesty in this world, it really bugs me that we can't trust our own government, and hope that this does not just fade away into history like other incidents..JFK etc.
> ...


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 11, 2011)

how do you explain that these "explosions" took place HOURS before the collapse?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 11, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > > I believe the witnesses who say they heard explosions, but I don't thinks they were hearing explosives. There are a lot of things that blow up in a fire that are not explosive charges. Transformers, computer monitors, battery backup systems, and compressed air tanks can all explode when heated.
> ...


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 12, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > *The World Trade Center was a strong, over-built edifice, an award-winning design, and no amount of fudging can sidestep the facts.*
> ...



*One, why do you insist on modifying my quotes, in clear violation of the rules of this board? Are you thumbing your nose at Gunny and his moderators with your blatant disregard of their policies?

Second, why are you so afraid to answer one simple question? After all, you posted the video that lead to it. *


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 12, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...



I didn't modify anything. 

_Jet fuel fires and carbon based fires could not implode and collapse symmetrically 2 110 story buildings built in the way you described. That is why a reinvestigation is required because the questions have not been answered and the answers have been fallacies. Hopefully soon this can be done, and people over at NYC Coalition For Accountability Now are hard at work to find the real reason to why such a strong, over-built office with an award winning design could explode into 3 stories and dust.

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 | Stand with the 911 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ? is a good place to check the facts of that day you might not have seen from the Main Stream Media or the Government._

Good day.


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 12, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


Your bullshit claim is the claim of an ignorant piece of shit who refuses to look at the facts and insists on lying about it.  Oh well.  You make truthtards look bad.  That is enough.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 12, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...



In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration._

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall?  NISTs lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object has no structural components below it.[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives.  If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NISTs initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7s destruction, NISTs claim contradicted a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7s free fall descent could have occurred.

However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]

In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure.  None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building.  The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.

Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:

What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall.  Acceleration doesnt build up gradually.  The graph [measuring the buildings descent] simply turns a corner.  The building went from full support to zero support instantly.

Secondly:

The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.

Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

REFERENCES

 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7  Draft for Public Comment, Washington, DC. August 2008. Chapter 3 p.41. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

[ii] NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008.  http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf Transcript p.16

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Quoted by David Ray Griffin, The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NISTs Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False, GlobalResearch.ca, September 14, 2009.  The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven

[v] NIST NCSTAR 1A, Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Washington, DC. November 2008. p.45 NIST and the World Trade Center

[vi] [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related[/ame]_


----------



## Obamerican (Jan 12, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


_Only a psychotic piece of shit posts the same shit over and over and then says that he will continue to post the same shit until EVERYONE believes it!!!_


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 12, 2011)

Obamerican said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...


_

They are facts.  Care to address them?  Or do you fear the truth?  Address each point if you really think they are 'psychotic piece of shit posts', because they aren't and you can't debunk them.  Facts are facts._


----------



## Obamerican (Jan 12, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


_I'm posting that YOU are a psychotic piece of shit. I am waiting for links that will prove me wrong. Show me where you are not a psychotic fucking asshole bent on trying to prove EVERYONE else wrong._


----------



## whitehall (Jan 12, 2011)

Here's a thought, the conspiracy theory centers around an alleged internal explosion or series of explosions that coincided with the time schedule of a bunch of jihad maniacs who hijacked two planes. The timing would be impossible to regulate. Why not take down the towers during the first attempt by the same nut cases ten years earlier when everything could be timed perfectly? With a little help from the phantom explosives near and dear to conspiracy theorist hearts the job could have been done in '92. Conclusion: the planes brought down the buildings. Live with it.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 12, 2011)

whitehall said:


> Here's a thought, the conspiracy theory centers around an alleged internal explosion or series of explosions that coincided with the time schedule of a bunch of jihad maniacs who hijacked two planes. The timing would be impossible to regulate. Why not take down the towers during the first attempt by the same nut cases ten years earlier when everything could be timed perfectly? With a little help from the phantom explosives near and dear to conspiracy theorist hearts the job could have been done in '92. Conclusion: the planes brought down the buildings. Live with it.



They also could have refined the '92 plan, parked bigger trucks full of stronger explosives right next to the core columns of both buildings, dropped both towers instantly, and still would have been able to blame it on Al-Quida based on the first attempt. And there would have been far fewer people involved. 

But instead, the truth movement wants to believe this multi-layered, complicated plot involving hundreds, if not thousands of people could be pulled off by an administration whose leader could not figure out the correct way to hold a book in front of grade school children.

Unbelievable.


----------



## eots (Jan 13, 2011)

whitehall said:


> Here's a thought, the conspiracy theory centers around an alleged internal explosion or series of explosions that coincided with the time schedule of a bunch of jihad maniacs who hijacked two planes. The timing would be impossible to regulate. Why not take down the towers during the first attempt by the same nut cases ten years earlier when everything could be timed perfectly? With a little help from the phantom explosives near and dear to conspiracy theorist hearts the job could have been done in '92. Conclusion: the planes brought down the buildings. Live with it.



the dullness of thought is breathtaking


----------



## elvis (Jan 13, 2011)

eots said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a thought, the conspiracy theory centers around an alleged internal explosion or series of explosions that coincided with the time schedule of a bunch of jihad maniacs who hijacked two planes. The timing would be impossible to regulate. Why not take down the towers during the first attempt by the same nut cases ten years earlier when everything could be timed perfectly? With a little help from the phantom explosives near and dear to conspiracy theorist hearts the job could have been done in '92. Conclusion: the planes brought down the buildings. Live with it.
> ...



I know.  Look what passes for television programming.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 13, 2011)

whitehall said:


> Here's a thought, the conspiracy theory centers around an alleged internal explosion or series of explosions that coincided with the time schedule of a bunch of jihad maniacs who hijacked two planes. The timing would be impossible to regulate. Why not take down the towers during the first attempt by the same nut cases ten years earlier when everything could be timed perfectly? With a little help from the phantom explosives near and dear to conspiracy theorist hearts the job could have been done in '92. Conclusion: the planes brought down the buildings. Live with it.



you have obviously not researched this one bit at all and only know the corporate controlled medias version they have brainwashed so many americans with. your doing what the title of this thread says-choosing YOUR facts you want to believe.you showed you can be objective and logical when you want to be like you were on your oklahoma city bombing thread,you might want to try that with 9/11 as well.better yet,read the posts of physics here and dont ignore them like the OCTA'S here choose to do.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 13, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a thought, the conspiracy theory centers around an alleged internal explosion or series of explosions that coincided with the time schedule of a bunch of jihad maniacs who hijacked two planes. The timing would be impossible to regulate. Why not take down the towers during the first attempt by the same nut cases ten years earlier when everything could be timed perfectly? With a little help from the phantom explosives near and dear to conspiracy theorist hearts the job could have been done in '92. Conclusion: the planes brought down the buildings. Live with it.
> ...


wow, this coming from someone that gets all his info from nutter troofer sites


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 13, 2011)

Obamerican said:


> I'm posting that YOU are a psychotic piece of shit. I am waiting for links that will prove me wrong. Show me where you are not a psychotic fucking asshole bent on trying to prove EVERYONE else wrong.


He posts proof all the time! You have no intelligent rebuttal for it, and resort to insults and attacking the messenger instead of the message and the people who started making these claims in the first place! 
The official version has been shown to be BS, admitted to by the very people involved, and documented in print and video, and no one on here has proven it isn't! You look a helluva lot more psychotic then this kid does


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 13, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > I'm posting that YOU are a psychotic piece of shit. I am waiting for links that will prove me wrong. Show me where you are not a psychotic fucking asshole bent on trying to prove EVERYONE else wrong.
> ...



I haven't seen any proof of this that would stand up in any court in the USA.


----------



## eots (Jan 13, 2011)

the authors of the NIST report certainly could not stand up to cross examination in a court room


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 13, 2011)

eots said:


> the authors of the NIST report certainly could not stand up to cross examination in a court room


 I'd like to see the writers of the 9-11 commission report be asked to elaborate about why they stated publicly, that the report is inaccurate.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 13, 2011)

> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a thought, the conspiracy theory centers around an alleged internal explosion or series of explosions that coincided with the time schedule of a bunch of jihad maniacs who hijacked two planes.
> ...


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 13, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> > whitehall said:
> >
> >
> > > Here's a thought, the conspiracy theory centers around an alleged internal explosion or series of explosions that coincided with the time schedule of a bunch of jihad maniacs who hijacked two planes.
> ...


----------



## candycorn (Jan 13, 2011)

Glad that loser is on ignore, I didn't waste 2.5 seconds of my time ignoring the spam


----------



## eots (Jan 14, 2011)

candycorn said:


> Glad that loser is on ignore, I didn't waste 2.5 seconds of my time ignoring the spam



Do us a big favour and put us all on ignore


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 14, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Obamerican said:
> ...




of course a moron like him would never see proof of it since only sees what he WANTS to see.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 14, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


^^^ ironic


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 14, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > I'm posting that YOU are a psychotic piece of shit. I am waiting for links that will prove me wrong. Show me where you are not a psychotic fucking asshole bent on trying to prove EVERYONE else wrong.
> ...



 could not have said it better myself. there should be some rule here at this site that kids like divecunt and this troll are not allowed to post.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 14, 2011)

Mr Jones and Physics Exist,sure was fun watching you take the OCTA'S to school here and give them some major ass beatings like you just did these last couple of pages.
 you both pretty much closed the case right there.as we know,they will come back and post B.s to try and save face in their posts though as they always do. but it will do know good,they know that you guys won the debate.lol.


----------



## Fizz (Jan 14, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> 2.25 seconds of free fall PROVES controlled demolition.



liar!!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 14, 2011)

Fizz said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > 2.25 seconds of free fall PROVES controlled demolition.
> ...



He's still repeating that BS?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 15, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


_

well done. our government would not lie to us about 9/11 now would they? or WOULD they? the OCTA'S here like Whitehall might want to take a look at this video.
_


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 15, 2011)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Glad that loser is on ignore, I didn't waste 2.5 seconds of my time ignoring the spam
> ...



exactly.Candy troll aka Obamamerica and divecunt are pathetic kids here seeking attention.they prove that in spades because they make morons out of themselves here everyday talking to themselves by addressing the posts of people such as myself they know has them on ignore. I'll give Gomer Pyle Ollie credit,at least HE isnt a kid seeking attention like those two are.He doesnt reply to my posts anymore and did me a favor not too long ago by putting me on ignore.divecunt and candytroll could take a good lesson and learn from him not to make a fool out of yourself to reply to someone who has you on ignore.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 15, 2011)

the OCTA'S always grasp at straws trying to debunk the testimony of Willie Rodriguez but they cant.This video is everything you need to know about the collapse of the towers and what caused it.everything else said in this thread by the OCTA'S is all irrevent.


Like monkeys,they can only sling shit in defeat.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 15, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


whats really funny is how you respond to people you CLAIM you have on ignore


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 15, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> the OCTA'S always grasp at straws trying to debunk the testimony of Willie Rodriguez but they cant.This video is everything you need to know about the collapse of the towers and what caused it.everything else said in this thread by the OCTA'S is all irrevent.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4FIvaBjnbE
> 
> Like monkeys,they can only sling shit in defeat.


yeah, cause him changing his story is not important

moron


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 15, 2011)

DiveCon said:


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



LOL and he still talks shit about me, glad to know I still get under it's skin....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 15, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > the OCTA'S always grasp at straws trying to debunk the testimony of Willie Rodriguez but they cant.This video is everything you need to know about the collapse of the towers and what caused it.everything else said in this thread by the OCTA'S is all irrevent.
> ...





> In 2005, Rodriguez made this claim: "I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower." Source  Yet the handwritten notes by his two interviewers show no such claims about explosives, just as Rodriguez made no such claim in TV interviews in 2001 and 2002, in his statement to NIST, or in his 2004 conspiracy lawsuit against the United States.
> 
> Likewise, the notes show that Rodriguez made no mention of suspicions that the attacks were a U.S. government "inside job" and subsequent cover-up, or that his accounts of that day were censored by the anyone.



911stories


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 15, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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



lol.just when i was starting to give you crediblity you prove you have none because you have been caught lying.you said you had me on ignore. NOW you prove you were lying by responding ,not only do you lie here disinfo agent,you lie as well saying he has changed his story when he hasnt.thanks for proving how you lie all the time. oh and I did not respond to you moron,i was telling the truthers how you are a moron,hate to break your heart but thats NOT replying to you,big difference there idiot.. you make Gomer pyle look like a genius.the sad thing is You are real and he isnt. "rolls on floor laughing." as usual,you use a dewb bunker dis info website that has been debunked  as your source.I love it..oh I forgot. you have me on ignore.  yet your replying to my posts.I love it.your hysterical. you should start a comedy routine.your off to a good start with that dewb bunker link.

what Gomer Pyle Ollie fails to mention is that dewb bunker link has been proven false with misinformation and lies.example it says that he has made a fortune going on tours and crap like that when the TRUTH is,he has been finiancially ruined.your lies are amusing Gomer.you not only show a link that is lies,you lie about me being on your ignore list liar.you and Bill "I never had sex with this woman" clinton,should get together,you,divecunt and him could start a threesome.hahahahaa


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 15, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


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


he replied to MY post, moron, he doesnt have ME on ignore


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 15, 2011)

hey divecunt troll,having fun talking to yourself and kissing your lovers ass?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 15, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> hey divecunt troll,having fun talking to yourself and kissing your lovers ass?


naw, thats what you do


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 15, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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



i just proved you amuse me with your lies.I proved to everybody right here YOU talk shit CLAIMING you have me on ignore yet your addressing and replying to me. looks like that ignore button is working great for you Gomer

.as always you amuse me. thats why i dont put YOU on ignore like candyfag and divecunt,YOU always amuse  me with your lies like that dewb debunker link. I'll assume since your lover divecunt replied,his answer was yes to me? lol. I didnt claim i had you on ignore,YOU claimed you have ME on ignore. or is your memory so god awful you already forgot that? must I go back and hunt for that where you said you had me on your ignore list? lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 15, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Physics Exist hit the nail right on the  head about you Gomer. YOU ignore facts,this is your pathetic reply and comeback you have after he gave you a major ass beating here?  as usual,you give me great comedy relief.you seriously should hook up with your lovers divecunt,candyfag and hunt down  Bill Clinton and form a comedy club,"the foursome liars" you can call yourselfs.

Like Physics Exist said you have NOTHING but dewb bunker links full of proven lies and disinformation to go by.Physics thinks your in denial,what he doesnt know  though, is that like we both know,you know it was an inside job and explosives brought the towers down and like the troll you are,your just coming here to post lies and bullshit cause thats what your handlers pay you and fellow trolls candyfag and moron in the hat to do.no way would you keep coming back all the time for the ass beatings you get for free as we both know.lol.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 15, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Shut the fuck up douche bag.  The library closes soon.  Go home and pretend you matter.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 15, 2011)

I can see Gomer you called in your other lover gay boy disinfo agent.lol

that being said,like i said before,all you agents can do is fling shit in defeat like the monkeys you are and come back with pathetic and amusing lies like that dewb bunker link and your pathetic reply to physics exist.keep it up with the lies Gomer,you DO amuse me constantly.which AGAIN is why I dont have you on ignore like you want to think i do. again since you have bad memory,unlike fellow trolls candyfag and divecunt,YOU amuse me so I dont put YOU on ignore. all for now and today.gotta run.some of us arent paid to come here all day long and blantly ignore evidence and facts and post bullcrap like you and candyfag gomer.some of us have honest jobs.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 15, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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



Look at his Wikipedia page; you'll probably want to bathe after reading it.  Rodriguez is a slimeball.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 15, 2011)

as usual candyfag,you prove like divecunt does,how pathetic your life is and what an attention seeker you are by talking to yourself.how pathetic. enough for the day.like i said,some of us candytroll arent paid to troll like you guys are.some of us have real HONEST jobs.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 15, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> as usual candyfag,you prove like divecunt does,how pathetic your life is and what an attention seeker you are by talking to yourself.how pathetic. enough for the day.like i said,some of us candytroll arent paid to troll like you guys are.some of us have real HONEST jobs.


IRONY

he haz its'


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 15, 2011)

DiveCon said:


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



LOL, I even own his ass when I have him on ignore......

Oh that is so rich.

Fucking dumbass doesn't know I see his posts if someone reposts it...


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 15, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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


he's not that bright


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 15, 2011)

candycorn said:


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



Is it illegal to shoot dumbasses? This boy has lost it. He doesn't even remember why he is on ignore.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 15, 2011)

candycorn said:


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



There is no need we already know he's a liar.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 15, 2011)

DiveCon said:


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



Yeah, well, he/she/it has proved that many times.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 15, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> as usual candyfag,you prove like divecunt does,how pathetic your life is and what an attention seeker you are by talking to yourself.how pathetic. enough for the day.like i said,some of us candytroll arent paid to troll like you guys are.some of us have real HONEST jobs.



You're the one on public assistance; not me.
You're the one having to peel internet off the public library; not me.
Your'e the one continuously posting on AWE.com where nobody goes anymore; not me.

Fuck you and the horse you likely fucked this morning.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 15, 2011)

candycorn said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > as usual candyfag,you prove like divecunt does,how pathetic your life is and what an attention seeker you are by talking to yourself.how pathetic. enough for the day.like i said,some of us candytroll arent paid to troll like you guys are.some of us have real HONEST jobs.
> ...


correction: the horse that shat him out


----------



## eots (Jan 15, 2011)

> [candycorn;
> You're the one on public assistance; not me.You're the one having to peel internet off the public library; not me.



You try to elevate yourself by fantasizing that the other person is on assistance and at the library using the Internet... how pathetic are you ?




> *Your'e* the one continuously posting on AWE.com where nobody goes anymore; not me.




Nobody ? there is a message board but nobody post there ?.. but you go there and read all of 9/11s post ? ...wtf is wrong with you ?




> Fuck you and the horse you likely fucked this morning




Now your imaginings go to beastiality ? wow are you creepy


----------



## eots (Jan 15, 2011)

DiveCon said:


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



What kind of homo says shat ??


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 15, 2011)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


you
clearly you are not familiar with the English language


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 15, 2011)

Another one wanting to make a fool of themselves on this thread?


----------



## eots (Jan 15, 2011)

DiveCon said:


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



Ii didnt say it was not a word homo..


----------



## eots (Jan 15, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Another one wanting to make a fool of themselves on this thread?



did you mumble something old man ?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 15, 2011)

eots said:


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


seems like you have some homophobia, better have that looked at next time you see your shrink


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 15, 2011)

No, I believe I'm normally rather well spoken. Unless of course you have a problem reading.


----------



## eots (Jan 15, 2011)

DiveCon said:


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



Its a generic term ..all gays don't uses homo words like shat and not all those that use homo words are gay


----------



## Obamerican (Jan 15, 2011)

eots said:


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


SFC Ollie has a MUCH better grasp of the English language. And you should really kick 9/11 Inside Job off your team. He's a fucking idiot.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 15, 2011)

Obamerican said:


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


they cant afford to
every team needs cheerleaders


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 16, 2011)

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 | Stand with the 911 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 16, 2011)

PE spams again


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 16, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> BuildingWhat? - Building 7 | Stand with the 911 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 16, 2011)




----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 16, 2011)

*Building 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that was part of the World Trade Center complex. It would have been the tallest high-rise in 33 states. It collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, 2001. It was not hit by an airplane and suffered minimal damage compared to other buildings much closer to the Twin Towers.*

Video compilation of Building 7&#8216;s destruction (no sound):
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg&feature=player_embedded[/ame]
BUILDING 7 IN RELATION TO THE REST OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER COMPLEX:





*The Origin of &#8220;BuildingWhat?&#8221;*


> More than eight years after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, New York Supreme Court Justice Edward H. Lehner was hearing arguments in a courtroom less than a mile from Ground Zero about a ballot initiative to launch a new investigation of the 9/11 attacks. When the lawyer for the plaintiffs sponsoring the initiative explained that the 9/11 Commission report left many unanswered questions, including &#8220;Why did Building 7 come down,&#8221; the Judge replied quizzically, &#8220;Building what?&#8221;
> 
> Like Judge Lehner, millions of people do not know or remember only vaguely that a third tower called World Trade Center Building 7 also collapsed on September 11, 2001. In any other situation, the complete, free fall collapse of a 47-story skyscraper would be played over and over on the news. It would be discussed for years to come and building design codes would be completely rewritten. So, why does no one know about Building 7? And why did Building 7 come down?
> 
> The answers to these questions have far-reaching implications for our society. The goal of the &#8220;BuildingWhat?&#8221; campaign is to raise awareness of Building 7 so that together we can begin to address these questions.



_In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration.

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall?  NIST&#8217;s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object &#8220;has no structural components below it.&#8221;[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives.  If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST&#8217;s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7&#8217;s destruction, NIST&#8217;s claim contradicted &#8220;a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.&#8221;[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, &#8220;Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.&#8221;[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, &#8220;This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].&#8221;[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7&#8217;s free fall descent could have occurred._

*Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

&#8220;The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.&#8221;

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.*

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related[/ame]

Anyone care to address these facts?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 16, 2011)

and PE spams again


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 16, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> *Building 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that was part of the World Trade Center complex. It would have been the tallest high-rise in 33 states. It collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, 2001. It was not hit by an airplane and suffered minimal damage compared to other buildings much closer to the Twin Towers.*
> 
> Video compilation of Building 7s destruction (no sound):
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg&feature=player_embedded
> ...


----------



## Fizz (Jan 16, 2011)

anybody find any explosive demolitions yet? 


i didnt think so...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 16, 2011)

Fizz said:


> anybody find any explosive demolitions yet?
> 
> 
> i didnt think so...


A incendiary chemical was discovered.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 16, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > anybody find any explosive demolitions yet?
> ...


only if you believe that idiot jones


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 17, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Or FEMA?

*Official FEMA scientists Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, and R. D. Sisson, Jr. study sulfur found from the steel of wtc:*

_In Appendix C of FEMA's May 1, 2002 "investigative" report on why the towers collapsed, reference was made to a corrosive substance found on WTC steel: "The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of samples 1 and 2 constitute an unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified."

Source: [link to www.fema.gov] 

This called for further study, to determine what the source of this sulfur was, and what caused the steel to severely erode and corrode. But was this done? NIST, whose job it was to conduct such an investigation in order to silence skeptics, admits that it did no such thing:

"NIST did not test for the residue of...[explosive] compounds in the steel....NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers."

Source: [link to wtc.nist.gov] _

or this guy?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23n0Vr_A1TQ&feature=related[/ame]

Or him?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82ialxI0SvE&feature=related[/ame]

Or this?

Care to address your slander DiveCoward?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 17, 2011)

you are a fucking IDIOT and so are those morons


----------



## Ozmar (Jan 17, 2011)

lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 18, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



again you agents amuse me.as always you agents have to use wikipedia as a soucre material when everybody knows wiki can type in anything they want there. great comedy material as always Gomer.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 18, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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



yeah I guess it makes me not  bright in the fact that I dont worship the corporate controlled media and corrupt goverment agencys as the truth.Im not very bright since i listen to credible witnesses such as firefighters,demolition experts,architects,engineers and scientists from around the world and top ranking military experts as well. Im not very bright Gomer thinks since I go by what the laws of physics scientists have gove by for thousands of years. when you going to hook up with the man you worship Bill "I never had sex with this woman: Clinton and get that comedy routine started?  you seriously should consider it. great classic comedy material as usual Gomer,you kill me.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 18, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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




fucking dumbass you are alright. yeah your so interested in ignoring my posts,thats why you read them when someone reposts them. oh THAT is so rich Gomer. 

you STILL cant dodge the FACTS that since i have your lovers divecunt and candyfag on ignore,that their thier lives are so pathetic and sad they seek attention cause they still talk to themselves addressing my posts.How pathetic. you also prove in spades you are reading my posts after CLAIMING you have me on ignore is the ONLY reason I am not being a moron like those two lovers of yours are by replying to you. again looks like that ignore button is working great for you,thats why you address my posts.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 18, 2011)

eots said:


> > [candycorn;
> > You're the one on public assistance; not me.You're the one having to peel internet off the public library; not me.
> 
> 
> ...



yeah thats pretty hysterical and pathetic alright that he likes to fantasize that Im on assistance and at the library alright. funny how he likes to try and elevate himself that way alright.

proof that he is the biggest idiot that ever lived.like you said,funny that he thinks NOBODY goes to AWE anymore. just because him and his lover gomer dont go there,he automatically says NOBODY goes there anymore to post.great comedy routine,no wonder these two lovers hooked up.their posts is the most hysterical comedy relief.

sure is creepy,funny how him and divecunt  dodge the facts that they seek attention replying to someone who has him on ignore by evading it not addressing that and bringing up something else irrelevent.Thats how the troll ALWAYS acts in his debates,he evades things as you already know by dodging the points and bringing up something else irrelevent. Thats WHY I put the troll ignore ages ago. their comedy routines is too much,i cant take it anymore,i got to take a break from here for a while,this is just too much.that last comment of his,that logic he has that cause him and gomer have no interest in AWE anymore,that they automatically think NOBODY goes there anymore to post is so much  the funniest comedy routine he has EVER come up with before since he got here.His comedy kills me.he will never be able to top that one.priceless,that one was the ultimate bomb. im glad YOU can tolerate the troll and still read his posts otherwise i would have missed out on that great bit he came up with.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 18, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



At least we don't have to use the public library...musta sucked yesterday with the welfare offices closed...libraries closed...; generally the only real life humans that talk to you  only because they're forced.  

PS: Fuck you.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 18, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> Im not very bright



You said it!


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 18, 2011)

candycorn said:


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



What kind of woman are you?  It's gross listening to someone this ignorant and naive talk with such anger.  It's grossing me out.

physics are physics.  Science is Science.  Video evidence is video evidence.  Witnesses are Witnesses.  Government Reports? What are those?  That is what you base your beliefs off of ONLY?  Why don't you look at some alternate theories that involve FACTS.  Wouldn't you like to know the truth of why we attacked Afghanistan?  Why we are in debt?  Why 3,000 people were brutally murdered?  Why the patriot act was enacted?  Why TSA and DHS exist?  Do you really not CARE?  That is so disheartening to think about, but I think its true, you don't give a shit about any of it.  Or it's cognitive dissonance.

NIST Collapse Model
*More than six years after starting its investigation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued its final report on Building 7 in November 2008.  The most important part of NIST&#8217;s report was a collapse model that bore no resemblance to the observed collapse.  In Part 3 of NIST Finally Admits Freefall, Mr. Chandler explains the centrality of the model in NIST&#8217;s investigation:*

_&#8220;NIST&#8217;s so-called investigation actually consists of finding a way to reproduce the mysterious collapse of the building using a computer model.  The assumption is that if the computer model can be made to reproduce the observed collapse pattern, that must be how it happened&#8230; The very process of running the model until it produces the kind of results you&#8217;re looking for is called selection bias.  If you think about it, NIST&#8217;s methodology is explicitly based on selection bias.  Even if you can show what might have happened, it doesn&#8217;t show what actually did happen.&#8221;_

*Despite adjusting its inputs to achieve the desired result, the NIST model does not come close to reproducing the observed collapse:*






*This is also apparent by watching the two video animations of NIST&#8217;s collapse model and comparing them to video footage of the observed collapse.*

WTC 7 NIST MODEL VS. REALITY

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=player_embedded[/ame]



> *The clearest discrepancy is the deformation of the external structure in the model, which does not occur in the observed collapse.  Mr. Chandler identifies a second glaring discrepancy, saying:*
> 
> &#8220;One fact we do know about NIST&#8217;s model is it does not allow for free fall.  The best they could do is 5.4 seconds for the building to crumple down through 18 floors.  Crumpling absorbs energy, and that makes free fall impossible.  There&#8217;s nothing in the models we have been shown that even resemble a three-stage collapse with a free fall component.  After all, as Shyam Sunder put it himself, &#8216;free fall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building.&#8217;  Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these don&#8217;t happen instantaneously.&#8221;
> 
> ...



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related[/ame]

What does it take for you to accept these facts?  Why won't you acknowledge them?  What are you afraid of?

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 | Stand with the 911 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 18, 2011)

Oh look.  The shit head simpleton is repeating his bullshit again!  Anyone surprised?  Anyone?  Anyone?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 18, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> Oh look.  The shit head simpleton is repeating his bullshit again!  Anyone surprised?  Anyone?  Anyone?



And he probably has his fingers in his ears and singing la lalalalalal lalala lalalalala


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 19, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > > [candycorn;
> ...



i still cant get over how pathetic and sad your life is candyfag that you dodge the facts that you and divecunt  seek attention so much by talking to yourselfs addressing the posts of someone who has you on ignore.

that it the most pathetic sad life anybody can possibly have you dodge that fact by bringing up something so totally irrelevent such as how many people post at AWE.priceless.i love it. i hate it when people give you the attention you seek by replying to you,makes my ignore button ineffective.grrrrrr. 

well since he DID reply to you and i was curious what he was talking about,i cant get over your logic that cause YOU and Gomer  dont go there anymore to post,NOBODY does.you kill me.

 and better yet,like eots said,you go there to read my posts,you gave that away by saying you know that i still go there. you will never top that one,thats just the ulitmate bomb,the riot of the century. i really need to take my own cue and stop replying to you now cause im just giving you the attention you desperately seek.nobody goes there to post anymore according to you,but your life is so sad you go there to read my posts,i love it.best comedy material ever. you,divecunt and gomer need to compare your notes when hooking up with clinton to get that comedy routine started.again call it the 4 most honest people in the world group. I just had to mention that one more time,could not resist.cause like i said,that one tops all of your comedy routines you have.hahahahahahaha.you'll never be able to top THAT one.you can be amusing at times,i give you credit for that. nobody goes there to AWE anymore,thats why YOU go there. to read the posts of sept 11th. I love it.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 19, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


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



you got to remember,these people you are addressing,arent just people in denial and  afraid of the truth like a lot of them that post here ARE,the ones YOU been talking to are government disinformation agents just doing what their handlers pay them to do,come here and post disinformation,propaganda and lies,thats why they wont accept the facts or acknowledge them and can only came back with childish insults like fuck off and name calling.thats what they always do when they cant refute the evidence or facts.most the people that come on that are not agents and are just in denial and afraid,you'll find their too afraid to deal with evidence and facts,that they wont even address your points and will just leave when confronted with evidence and facts.they dont keep coming back constantly posting propaganda and lies like these trolls do.thats how you can distinguish the ones afraid and in denial,over the ones that are paid agents,the ones that arent,leave and dont come back.they dont devote themselves to coming here to the conspiracy section and posting propaganda and lies like these agents you have been talking to do.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 19, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


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



these agents can only fling shit in defeat like the trolls they are cause they KNOW they cant get around these facts.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 19, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


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


LOL yeah, we are all "agents"

LOL


----------



## eots (Jan 19, 2011)

DiveCon said:


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



No not all there is the odd uniformed dupe that drops by and makes a post or two and then there are the well informed but mental ones such as yourself and then the paid trolls


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 19, 2011)

eots said:


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


wow, massive IRONY alert


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 19, 2011)

I wonder who I should contact about getting a raise?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 19, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> I wonder who I should contact about getting a raise?


when you find out, let me know
i'd love to get a piece of that action


----------



## Obamerican (Jan 20, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


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


Shut the fuck up, you little worm. Your own "side" doesn't even talk to you, ass wipe.


----------



## eots (Jan 21, 2011)

*Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77
FDR Data Exceeds Capabilities Of A 757, Does Not Support Impact With Pentagon *



(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Flight Data Recorder Expert Dennis Cimino has confirmed that the data being provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is missing crucial information, which according to Dennis, should be present and link the data to a specific aircraft and fleet. The NTSB provided three sets of data through the FOIA for what they claim is from American 77, N644AA. A csv file, an animation reconstruction and a raw data file. Rob Balsamo of Pilots For 9/11 Truth along with numerous other aviation experts, including trained Aircraft Accident Investigators have analyzed these files and determined they do not support an impact with the Pentagon. The data also exceeds the design limitations and capabilities of a standard 757 by a wide margin. This is based on data, precedent and numerous verified experts, including those who have actual flight time in the aircraft reportedly used for the 9/11 attacks (See - "Flight Of American 77", "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" and "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" at Pilotsfor911Truth.org for full detailed analysis and interviews). 

A paper was recently published by the mentioned computer "expert" along with an alleged Chemist as the authors. They claim the extra 4 seconds support an impact with the Pentagon. They base this claim on a Radio Altimeter parameter in which the NTSB has listed as "Not Working or Unconfirmed" in the NTSB FDR Report(1). When cross-checked with the "Working and Confirmed" Primary Altimeter True Altitude data, the aircraft is still too high to hit the Pentagon(2). This can only mean that the Radio Altimeter was measuring from an object above ground level. 

Radio Altimeters do not guarantee measurement from the ground. The device measures whatever object you are flying over within a certain range (a building, trees... etc). The tracking capability of the Radio altimeter is 330 feet per second, or a little under 200 knots(3). According to the data, the aircraft was traveling at a speed of 460-480 knots. Well outside the limits of the Radio Altimeter tracking capability, not to mention well outside the capabilities of a standard 757. 

Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking Fdr Data To American 77 - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 22, 2011)

eots said:


> *Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77
> FDR Data Exceeds Capabilities Of A 757, Does Not Support Impact With Pentagon *
> 
> 
> ...



Somewhere around 100 eye witnesses says he is wrong.


----------



## eots (Jan 22, 2011)

*Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career.*  Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University.  Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System.  Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001). 
Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06:  Account of Lt. Col. 


*Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11*.  "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ... 

It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics.  The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ... 

There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact.  Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ... 

I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident. 

The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.  

The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ... 

More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day."

Member: Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven  Association Statement: "We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations."



Bio: militaryweek.com

http://patriotsquestion911.com/


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 22, 2011)

eots said:


> *Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret)  Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career.*  Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University.  Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System.  Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001).
> Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06:  Account of Lt. Col.
> 
> 
> ...



Really?


----------



## eots (Jan 22, 2011)

lol


----------



## eots (Jan 22, 2011)

so where is the air craft ?


----------



## eots (Jan 22, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret)  Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career.*  Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University.  Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System.  Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001).
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 22, 2011)

Why would you like to know? You don't want to believe the truth anyway. Even though you have been presented evidence probably over a thousand times you still ignore it. So where is the aircraft? Up your ass for all I give a damn.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 22, 2011)

eots said:


> how can those big spools of wire be sitting undisturbed in front of the hole ???


they werent "in front" of the hole, moron


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 22, 2011)

These spools?

"This photograph by Jason Ingersoll shows the impact hole center extending to the second floor and punctured walls to its right. Punctured walls to the left of the hole center are obscured by smoke. The cluster of three spools which appears close to the facade is actually about 80 feet away from it, to its right. "

The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 22, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Somewhere around 100 eye witnesses says he is wrong.


 I didn't think eyewitnesses meant much to you? You always ignore the eyewitnesses at ground zero who heard, felt, and experienced explosions.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 22, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Somewhere around 100 eye witnesses says he is wrong.
> ...


they heard SOUNDS
and there are multiple items that would give explosive sounds in an office fire


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 22, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Somewhere around 100 eye witnesses says he is wrong.
> ...



See, there you go proving that you have ADD. I never ignored any witness. I have many times tried to make you understand that what they heard was not the same thing as a controlled demolition. We all know there were secondary explosions, there had to be. But they did not bring down the buildings.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 22, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Somewhere around 100 eye witnesses says he is wrong.
> ...



nor do demolition experts.,architects,engineers or credible witnesses such as firefighters that are experienced in sounds of demolitions mean nothing to him. pounds table laughing.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 22, 2011)

eots said:


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



yeah please stop putting words in my mouth.divecunt YOU are just a kid troll who seeks attention,then there are the Bush dupes who are afraid of the truth who cover their ears and eyes when confronted with evidence and facts such as Elvis and Toto,ect ect,then there are the paid agents like  fellow attention seeker candytroll,Gomer Ollie,fizz,gamolon,moron in the hat and slackass.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 22, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


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


fuck off you pedantic PoS


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 22, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


for every 1 "expert" you show, we can show THOUSANDS that disagree
you are pathetic morons


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 22, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


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



When are you going to reveal to me the agency who is paying me so that I can contact them to get my money?

I haven't received any checks from them, and am starting to get pissed.

Oh, and here's something to watch while you're gathering the information for me.


----------



## Obamerican (Jan 22, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


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


Fuck off, you piece of shit.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 25, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


 First you ignore explosions, then you ignored witnesses hearing explosions, now you admit they did hear explosions but you ignore the significance of their statements by minimizing what they actually heard and said and saw. The definition of an explosion is-according to the NFPA (National Fire Protection Agency)         
fire and arson testing definitions of explosions- chapter 18--"Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not, an essential element in the definition of an explosion, the generation and violent escape of gasses, are the primary criteria of an explosion.
So this specific guildline alone is reason alone to test for explosives! 

During an investigation, many things must be considered. Aside from the physical evidence, and witness testimony, suspect criminal history also must be analyzed. The investigation must include past history and the Modus Operandi, &#8220;M.O.&#8221; for short. 

Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth  Blog Archive  Extremism- N.F.P.A. 921- 19.4.8.2.6

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1bogWhbmzk&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

"Now, let&#8217;s be clear. Explosion sounds can be explained away. But, only after a thorough investigation. When there is this much witness testimony, evidence, and explosive use by terrorists on this very same complex, there is no excuse for refusing to test for explosive residue."-Firefightersfor9-11truth


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 25, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Ever wonder why not a single member of the FDNY who was present at ground zero on 9/11 is a member of fucktardfirefightersfor911truth?  

You stupid fuckers will NEVER get a new investigation for numerous reasons, the primary of which is that you stupid fuckers will never actually believe any investigation that doesn't say what you want to hear.  You're not interested in the truth, you're interested in proving a conspiracy that doesn't exist.

You talk about explosions yet ignore critical evidence when explosions would HAVE to be occuring.

We have video tape evidence where you can clearly hear the collapse of WTC 7, yet you don't even hear something as loud as a firecracker before or during the collapse.  Not one of you assholes can explain it, so you just ignore it.

Over a dozen people survived the collapse of the North tower by surviving in the very place you ignorant fucks pretend explosives were planted, yet didn't hear explosions; just the approaching collapse.  Not one of you assholes can explain it, so you just ignore it.

So how exactly do you propse truthtards would investigate the "explosions"?  All you can do at this point over nine years later is make conjecture.  We all know how dishonest truthtards are about conjecture.


----------



## eots (Jan 25, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 25, 2011)

eots said:


> that's not true ..why do you just make shit up ?


So says the ignorant ass that can't produce an FDNY firefighter who is a member of fucktardfirefightersfor911truth.  If you're going to accuse someone of making shit up, the least you can do is provide evidence.  Your "good word" isn't worth shit, so just making a claim isn't going to cut it.



> You stupid fuckers will NEVER get a new investigation for numerous reasons, the primary of which is that you stupid fuckers will never actually believe any investigation that doesn't say what you want to hear.


I think that would be your projections[/QUOTE]
Really?  So why is it you stupid fucks constantly ignore evidence as I pointed out in my response?  Why can't you address the video that shows no explosions at WTC 7 before, during or after the collapse?  Why can't you address the fact that the survivors of the North tower collapse did not hear explosives going off in the core like truthtards always claim.  All they heard was the collapse.

Meanwhile, what evidence have YOU brought to the table?  Absolutely none.  You bring opinion, outright lies, and misinformation, but no actual evidence.  So how can I be "projecting" ignoring evidence when you have yet to actually bring a piece of real evidence to the table?  It doesn't take a genius to realize it is the truthtards who ignore everything they don't like.


----------



## eots (Jan 25, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > that's not true ..why do you just make shit up ?
> ...





> Really?  So why is it you stupid fucks constantly ignore evidence as I pointed out in my response?  Why can't you address the video that shows no explosions at WTC 7 before, during or after the collapse?  Why can't you address the fact that the survivors of the North tower collapse did not hear explosives going off in the core like truthtards always claim.  All they heard was the collapse.
> 
> Meanwhile, what evidence have YOU brought to the table?  Absolutely none.  You bring opinion, outright lies, and misinformation, but no actual evidence.  So how can I be "projecting" ignoring evidence when you have yet to actually bring a piece of real evidence to the table?  It doesn't take a genius to realize it is the truthtards who ignore everything they don't like



You made the statement first why don't you provide the proof ..why should i take the time to post the link ..you would just call the person a fucktard and then throw up your next smoke screen...you have just made all kinds of  statements and not backed a single one with a link


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 25, 2011)

Translation:

We can't prove there was ever any controlled demolition because there were no explosions!

Stop asking us for proof. Just believe. believe believe believe believe believe believe believe


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 25, 2011)

eots said:


> You made the statement first why don't you provide the proof ..why should i take the time to post the link ..you would just call the person a fucktard and then throw up your next smoke screen...you have just made all kinds of  statements and not backed a single one with a link



Back when Firefightersfor911truth first came out and published their members, there wasn't a single FDNY member among them.  Most of them are from Seattle.  Now, if you have evidence one of their members is from the FDNY and was there on 9/11, I would be happy to retract my statement.  As it is, there is no evidence there is any FDNY firefighters who were at ground zero on 9/11 among their members.

BTW, rarely is a person evidence.  You throw out a lot of stupid fucks who give their OPINION of what is going on, but opinions are not evidence.  

So what links would you like to see?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-WZpXiEKAo]WTC 7 Collapse[/ame]

Listen closely.  You can hear the collapse.  You can't hear the massive explosions you truthtards like to pretend were going off to cut all the columns simultaniously to produce the free fall acceleration.  Now go on ignoring it like a good little truthtard.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWiCxz5ki80]Miracle in stairwell B[/ame]

Listen to their stories.  These are people not giving opinion, but telling what they actually experienced.  Now go ahead and ignore these people who clearly refute the claims of controlled demolition in a way nobody else ever can.  

So there you have two pieces of incontrovertible evidence there was no controlled demolition.

Now let's see your evidence.  Go ahead.  Produce it.


----------



## eots (Jan 25, 2011)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln_WiAxiIbg&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## eots (Jan 25, 2011)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9bmnIISrvg&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## eots (Jan 25, 2011)




----------



## eots (Jan 25, 2011)




----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 25, 2011)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS3nbgTqufE



You have a person's OPINION.  When are you fucking dishonest people going to get through your little pea brains that OPINIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE.  

WTC 7 didn't fall into its own footprint and despite this liar's claims, the post office and Verizon buildings both suffered significant damage from the debris of WTC 7.

This asshole is trying to say there was only smoke coming from one corner of the south face.    What.... he thinks no videos exist of the fires?  No clear shots exist of the south face because of all the smoke coming from practically the entire building.  

I gave up listening to this now proven lying piece of shit at that point.  Come on, eots.  Can't you do any better than that?!?


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 25, 2011)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln_WiAxiIbg&feature=related



Craig Bartmer's testimony can be directly refuted by watching the video of WTC 7 coming down.  How can one man claim massive explosions and yet we hear NOTHING but the collapse?  You still haven't addressed the video where you can't hear the supposed explosions.  Direct video and audio recordings trump a witness when the recordings directly refute the statements of the witness.


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 25, 2011)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTcGA07eJ50


Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has one.  This guy's opinion smells like the worst ass imaginable.



			
				eots said:
			
		

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlAkF7E2nCs


Pretending explosions always come from explosives is as childish as pretending smoke aways comes from fire.  People with a higher than first grade education understand such simple differentiations.  Why can't you?


----------



## eots (Jan 25, 2011)

Again the nitwit makes more false claims ..and does not acknowledge the ones he just made


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 25, 2011)

eots said:


> Again the nitwit makes more false claims ..and does not acknowledge the ones he just made


what was false?
other than your bullshit


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 25, 2011)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln_WiAxiIbg&feature=related



Your man got there "a little bit after 5 o'clock" and he walked around the building? I thought they had established a safety perimeter, seems to me i remember hearing that. So how close could he have gotten to the building? And he didn't see a hole in the building bad enough to bring it down? Yet one of the fire chiefs said ten floors were scoped out 25% into the building? You need a better witness.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 25, 2011)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTcGA07eJ50
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlAkF7E2nCs



So was it controlled demolition, secondary explosions, or super thermite? You just can't have all three.


----------



## eots (Jan 25, 2011)

sfc ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln_wiaxiibg&feature=related
> ...



The claim 25 % was "scoped out" is in complete and total contradiction to the findings of NIST and if correct would complete invalidate the computer simulation and the NIST progressive collapse theory....nitwit


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 25, 2011)

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


really?
where did NIST say that this was not true?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 25, 2011)

I believe i have always said that they got all the major points right. Besides that, I will believe a fire chief who was in the area all day before a guy who shows up less than 20 minutes before the building comes down. But hey, that's just me.


----------



## eots (Jan 25, 2011)

sfc ollie said:


> i believe i have always said that they got all the major points right. Besides that, i will believe a fire chief who was in the area all day before a guy who shows up less than 20 minutes before the building comes down. But hey, that's just me.



well then there is little question you are a simple minded loon that has no clue what he is talking about ...you can not have it both ways if the one person claiming 25% was  scoped out is correct then the nist report can not possible have all the major points right...and the computer simulation would be complete invalid..do you really not comprehend that fact ??


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 25, 2011)

I don't live my life fantasizing about what happened on 9-11-01. I have read the official reports and i have seen most of the conspiracy videos. I can use common sense when a guy tells me he was in the area less than 20 minutes and when someone else tells a different story. I can tell when there were hundreds of people in a building before the planes hit and one of them claims there was an explosion that none of the others heard, that he was sorely mistaken.

I know that there were no controlled demolitions because of all these things. You can keep picking at stupid stuff that doesn't fit into your world for the rest of your life. The facts will remain that you are wrong.


----------



## eots (Jan 25, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> I don't live my life fantasizing about what happened on 9-11-01. I have read the official reports and i have seen most of the conspiracy videos. I can use common sense when a guy tells me he was in the area less than 20 minutes and when someone else tells a different story. I can tell when there were hundreds of people in a building before the planes hit and one of them claims there was an explosion that none of the others heard, that he was sorely mistaken.
> 
> I know that there were no controlled demolitions because of all these things. You can keep picking at stupid stuff that doesn't fit into your world for the rest of your life. The facts will remain that you are wrong.



Common sense requires you recognize that if you believe this  fire chiefs observations then the NIST report got it all wrong


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 25, 2011)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I don't live my life fantasizing about what happened on 9-11-01. I have read the official reports and i have seen most of the conspiracy videos. I can use common sense when a guy tells me he was in the area less than 20 minutes and when someone else tells a different story. I can tell when there were hundreds of people in a building before the planes hit and one of them claims there was an explosion that none of the others heard, that he was sorely mistaken.
> ...


no, it doesn't
common sense says they got the major points right and its only in minute details they got things wrong


----------



## eots (Jan 26, 2011)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYedTmaHt1A&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## eots (Jan 26, 2011)

DiveCon said:


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



if damage played a significant role in the collapse and it was anything like Ollie's fire chief reports then they got a very major point completely wrong you ninny


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 26, 2011)

eots said:


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


no where does NIST make the claim there wasnt damage done to the building
they only say it didnt have a significant effect
the fire chief was there and saw the damage
the photos i've seen show there was that much damage
thew video shows that there was significant fire going on on several floors unabated
no where is NIST in conflict with what the fire chief said

and you have proven to be the "ninny" in this


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 26, 2011)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYedTmaHt1A&feature=related



Who am I supposed to contact to get my money?

Those bastards haven't paid me yet.


----------



## eots (Jan 26, 2011)

DiveCon said:


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



NIST refutes damage to the extent Ollie claims and if you agree it was insignificant then why is it being used to bolster his belifes ?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 26, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln_WiAxiIbg&feature=related
> ...



I've seen videos released by NIST after the FOIA  and there are more and more being found to have altered audio or deleted audio. Besides not having a video with audio does not disprove the CD theory. There's substantial evidence that clearly shows these buildings were _helped along_. From the time they took to collapse, to NIST finally being forced to admit free fall for 8 stories, to the molten metal under all 3 buildings. Nist also did not do a comprehensive investigation because it did not follow the NFPA standards. Specifically Extremism- N.F.P.A. 921- 19.4.8.2.6
Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth  Blog Archive  Extremism- N.F.P.A. 921- 19.4.8.2.6

NIST has made it very clear that two of the reasons they refuse to test for explosive residue are because 1) no blast sounds were heard, and 2) that they must be necessary for an explosion.
Both reasons are bullshit that show they are fucking liars.

Or NFPA 921-18.1 Chapter 18 Explosions
National Fire Protection Associations guidebook disagrees with their logic on point 2. It is very clearly stated in Chapter 18 - Explosions, 18.1 - General:
Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 26, 2011)

eots said:


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


there are things i dont agree with the NIST on
the point of the damage being insignificant is one of them
however, that doesnt change the fact that it wasnt an explosive demo


----------



## eots (Jan 26, 2011)

DiveCon said:


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



So then the NIST failed to determine the correct cause and correct collapse scenario for of the collapse of wtc 7... according to you


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 26, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> You have a person's OPINION.  When are you fucking dishonest people going to get through your little pea brains that OPINIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE.


 Then by that reasoning NIST and the whole damned governments investigation is just OPINION, as it is just a theory also, but one that can not stand up to scrutiny.



> WTC 7 didn't fall into its own footprint and despite this liar's claims, the post office and Verizon buildings both suffered significant damage from the debris of WTC 7.


Bullshit-

Huge Amounts Of Smoke Came From WTC 5 & 6 NOT WTC 7

Look at these pics and scroll down towards the bottom and see the post office and the Fiterman Hall building yourself.



> This asshole is trying to say there was only smoke coming from one corner of the south face.    What.... he thinks no videos exist of the fires?  No clear shots exist of the south face because of all the smoke coming from practically the entire building.


Bullshit again look at the  pics in the link above asswipe.



> I gave up listening to this now proven lying piece of shit at that point.  Come on, eots.  Can't you do any better than that?!?


 By the pics in the link I posted it is you that looks like the lying POS.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 26, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTcGA07eJ50
> ...


 Why not? We all know those buildings did not come collapsing down at or near free fall and pulverized without some assistance from something other then j_etfuel_. I can't believe after all the ass kicking NIST and the official fantasy gets, you people are still denying the possibility of CD! 
And you still haven't explained the molten metal that burned for 3 months..that refused to go out..with shitloads of water aaaannd thousands of gallons of Pyrocool. Perhaps you adhere to the theory of massive coal deposits and cow shit like the other retard in the other thread?  TOO funny!


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 26, 2011)

eots said:


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


so?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 26, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > You made the statement first why don't you provide the proof ..why should i take the time to post the link ..you would just call the person a fucktard and then throw up your next smoke screen...you have just made all kinds of  statements and not backed a single one with a link
> ...


The firefighter in your video actually says he heard the floors hitting each other! Boom Boom Boom! we know that pancake theory has been thrown in the trash heap of non sense, even by NIST!
 Suppose he's wrong, how does he know it was _really_ the floors? We don't do we, I mean he actually didn't _see _it did he?
That is of course his _opinion_, but you always discount opinions as _evidence._  It's all over your posts. You can't have it both ways idiot.  We are supposed to believe that _your _witnesses are somehow _more_ credible then others because they are _your_ witnesses that adhere to _your_ ass kissing OCTASSes theory. You're a fucking joke get lost.


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 26, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


That video wasn't released by the NIST.  That was from the media.  And you can tell there were no explosions by the reactions of the people to the noise.  If there were explosions, people would have been startled.  It is a natural reaction to a loud, sharp noise like an explosion.  Instead all you hear is the rumble from the collapse.  The people don't jump, they just look in the direction to figure out what the sound is.  This, too, is a fact you will run away from.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> NIST has made it very clear that two of the reasons they refuse to test for explosive residue are because 1) no blast sounds were heard, and 2) that they must be necessary for an explosion.
> Both reasons are bullshit that show they are fucking liars.


Really?  Last time I saw, explosives cause massive explosions that can be heard for MILES.  Yet we don't even hear a pop.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Or NFPA 921-18.1 Chapter 18 Explosions
> National Fire Protection Associations guidebook disagrees with their logic on point 2. It is very clearly stated in Chapter 18 - Explosions, 18.1 - General:
> Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion.


Yet there was no violent escape of gasses either.  You didn't see windows shooting out from the pressure or any other signs of collapse.


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 26, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


So you think there should be no noise as each floor collapses under the weight?    What kind of fucking moron are you?  You don't have to have a pancake type collapse to know there are spaces between the floor that is



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Suppose he's wrong, how does he know it was _really_ the floors? We don't do we, I mean he actually didn't _see _it did he?


Well, there's one last problem.  According to you liars, the explosives were in the core.  Guess where they were?  You got it.  The core.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> That is of course his _opinion_, but you always discount opinions as _evidence._


Wrong again.  An eyewitness is explaining what they saw and heard.  It is first hand testimony as to what happened.  That is why his testimony would be valid in a court of law, yet your retarded opinion would not be.  Do you see the difference?  Probably not.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> It's all over your posts. You can't have it both ways idiot.  We are supposed to believe that _your _witnesses are somehow _more_ credible then others because they are _your_ witnesses that adhere to _your_ ass kissing OCTASSes theory. You're a fucking joke get lost.


  Want to see a fucking joke?  Look in the mirror.  You'll see a major asshole looking back at you.  

There is no reason to doubt the 14 people who survived the North tower collapse.  They were THERE.  They LIVED through it.  Their testimony doesn't contradict the physical evidence.  The two witnesses you fucktards have are directly refuted by physical evidence.  You remember where you claimed explosions weren't necessary?  Well, according to your witnesses they were there and they were MASSIVE.  Yet nobody else can hear them.  No audio track recorded them.  But you would have everyone believe two witnesses over all the other witnesses who didn't see/hear anything like what your witnesses said happened and video/audio tapes confirm it didn't happen as your witnesses claim.  

So yes.  My witnesses ARE FAR more credible than your two witnesses.  Their testimony fits the known facts.  Yours?  At least one is a blatant lie.  All recordings of OTA transmissions were recorded that day.  No countdown.  Yet he pretends he heard a countdown because it makes it more dramatic.  He isn't the first to exaggerate or embellish his story to get attention.  Look at the utter dishonesty of William Rodriguez.  

Hmmmm.  Truthtards.  Can't trust them about ANYTHING!


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 26, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > You have a person's OPINION.  When are you fucking dishonest people going to get through your little pea brains that OPINIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE.
> ...


Wrong yet again, you stupid piece of shit!  When will you ever get anything right?  What the NIST and the whole government investigation has is a THEORY BASED ON EVIDENCE.  See, you fucking assholes have nothing.  No evidence.  No real theory.  Nothing.  Just opinion that the government theory is wrong.  In other words, all you asses have is your OPINION.  Go find a first grader and have him explain the difference to you.  It really isn't all that hard.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> > WTC 7 didn't fall into its own footprint and despite this liar's claims, the post office and Verizon buildings both suffered significant damage from the debris of WTC 7.
> 
> 
> Bullshit-
> ...


Yeah.  I've seen these dishonest attempts at trying to prove the smoke was coming from somewhere else.  Truthtards like to use still photographs because they don't show motion which means truthtards can pretend all sorts of things.  Unfortunately for you stupid fucks, there is video.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U]WTC 7 South side[/ame]
Now, how are you going to explain the fact all that smoke is CLEARLY coming from WTC 7?  You can't.  That is why Alex Jones and the rest of them only show pictures.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> > This asshole is trying to say there was only smoke coming from one corner of the south face.    What.... he thinks no videos exist of the fires?  No clear shots exist of the south face because of all the smoke coming from practically the entire building.
> 
> 
> Bullshit again look at the  pics in the link above asswipe.


  I love it when truthtards end up with shit all over them due to ignorance.  Want another video showing smoke coming from WTC 7 and nowhere else?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51FIPMlrFf4]More smoke[/ame]
See all that smoke moving south from WTC 7?  Can't be from any other WTC building as the WTC 7 was the northern most building of the complex.  The wind was from the North blowing South.  Another little fact you ignorant liars ignore in your attempt to explain away the truth.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> > I gave up listening to this now proven lying piece of shit at that point.  Come on, eots.  Can't you do any better than that?!?
> 
> 
> By the pics in the link I posted it is you that looks like the lying POS.


Video and the truth make you look like the lying ass you are.  Care to try and refute the smoke again?  Or are you going to run away like usual?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 26, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYedTmaHt1A&feature=related
> ...



Keep an eye out for the black helicopters, they'll throw you a box of cash eventually.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 26, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I don't believe I have ever witnessed a silent explosion before. Must be something new....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 26, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > You have a person's OPINION.  When are you fucking dishonest people going to get through your little pea brains that OPINIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE.
> ...



Gee, no pictures taken of the south side of building 7? Could it be that no one took pictures because of the heavy smoke pouring from that side of the building? Because you couldn't even see the building from that side because of the damage, smoke and fire? Just askin.....


----------



## eots (Jan 26, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...



it is irrelevant little Ollie...NIST determined damage was not significant in the collapse


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 26, 2011)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



It is very relevant.  One of your fellow truthtards got caught in a  blatant lie defending one of your "witnesses" who claimed there was only smoke from one corner of the south side.  This has nothing to do with the NIST report or the damage to the south face, as I am sure you are aware.  That is why you're trying to deflect the topic back there and off your lying "witnesses" who are only giving opinion and lying about what they saw.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 26, 2011)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



No eots, you are irrelevant.


----------



## eots (Jan 26, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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



Ollie and divecon do not even believe the conclusions of NIST which only supports the need for an independent investigation


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 26, 2011)

eots said:


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


you lie again
we support the major findings


----------



## eots (Jan 26, 2011)

DiveCon said:


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



No you don't that is just a weasley cuntycorn line it uses in regard to the 9/11 commision...what major findings do you support ? are you saying that the conclusion that fire was the cause of the collapse and that even without damage a similar fire would of resulted in essentially the very same result is not a major finding..lol...if you do not support that then you can not support computer simulation the which is the only evidence they offer ...this is not a major finding ???   *So name the major findings you do support*


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 26, 2011)

eots said:


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


it wasnt an explosive demo, dipshit


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 26, 2011)

DiveCon said:


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



That pretty much sums it up.


----------



## Fizz (Jan 26, 2011)

anybody find evidence of explosive demolitions being used yet?

i didnt think so.... 

i'll check back in a while to see if these stupid fucking retards have come up with one shred of actual evidence.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 26, 2011)

Fizz said:


> anybody find evidence of explosive demolitions being used yet?
> 
> i didnt think so....
> 
> i'll check back in a while to see if these stupid fucking retards have come up with one shred of actual evidence.


nope, still no evidence to support their bullshit claims


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 26, 2011)

Fizz said:


> anybody find evidence of explosive demolitions being used yet?
> 
> i didnt think so....
> 
> i'll check back in a while to see if these stupid fucking retards have come up with one shred of actual evidence.



How could they find it? It was encased in 17 feet of concrete.


----------



## eots (Jan 26, 2011)

So the one major point out all these years of NIST "science "you support is the findings on how the building _did not _collapse due to explosives ...but you take issue with all the rest...lol..what a bunch of clowns


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 26, 2011)

It was that new silent explosions, guaranteed not to be picked up by recording devices...


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 26, 2011)

eots said:


> So the one major point out all these years of NIST "science "you support is the findings on how the building _did not _collapse due to explosives ...but you take issue with all the rest...lol..what a bunch of clowns


no, dipshit
i'm not going to go through and list them all
you are a fucking moron and all you get is MOCKING


----------



## eots (Jan 26, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> It was that new silent explosions, guaranteed not to be picked up by recording devices...



why do you lie and say there were no explosions heard and why do you pretend that there are not many types of explosives with varying noise levels and characteristics ???


----------



## eots (Jan 26, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > So the one major point out all these years of NIST "science "you support is the findings on how the building _did not _collapse due to explosives ...but you take issue with all the rest...lol..what a bunch of clowns
> ...



You could not list them all..because you already did ..there are no more ..if you reject what you have the entire NIST theory false apart you simpleton


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 26, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> It was that new silent explosions, guaranteed not to be picked up by recording devices...



Maybe they used Boris Badenov's formula for Hushaboom.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 26, 2011)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > It was that new silent explosions, guaranteed not to be picked up by recording devices...
> ...



Please provide the recorded explosions that you believe brought down the buildings.

We know all about the explosions that you claim were there. And yes we heard them. Secondary explosions. A refrigerator motor, a transformer, a generator, batteries of various sizes, just a few things that go boom in a fire. None of them as the buildings began to collapse and none of them in a pattern that would be the signature of a controlled demo. And if they were powerful enough to take out a steel beam then they would have been heard on the tapes.

I have not told any lies.
And you know that.


----------



## eots (Jan 26, 2011)

Nist made its conclusion on the sound level required based on the loudest explosives possible with no consideration for sound dampening ..as well as the possibility of thermite being utilized...and none of this addresses trhe fact you claim nist failed to determine the correct collapse scenario


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 26, 2011)

eots said:


> Nist made its conclusion on the sound level required based on the loudest explosives possible with no consideration for sound dampening ..as well as the possibility of thermite being utilized...and none of this addresses trhe fact you claim nist failed to determine the correct collapse scenario



So what you are saying is that you have no physical proof that NIST or anyone else is wrong.


----------



## eots (Jan 26, 2011)

sfc ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > nist made its conclusion on the sound level required based on the loudest explosives possible with no consideration for sound dampening ..as well as the possibility of thermite being utilized...and none of this addresses trhe fact you claim nist failed to determine the correct collapse scenario
> ...



no nobody has any physical proof of anything as it was all destroyed but that does not mean real science could  prove a progressive collapse as described by NIST   could not occur from fire


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 26, 2011)

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


so, if NIST was wrong in the fire causing the progressive collapse alone, and that structural damage played a larger role, that still doesnt support your bullshit claims of an explosive demo


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 26, 2011)

So there is no physical proof, so a new investigation would prove nothing.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 26, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> So there is no physical proof, so a new investigation would prove nothing.


any new investigation would come to the same major conclusions we already have
and these morons would continue with their stupidity
so a new investigation would do nothing for them


----------



## eots (Jan 26, 2011)

sfc ollie said:


> so there is no physical proof, so a new investigation would prove nothing.



nonsense...the physics can prove the cause of the collapse


----------



## eots (Jan 26, 2011)

divecon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



what it means is their report is not creadible and needs to be archived and re-investigated


----------



## eots (Jan 26, 2011)

Dwive and ollie don't want a re-investigation because after it proved  controlled demolition they still would not believe it and would remain in denial


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 26, 2011)

eots said:


> Dwive and ollie don't want a re-investigation because after it proved  controlled demolition they still would not believe it and would remain in denial


we already know what happened, dipshit, we dont NEED another investigation


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 26, 2011)

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > so there is no physical proof, so a new investigation would prove nothing.
> ...



Hmmm, the physics. That sounds like another conspiritard that used to post here. I wonder where HE went?

Can the physics prove the 6 inch C-4 coated DoD supplied & welded re-bar that top 9/11 researcher Christophera documented was in the 17ft thick poured concrete core?

And when are you going to get around to telling me who is paying for my efforts? Those bastards still haven't sent me a check.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 26, 2011)

eots said:


> Dwive and ollie don't want a re-investigation because after it proved  controlled demolition they still would not believe it and would remain in denial



Why do we need a re-investigation? Top 9/11 researcher and scientist Christophera proved the twins had concrete cores re-enforced with 6 inch re-bar supplied and welded by the Dept of Defense which was coated in C-4 and armed with digital detonators.

Now, please tell me who is withholding my money so I can expose them for defrauding me.


----------



## eots (Jan 26, 2011)

divecon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > dwive and ollie don't want a re-investigation because after it proved  controlled demolition they still would not believe it and would remain in denial
> ...



but you rejected the nist explanation ?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 26, 2011)

*Who do I contact to get my disinfo money?????*


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 26, 2011)

eots said:


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


i only disagree with PARTS of it
and yet nothing you have provided shows what YOU want to believe


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 27, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> What the NIST and the whole government investigation has is a THEORY BASED ON EVIDENCE.


 Evidence that has been proven fallible, inconsistent, and incorrect, and an explanation of the collapses that doesn't answer many questions. The evidence that counters NISTS theory is vast and credible, but because it goes against your belief system it's not credible? Here's a short clip that touches on these facts.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V0WQFztLyg&feature=related[/ame] 




> See, you fucking assholes have nothing.  No evidence.  No real theory.  Nothing.  Just opinion that the government theory is wrong.  In other words, all you asses have is your OPINION.  Go find a first grader and have him explain the difference to you.  It really isn't all that hard.


 To actually say and believe this shows what an ignorant lying fuck you are. The claim that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition has a wealth of accompanying argument. There are many pieces of evidence, that shows a logical train of events and giving cause and effect for each of those evidential instances.
NISTs Denial of Evidence for Explosives
NIST and Scientific Fraud 
There IS Physical Evidence of Explosives
There IS Testimonial Evidence for Explosives
 NISTs Own Theory of WTC 7s Collapse is full of shit and they had to ADMIT to free fall when called out on it
NIST is guilty of Fabrication of Evidence




> Yeah.  I've seen these dishonest attempts at trying to prove the smoke was coming from somewhere else.  Truthtards like to use still photographs because they don't show motion which means truthtards can pretend all sorts of things.  Unfortunately for you stupid fucks, there is video.
> 
> WTC 7 South side


 Now you need to cry about the pics and say they are dishonest? What a pussy they clearly show you are quite wrong in your assessment of the post office damage.  YOU  SAID WTC 7 DID NOT fall into it's own footprint, alluding to and even saying that the post office* suffered significant damage *as a result,  that is why I posted the link to show you otherwise, quit trying to twist shit around. Go back and read what you claimed. 




> I love it when truthtards end up with shit all over them due to ignorance.  Want another video showing smoke coming from WTC 7 and nowhere else?
> 
> More smoke


 Your the one looking like an ass disputing something I didn't deny, but that's what you do best, twist shit around in all the threads you post in.



> See all that smoke moving south from WTC 7?  Can't be from any other WTC building as the WTC 7 was the northern most building of the complex.  The wind was from the North blowing South.  Another little fact you ignorant liars ignore in your attempt to explain away the truth.


 WTC 5 AND 6 WERE ABLAZE and produced shitloads of smoke dumbass, are you going to deny this or shall I have to post that too? Strange how they didn't explode and collapse and pulverize into dust.




> Video and the truth make you look like the lying ass you are.  Care to try and refute the smoke again?  Or are you going to run away like usual?


 I get now, when we post video of stuff that solidifies our claims they aren't credible or you ignore it, but ONLY YOUR VIDEOS and witnesses are valid? Your still a disingenuous idiot, and proven liar. You've been caught red handed at this yet again! 
When we post FDNY personnel that back up our theory= no good, but somehow your FDNY  people are ok because a video that leaves out what over 180 other FDNY firefighters witnessesd and heard, namely explosions = good? It doesn't work that way and is a pussy way to try to win over the OCTASSes theory, and doesn't.
Perhaps one should take into account that Ex-CIA Chief James Woolsey handed down gag-order to 9-11 Firefighters.
The Woolsey gag order created an Omerta-like mob silence that Firefighters and Police Officers have had to deal with to this day.

[Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr.] explained to me [Lavello] that, many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but theyre afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact. Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Departments Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. There were definitely bombs in those buildings, he told me.
Isaac also addressed the FBI gag order in an article by Greg Syzmanski, saying Its amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear or retaliation or losing their jobs. He mentions that the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials prevented them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9/11. Syzmansky praised Isaacs in a highly interesting article titled One-Man Investigative Team.

9/11 Firefighters Told To Shut-up About Explosions In Towers  noworldsystem.com


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 27, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...



The  NIST theory has been proven to show it is full of shit, like you. You can knock down all the strawmen you want to, and claim your witnesses are better and whatever but  the facts of the entire day do not add up. *Every single piece of what you use to support NIST and the official fantasy has been shot down,* EVERYTHING, and more then once on this forum, all one has to do is look up your past posts. If there is any one that can't be trusted to produce anything credible or plausible it is you, all you do is chase your own tail by parroting the same ole busted down shit


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 27, 2011)

Fizz said:


> anybody find evidence of explosive demolitions being used yet?
> 
> i didnt think so....
> 
> i'll check back in a while to see if these stupid fucking retards have come up with one shred of actual evidence.



Some of the evidence ignored by NIST is physical evidence that explosives were used to bring down WTC 7.

*Swiss-Cheese Steel: *I will begin with the piece of steel from WTC 7 that had been melted so severely that it looked like Swiss cheese. Explaining why it called this the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation, James Glanz wrote: The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright. [15] Glanzs statement was, in fact, quite an understatement. The full truth is that the fires in the building could not have brought the steel anywhere close to the temperature  about 1,482°C (2,700°F)  needed for it to melt. 

*Nanothermite Residue:* What was that? A report by several scientists, including chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, showed that the WTC dust contained unreacted nanothermite, which  unlike ordinary thermite, which is an incendiary  is a high explosive. This report by Harrit and his colleagues, who included Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, did not appear until 2009, [26] several months after the publication of NISTs final report in November 2008. 

The Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection Association says that a search for evidence for explosives should be undertaken whenever there has been high-order damage. Leaving no doubt about the meaning of this term, the Guide says:
High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. [27]
That description applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The next sentence  Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet  applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers, a fact that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started in WTC 7. [28] So NIST should have looked for signs of explosives, such as nanothermite.

But when asked whether it had, NIST said No. A reporter asked Michael Newman, a NIST spokesman, about this failure, saying: [W]hat about that letter where NIST said it didnt look for evidence of explosives? Newman replied: Right, because there was no evidence of that. But, asked the reporter how can you know theres no evidence if you dont look for it first? Newman replied: If youre looking for something that isnt there, youre wasting your time . . . and the taxpayers money.  (You couldnt make this stuff up.) 
When Shyam Sunder, who headed up NISTs investigation of the WTC buildings, gave his press conference in August of 2008  at which he announced that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery  he began by saying:
 Before I tell you what we found, Id like to tell you what we did not find. We did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down. [30] 
By making this point first, Sunder indicated that this was NISTs most important conclusion  just as it had been NISTs most important conclusion about the Twin Towers. However, although Sunder claimed that this conclusion was based on good science, a conclusion has no scientific validity if it can be reached only by *ignoring half the evidence.*

*Molten Metal: *In addition to the ignored evidence already pointed out, NIST also, in its investigation of the WTC, ignored reports that the rubble contained lots of molten metal  which most people described as molten steel. 

*Testimonial evidence for explosives*-
Besides ignoring physical evidence that explosives had been used, NIST also ignored testimonial evidence.
NISTs Twin Towers Report: In its 2005 report on the Twin Towers, NIST ignored dozens of testimonies provided by reporters, police officers, and WTC employees, along with 118 testimonies provided by members of the Fire Department of New York. [38] NIST even explicitly denied the existence of these reports, saying that there was no evidence (collected by . . . the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions that would have suggested that explosives were going off.
However, when a group of scholars including scientists and a lawyer called NIST on this false statement, NIST refined its meaning, saying:
 NIST reviewed all of the interviews conducted by the FDNY of firefighters (500 interviews). . . . Taken as a whole, the interviews did not support the contention that explosives played a role in the collapse of the WTC Towers.

So, although NIST had said in its report that there was no testimonial evidence for explosives, it now seemed to be saying that, because only 118 out of 500 reported explosions, the testimonies, taken as a whole, do not support the idea that explosions were going off, so that NIST had been justified in claiming that there was no testimonial evidence to support the idea that explosives had been used.

Imagine an investigation of a murder on the streets of San Francisco. Of the 100 people who were at the scene at the time, 25 of them reported seeing Pete Smith shoot the victim. But the police release Pete Smith, saying that, taken as a whole, the testimonies did not point to his guilt. That would be NIST-style forensic science.
The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven

 And this is the so called comprehensive report you stupid fucking loons are proud to say you back and support?  
 Come back when you grow a brain with some common sense moron.


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 27, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > What the NIST and the whole government investigation has is a THEORY BASED ON EVIDENCE.
> ...


How about you presenting one real piece of evidence.  Go ahead.  Just one.  You claim you have "vast amounts" of "credible" evidence, so provide it.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> > See, you fucking assholes have nothing.  No evidence.  No real theory.  Nothing.  Just opinion that the government theory is wrong.  In other words, all you asses have is your OPINION.  Go find a first grader and have him explain the difference to you.  It really isn't all that hard.
> 
> 
> To actually say and believe this shows what an ignorant lying fuck you are. The claim that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition has a wealth of accompanying argument.


You have a bunch of retarded OPINIONS.  You need EVIDENCE ya jackwagon!  You had people who actually SURVIVED in the VERY PLACE you morons claimed the explosives were going off!  You DO realize what happens when people are in close proximity to high explosives, right?  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> There are many pieces of evidence, that shows a logical train of events and giving cause and effect for each of those evidential instances.


So produce some evidence.  You keep making the claim.  Your list below isn't evidence.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> NISTs Denial of Evidence for Explosives


The NIST showed there was no way for explosives to have been used.  Unless you have some means of silent explosives that can cut massive steel members, you're SOL.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> NIST and Scientific Fraud


Yet the only ones WORLD WIDE who claim the studies are a fraud are you ignorant truthtards.  Everyone ELSE in the world who is actually qualified to comment on the studies agrees with the studies and their own studies closely align with the NIST work.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> There IS Physical Evidence of Explosives


Bullshit.  You have a handful of clearly biased idiots using non-scientific methods to pretend they found "active thermitic material"; i.e. stuff that gets hot.  The material?  Rust and aluminum.  Woooo!  :roll:



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> There IS Testimonial Evidence for Explosives


No, there is testimonial evidence of EXPLOSIONS, and some of your "witnesses" are proven liars.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> NISTs Own Theory of WTC 7s Collapse is full of shit and they had to ADMIT to free fall when called out on it


Wrong yet again.  Opinion isn't evidence.  It just shows how retarded you and your fellow retards really are.


			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> NIST is guilty of Fabrication of Evidence


What evidence did they fabricate and what evidence do you have that this is true?  See, you truthtards lie as easily as most people breath.  That means you have NEGATIVE credibility.  Everything you say is suspected to be a lie until proven true.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Now you need to cry about the pics and say they are dishonest? What a pussy they clearly show you are quite wrong in your assessment of the post office damage.  YOU  SAID WTC 7 DID NOT fall into it's own footprint, alluding to and even saying that the post office* suffered significant damage *as a result,  that is why I posted the link to show you otherwise, quit trying to twist shit around. Go back and read what you claimed.


  I already proved beyond any doubt your pictures did not show what you claimed.  You couldn't even begin to refute it.  Tell you what.  How about you just address the fact that the wind was from the North blowing South.  The WTC 7 was the northernmost building.  All smoke would move south, NOT NORTH as it would have to do if your retarded bullshit about all the smoke being from WTC 5 and 6 were true.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Your the one looking like an ass disputing something I didn't deny, but that's what you do best, twist shit around in all the threads you post in.


You posted the smoke wasn't coming from WTC 7, you fucking liar!  I proved you were dead wrong.  NOW you're pretending you never denied smoke was coming from WTC 7?  Let me remind you:



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Bullshit-
> 
> *Huge Amounts Of Smoke Came From WTC 5 & 6 NOT WTC 7*
> 
> Look at these pics and scroll down towards the bottom and see the post office and the Fiterman Hall building yourself.


So deny you didn't deny the smoke all you want.  You've been proven a fucking liar yet again and by your own words.

As for the pictures, just how dishonest does a truthtard and his conspiracy theory site have to be to only show the sides AWAY from the collapse?  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> > See all that smoke moving south from WTC 7?  Can't be from any other WTC building as the WTC 7 was the northern most building of the complex.  The wind was from the North blowing South.  Another little fact you ignorant liars ignore in your attempt to explain away the truth.
> 
> 
> WTC 5 AND 6 WERE ABLAZE and produced shitloads of smoke dumbass, are you going to deny this or shall I have to post that too? Strange how they didn't explode and collapse and pulverize into dust.


So how does smoke move NORTH when the wind is blowing it SOUTH?  Is this another truthtard bending of the laws of nature to fit their retarded bullshit?  Nobody is saying WTC 5 and 6 weren't producing smoke.  What you piece of shit liars are trying to claim is that all the smoke you see coming from WTC 7 was REALLY from WTC 5 and 6 so you can try and pretend there was hardly anything wrong with WTC 7.  REALITY proves you're a fucking liar and incapable of actually telling the truth.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> > Video and the truth make you look like the lying ass you are.  Care to try and refute the smoke again?  Or are you going to run away like usual?
> 
> 
> I get now, when we post video of stuff that solidifies our claims they aren't credible or you ignore it, but ONLY YOUR VIDEOS and witnesses are valid? Your still a disingenuous idiot, and proven liar. You've been caught red handed at this yet again!


Given your credibility, if you claim I am a liar, most people are going to automatically give me the benefit of the doubt!

Here's the difference; I post a video and you shitheads can't even refute it; you just deny it and pretend it doesn't exist.  You still haven't explained how one can have a video with clear audio of the collapse but not hear even the slightest hint of explosives going off.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> When we post FDNY personnel that back up our theory= no good, but somehow your FDNY  people are ok because a video that leaves out what over 180 other FDNY firefighters witnessesd and heard, namely explosions = good? It doesn't work that way and is a pussy way to try to win over the OCTASSes theory, and doesn't.


That is because you dishonest pieces of shit have to pretend the fire fighters believed all the explosions were actually caused by explosives.  It is when you have to dishonestly put words in their mouths that you expose yourself for the fucks you are.  I've never denied the fire fighters heard explosions.  Explosions are NOT uncommon in fires, especially in massive fires like we saw on 9/11 with multiple buildings burning.  

Me?  I don't have to do that.  I just post what they say and leave it at that because what they say is self explanatory and I don't have to twist what they say.  Want more proof?  Where are all the FDNY members who believe 9/11 was a conspiracy?  They were THERE.  They are the EXPERTS.  If ANYONE would know it was a controlled demolition, it would be them.  Yet not ONE member of the FDNY has stepped forward and claimed they thought the buildings were brought down with controlled demolitions.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Perhaps one should take into account that Ex-CIA Chief James Woolsey handed down gag-order to 9-11 Firefighters.  The Woolsey gag order created an Omerta-like mob silence that Firefighters and Police Officers have had to deal with to this day.


Wow.  Are you seriously so fucking retarded you actually BELIEVE that shit?  So a CONSULTANT to the FDNY was able to hand down a binding gag order that can only be issued by a judge?  So how was he suppose to enforce this gag order?  He had no power to fire firefighters.  He had no power to levy fines.  He had no power to have them arrested.  

Tell me something.  Did you actually THINK about this bullshit lie before you swallowed it whole straight from Alex Jones' dick, or did you just accept it like you accept everything else from him?



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> [Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr.] explained to me [Lavello] that, many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but theyre afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact. Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Departments Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. There were definitely bombs in those buildings, he told me.
> Isaac also addressed the FBI gag order in an article by Greg Syzmanski, saying Its amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear or retaliation or losing their jobs. He mentions that the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials prevented them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9/11. Syzmansky praised Isaacs in a highly interesting article titled One-Man Investigative Team.


You shouldn't start out with lies.  He wasn't a Lieutenant Fireman.  he was an auxiliary fire fighter.  

Second, Isaac claims it is an FBI gag order.  Woolsey wasn't head of the FBI but the CIA and he was replaced in 1995, six years before 9/11.  Seriously.  Take a look at the facts before you post this shit.  You're an embarassment to truthtards!  You know how bad you have to be to sink that low?!?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 27, 2011)

One would think that more than 0.01% of the engineers and architects would know that....

But hey, maybe the other 99.99% haven't learned that part of physics....


----------



## psikeyhackr (Jan 27, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> One would think that more than 0.01% of the engineers and architects would know that....
> 
> But hey, maybe the other 99.99% haven't learned that part of physics....



Do the Laws of Physics change style every year?  If they don't then shouldn't all of the engineers know that?  So why do engineers redesign cars year after year?  Don't all of the engineers know about

PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE?

When do you hear them talk about it?

So do engineers know things that they don't tell most people?

NINE YEARS and we don't have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the WTC.  But then Richard Gage and his engineering buddies don't talk about that either.  Vely intelisting.

Suppose this Newtonian Physics isn't really as difficult as they make out and it is a charade to keep is in AWE of *ENGINEERS*.


psik

PS - The SR-71 Blackbird could do 2000 mph in 1964.  They started the design work in 1958.  Why should we give a damn about cars rolling along the ground in 2011?


----------



## candycorn (Jan 27, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...



Jones also once said that there is evidence that the US tried to plant WMDs in Iraq.  His/her credability has been zero for some time now.


----------



## eots (Jan 27, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> One would think that more than 0.01% of the engineers and architects would know that....
> 
> But hey, maybe the other 99.99% haven't learned that part of physics....



only a complete moron would think that anyone who has not joined architects and engineers for 9/11 truth automatically supports the  NIST theory...fuck you and dwivy don't even support the NIST theory


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 28, 2011)

[





Patriot911 said:


> How about you presenting one real piece of evidence.  Go ahead.  Just one.  You claim you have "vast amounts" of "credible" evidence, so provide it.


I already posted this-
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3255895-post521.html 



> You have a bunch of retarded OPINIONS.  You need EVIDENCE ya jackwagon!  You had people who actually SURVIVED in the VERY PLACE you morons claimed the explosives were going off!  You DO realize what happens when people are in close proximity to high explosives, right?


 No one is disputing these men, the problem I have is you. and you using their bravery and dedication to justify your coward lying ass.
 There are hundreds of witnesses WHO WERE ALSO THERE from the FDNY, other first responders, media and civilians all on tape and print, telling you what they heard saw, and experienced. You disparage, minimize, or ignore their testimony, or when you can't, you call them liars. Remember there are 100s of these guys who heard noises that they described as explosions, and NIST didn't bother to to check further. Fuck you and NIST.



> So produce some evidence.  You keep making the claim.  Your list below isn't evidence.


 http://www.usmessageboard.com/3255895-post521.html 
Evidence that was ignored is still evidence. NIST is the agency in charge of producing the evidence that supports their theory, and they failed. They don't resolve nothing, and actually create more questions and thereby losing even more credibility, by now admitting that free fall actually occurred in WTC 7. This after adamantly refusing to acknowledge it in the first place, when it was obvious to almost everyone who had a brain stem.




> The NIST showed there was no way for explosives to have been used.  Unless you have some means of silent explosives that can cut massive steel members, you're SOL.


 NIST IS WRONG, NIST LIED IT WAS A COVER UP IDIOT.
* NISTs Denial of Evidence for Explosives-
At a press briefing, Shyam Sunder, NISTs lead investigator, declared that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery. Also, announcing that NIST did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down, [8] he said: cience is really behind what we have said. [9] In the remainder of this lecture, I will show that both of those statements were false. 
NIST is an agency of the US Department of Commerce. During the years it was writing its World Trade Center reports, therefore, it was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration. In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists put out a document charging this administration with distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends. By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 12,000 including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science. *
So much for NISTs credibility, and the credibilty of morons that try to pass their lies off as truth. 



> Yet the only ones WORLD WIDE who claim the studies are a fraud are you ignorant truthtards.  Everyone ELSE in the world who is actually qualified to comment on the studies agrees with the studies and their own studies closely align with the NIST work.


 Nope you're wrong again. Most intelligent and informed people around the world do not believe the US governments fairy tale.




> Bullshit.  You have a handful of clearly biased idiots using non-scientific methods to pretend they found "active thermitic material"; i.e. stuff that gets hot.  The material?  Rust and aluminum.  Woooo!  :roll:


 Biased for what reason asshole, and what non-scientific methods are you referring to? Who stood to gain for the attacks on 9-11moron? A few scientists, or the mother fuckers who wrote the PNAC? you truly are a stupid piece of shit. 
The thermitic material that was found is much more then aluminum and rust! You've been giving too much credence to the guys trying to desperately deny all of this. They try to say that thermite was some kind of a natural material to find at ground zero. I guess you and they think that if you have all the ingredients to make a cake in your cupboard, you can just throw them out the window and presto..you have a cake!
This is stuff that credible scientists found, and wrote a peer reviewed paper on. Your lying government agency never even mentions this, or the other studies done by other agencies that point to the possibility of high temperatures at the site that could not have been caused by kerosene or standard office fare.

NIST has been caught lying time and again, just like you, and millions of people around the world know that they are full of shit, and that most of the American public is severely misinformed on this and whole lot of other things. You prove that they are right with every dribble of non sense you espouse as the t_ruth_, and _proof_.




> No, there is testimonial evidence of EXPLOSIONS, and some of your "witnesses" are proven liars.


 Exactly, and all that testimonial evidence of EXPLOSIONS, with aaall the people that heard explosions, NIST should have included EXPLOSIVES in their report!  How fucking stupid of you not to recognize this!
 Hell they used explosives in '93 why not on 9-11? Especially with all the police reports about explosives in vans and possibly in the basement that day. You wanting people to believe that there is no way explosives could have been used on 9-11 is really stupid. All one has to do is read and study what happened that day, all the pieces fit the possibility, and it's negligent at the very least, and criminal at its worst, to not include this in a report that impacted the entire fucking world!




> Wrong yet again.  Opinion isn't evidence.  It just shows how retarded you and your fellow retards really are.


 You wrote this to rebuttal me saying -"NISTs Own Theory of WTC 7s Collapse is full of shit and they had to ADMIT to free fall when called out on it. What the fuck are you smoking idiot? NIST getting caught lying AGAIN is not an opinion, it's  a FACT, and clearly shows how idiotic you and your fellow OCTASSes really are.



> What evidence did they fabricate and what evidence do you have that this is true?  See, you truthtards lie as easily as most people breath.  That means you have NEGATIVE credibility.  Everything you say is suspected to be a lie until proven true.


 NIST IS A FRAUD AND GUILTY OF FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE-  See you OCTASSes lie as easily as most people fart. This will show that YOU have NEGATIVE CREDIBILITY and everything you say is BS! It's in their reports, and it's old news.
*
In their June 2004 report (and in the actual shop drawings*), NIST referred to the use of shear studs in World Trade Center 7. Shear studs are used to keep steel floor beams and girders in place; they impart stability and strength to buildings. But in their August 2008 final report, NIST re-worded their comments on shear studs to make it appear that none were used on the floor girders.

Why would they do this? To know the answer, you need to understand NIST's collapse theory. This is how it goes:

1. The key girder between column 79 and the exterior wall fails at floor 13.
2. Its failure causes the collapse of floors 13 through 6.
3. Column 79, now unsupported laterally by these floors, buckles and brings down the entire building.

This scenario is easier to posit if the key girder isn't being held firmly with shear studs. Thus, in the August 2008 report, NIST did what it had to do to make it more reasonable that the girder would fail: It magically omitted the shear studs.

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.
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

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.
http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_...

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.
http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_f...

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, so to speak, stand up.
*NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2, Fig. 12-4
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/1164/figure124ic1.jpg
** "on center" - a term that means apart*
By Judy Shelton and Chris Sarns
CTBUH stifles discussion on NIST's WTC 7 report | 911Blogger.com




> I already proved beyond any doubt your pictures did not show what you claimed.


The pics showed you were wrong about the post office suffering "significant damage from the debris of WTC 7", and the pics DO show the wtc 5,6 ABLAZE and producing significant SMOKE.



> You couldn't even begin to refute it.  Tell you what.  How about you just address the fact that the wind was from the North blowing South.  The WTC 7 was the northernmost building.  All smoke would move south, NOT NORTH as it would have to do if your retarded bullshit about all the smoke being from WTC 5 and 6 were true.


 Listen idiot, WTC 7 had fires in it, but not the kind of "inferno" you are being led to believe. By comparison,WTC 5-6 had  significantly larger, hotter, and more devastating fires then 7, and that is a fact. When the FDNY fought these fires, it created a lot of the light smoke you retards are claiming all came from 7, and that is not true. And all this talk about smoke is meaningless anyway retard! The fucking buildings came down too fast to be caused by fires alone! The molten metal/steel/ in their sub basements point to this so STFU and quit your crying over "all the smoke".



> As for the pictures, just how dishonest does a truthtard and his conspiracy theory site have to be to only show the sides AWAY from the collapse?


 You said (quote)"WTC 7 didn't fall into its own footprint and despite this liar's claims, the post office and Verizon buildings both suffered significant damage from the debris of WTC 7" end quote.
The pics proved you to be a lying POS about the post office suffering "significant damage", because of "WTC 7 not falling into its own footprint" as your claimed. 




> So how does smoke move NORTH when the wind is blowing it SOUTH?  Is this another truthtard bending of the laws of nature to fit their retarded bullshit?  Nobody is saying WTC 5 and 6 weren't producing smoke.  What you piece of shit liars are trying to claim is that all the smoke you see coming from WTC 7 was REALLY from WTC 5 and 6 so you can try and pretend there was hardly anything wrong with WTC 7.  REALITY proves you're a fucking liar and incapable of actually telling the truth.


 FYI, the wind was blowing NNE that day, and could have caused a vortex hitting the buildings who knows, but what I find strange is how the same smoke you claim is from WTC 7 is still around AFTER it collapsed. All in all, you have to be a moron to look at 7 and conclude that fire brought this building down and believe NIST after all the lies they told.




> Given your credibility, if you claim I am a liar, most people are going to automatically give me the benefit of the doubt!


 Anyone with any sense will examine the events of 9-11 in an honest and objective manner, taking many many things into consideration, and try to fit the pieces of the puzzle together themselves. Going by what all the disingenuous posts you have made here since you signed on these forums, I'm not the least worried about my credibility. I post the discrepancies of NIST and the govs version and the counter arguments made by credible people not under the influence of political pressure and who don't have any reason to lie.



> Here's the difference; I post a video and you shitheads can't even refute it; you just deny it and pretend it doesn't exist.  You still haven't explained how one can have a video with clear audio of the collapse but not hear even the slightest hint of explosives going off.


 Your non audio videos are a piss poor excuse, and offer no viable explanation for the collapses of 3 buildings, at or near free fall, pulverized into dust, with molten metal/steel under them that burned for 3 months. The best you can do is parrott the official fantasy and look like a fool in the process. Terrorists with box cutters, Jet fuel and office fires! What a crock of shit! You're a fucking idiot! 




> That is because you dishonest pieces of shit have to pretend the fire fighters believed all the explosions were actually caused by explosives.  It is when you have to dishonestly put words in their mouths that you expose yourself for the fucks you are.  I've never denied the fire fighters heard explosions.  Explosions are NOT uncommon in fires, especially in massive fires like we saw on 9/11 with multiple buildings burning.


The fires weren't massive, and the explosions were not investigated according to national standards. NIST lied, the 9-11 investigation is flawed, and your an idiot for not seeing this.



> Yet not ONE member of the FDNY has stepped forward and claimed they thought the buildings were brought down with controlled demolitions.


I've seen several on video say they thought the buildings came down like a CD, easy to find on u-tube. When we post videos of FDNY saying they heard explosions, it is because you assholes denied explosions, and when explosions are witnessed by hundreds of people in a major attack on our country, that resulted in major loss of life, NIST and the government are supposed to conduct a thorough investigation and not leave anything out, or to chance, and certainly not deliberately destroy the fucking evidence.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Perhaps one should take into account that Ex-CIA Chief James Woolsey handed down gag-order to 9-11 Firefighters.  The Woolsey gag order created an Omerta-like mob silence that Firefighters and Police Officers have had to deal with to this day.





> Wow.  Are you seriously so fucking retarded you actually BELIEVE that shit?


 No not retarded listen to FDNY for yourself. In this video first we hear a fire fighter explaining his involvement on 9/11, then we hear a firefighter who says they cant say anything due to a gag order, he can not even provide his name and he says that it is because he wants to keep his job for the next week, and after the next week..
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y41DnwHBsaE&feature=player_embedded[/ame]



> So a CONSULTANT to the FDNY was able to hand down a binding gag order that can only be issued by a judge?  So how was he suppose to enforce this gag order?  He had no power to fire firefighters.  He had no power to levy fines.  He had no power to have them arrested.
> Tell me something.  Did you actually THINK about this bullshit lie before you swallowed it whole straight from Alex Jones' dick, or did you just accept it like you accept everything else from him?


 Wow you and another OCTASS are always projecting your homo fantasies on here  Alex Jones sure must turn your little queer ass on! Your thinking about another mans dick!?  
 Now we know what you think about when you get frustrated. Do you always think about AJs dick? Good God you really shouldn't expose your fantasies, Hey if anybody is doing any pole sucking it would be you. You seem to open up and swallow like a good little sheeple bitch  You're a queer on top of being an asshole and an idiot! You just exposed it for all here to see! 



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> [Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr.] explained to me [Lavello] that, many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but theyre afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact. Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Departments Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. There were definitely bombs in those buildings, he told me.
> Isaac also addressed the FBI gag order in an article by Greg Syzmanski, saying Its amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear or retaliation or losing their jobs. He mentions that the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials prevented them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9/11. Syzmansky praised Isaacs in a highly interesting article titled One-Man Investigative Team.





> You shouldn't start out with lies.  He wasn't a Lieutenant Fireman.  he was an auxiliary fire fighter.
> 
> Second, Isaac claims it is an FBI gag order.  Woolsey wasn't head of the FBI but the CIA and he was replaced in 1995, six years before 9/11.  Seriously.  Take a look at the facts before you post this shit.  You're an embarassment to truthtards!  You know how bad you have to be to sink that low?!?


 You need to seriously get a grip and read what was posted again you are seriously twisting shit up again  Ah fuck it you're a hopeless troll anyway.
 But no matter what you say or how you try spin it and use all your little sissy disinfo techniques, and try to bolster the lie that is the official fantasy,.. you lose, because there is more reason to believe then not that 9-11 was a false flag attack on the nation as a pretext for war for obtain energy sources and military bases. They killed innocent American citizens and count on treasonous commie loving  faggots like yourself  to swallow their obvious lies and spread anti American propaganda. You are the type of scumbag that I pray will pay for every single lie that comes out of your filthy faggot mouth.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 28, 2011)




----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 28, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> ...


None of that is real hard EVIDENCE.  Maybe you need to look up what constitutes evidence because you sure don't appear to have the slightest clue what it is.  

Sulfidated steel?  What is that evidence of?  It doesn't happen due to explosives.

"Nanothermite"?    First off, they don't even claim to have found "nanothermite".  They claim to have found an "active thermitic compound".  Not only that, but the "scientific" method they used was found to be complete horseshit.  Why do you think they had to pay to get it published and won't have it peer reviewed?    You fucktards will fall for anything won't you.

Molten metal.... what is that suppose to be evidence of?  High explosives don't melt steel.  They cut it with a high pressure wave.  Thermite?  That produces molten iron for a very short period of time.  So what does molten metal prove other than your paranoid delusions apparently override common sense and logic?

Testimonial evidence of explosives?  BULLSHIT.  You have testimonial evidence of EXPLOSIONS.  I realize you're too big of a fucking idiot to realize not all explosions are caused by explosives, but for Christ's sake!  Learn something for once!  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> > You have a bunch of retarded OPINIONS.  You need EVIDENCE ya jackwagon!  You had people who actually SURVIVED in the VERY PLACE you morons claimed the explosives were going off!  You DO realize what happens when people are in close proximity to high explosives, right?
> 
> 
> No one is disputing these men, the problem I have is you. and you using their bravery and dedication to justify your coward lying ass.


Really?  So they heard the massive explosions liars like you claim were going off the entire time the towers were collapsing?  Wow.  Please point out how you came to that ludicrous conclusion.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> There are hundreds of witnesses WHO WERE ALSO THERE from the FDNY, other first responders, media and civilians all on tape and print, telling you what they heard saw, and experienced.


And NONE of them witnessed explosives.  They witnessed EXPLOSIONS.  Again, get it through that pea brain of yours they are not the same.  We realize a dishonest piece of shit like you can't help but lie your ass off at every opportunity, but why do you insist on putting words in their mouths?



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You disparage, minimize, or ignore their testimony, or when you can't, you call them liars. Remember there are 100s of these guys who heard noises that they described as explosions, and NIST didn't bother to to check further. Fuck you and NIST.


No, fuck you, you traitorous piece of shit.  I am not the one putting words in their mouths or pretending every explosion was caused by explosives.  That would be you.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Evidence that was ignored is still evidence. NIST is the agency in charge of producing the evidence that supports their theory, and they failed. They don't resolve nothing, and actually create more questions and thereby losing even more credibility, by now admitting that free fall actually occurred in WTC 7. This after adamantly refusing to acknowledge it in the first place, when it was obvious to almost everyone who had a brain stem.


Nobody ignored your sorry excuse for evidence.  Unfortunately for you, your "evidence" isn't.  Read above and weep, pussy!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> NIST IS WRONG, NIST LIED IT WAS A COVER UP IDIOT.


Shouting it doesn't make it true.  I am guessing you never made it past the first grade given your schoolyard tactics most people grow out of.  I've shown you a video where you can clearly hear the collapse, but don't hear a damn thing prior to or during the collapse that could in any way be described as an explosion.  Yet you and your fellow traitors cannot explain how this can be when you claim explosives were all over the place cutting all the supports to create free fall.  And you claim others ignore evidence.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Nope you're wrong again. Most intelligent and informed people around the world do not believe the US governments fairy tale.


Truthtards are neither intelligent or informed.  You are a prime example.  You don't know what constitutes evidence and you have to ignore evidence in order to make your bullshit stand.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Biased for what reason asshole, and what non-scientific methods are you referring to? Who stood to gain for the attacks on 9-11moron? A few scientists, or the mother fuckers who wrote the PNAC?


  You think politics doesn't produce a bias?  What rock do you hide your sorry ass under?  "Scientific" reports have been used repeatedly as political tools by the supposed scientists that perform the studies.  How fucking naive does a person have to be to blindly trust a "scientific" study that can't stand a peer review and has clear motivations to "prove" a theory the "scientists" had been promoting before the "experiments" were even performed.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> you truly are a stupid piece of shit.


I just love it when a TRUE stupid piece of shit can't even correctly tell someone else they think they are stupid.  I am sure the irony is lost on you.

The thermitic material that was found is much more then aluminum and rust! You've been giving too much credence to the guys trying to desperately deny all of this. They try to say that thermite was some kind of a natural material to find at ground zero. I guess you and they think that if you have all the ingredients to make a cake in your cupboard, you can just throw them out the window and presto..you have a cake![/quote]
Which explains why the "scientists" had to process the "dust" in order to get it to react, right?    What they fail to explain is why the "thermitic material" ignited at the wrong temperature and gave off the wrong amount of energy for thermite.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> This is stuff that credible scientists found, and wrote a peer reviewed paper on.


Bullshit.  First off, they're not credible scientists, second, they had to pay to get their report published, third, it was never peer reviewed, and fourth, despite your ignorant claims to the contrary, they didn't find nano-thermite but an "active thermitic substance".



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Your lying government agency never even mentions this, or the other studies done by other agencies that point to the possibility of high temperatures at the site that could not have been caused by kerosene or standard office fare.


Care to link these supposed other studies done by other agencies?



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> NIST has been caught lying time and again, just like you, and millions of people around the world know that they are full of shit, and that most of the American public is severely misinformed on this and whole lot of other things. You prove that they are right with every dribble of non sense you espouse as the t_ruth_, and _proof_.


  The bullshit ramblings of a delusional piece of shit.  The NIST hasn't been caught in any lies, and the truthtard bowel movement consists of hundreds or MAYBE thousands, but definitely not millions.  We know you like to stroke your own ego among other things, but you're not kidding anyone.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Exactly, and all that testimonial evidence of EXPLOSIONS, with aaall the people that heard explosions, NIST should have included EXPLOSIVES in their report!  How fucking stupid of you not to recognize this!


How fucking stupid are you to think every explosion is caused by explosives?  The NIST along with everyone else knows how loud explosives are.  They know how much would be needed to cut the main column of WTC 7 and at a half mile it would sound like a gun going off right next to you.  They also know that these explosives would be going off just prior to and maybe even during the collapse, yet audio evidence shows no such explosions going off.  

And one has to ask themselves this... of all the people who heard explosions, why do only TWO claim it was explosives and neither one of them is an expert at what explosives sound like?  Not to mention the fact the audio tapes prove they are outright lying or exaggerating to the point of lying.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Hell they used explosives in '93 why not on 9-11? Especially with all the police reports about explosives in vans and possibly in the basement that day. You wanting people to believe that there is no way explosives could have been used on 9-11 is really stupid. All one has to do is read and study what happened that day, all the pieces fit the possibility, and it's negligent at the very least, and criminal at its worst, to not include this in a report that impacted the entire fucking world!


The explosive blast in 93 was recorded by seismographs.  No such record exists on 9/11.  There was no van with explosives.  There were no explosives in the basements.   There is overwhelming evidence that the people who make the claim of explosives in the basements are doing so for reasons other than honest ones.  The most damning evidence against these assholes is their own testimony before they decided to turn truthtard.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You wrote this to rebuttal me saying -"NISTs Own Theory of WTC 7s Collapse is full of shit and they had to ADMIT to free fall when called out on it. What the fuck are you smoking idiot? NIST getting caught lying AGAIN is not an opinion, it's  a FACT, and clearly shows how idiotic you and your fellow OCTASSes really are.


Wrong yet again.  The NIST has NOT been caught lying unless one wants to buy into your bullshit lies.  You have yet to show any real evidence to back up your claims, much less proven anything.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> NIST IS A FRAUD AND GUILTY OF FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE-  See you OCTASSes lie as easily as most people fart. This will show that YOU have NEGATIVE CREDIBILITY and everything you say is BS! It's in their reports, and it's old news.


Repeating lies you can't even back up doesn't make them true no matter HOW much you whine like a little bitch about it.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The pics showed you were wrong about the post office suffering "significant damage from the debris of WTC 7", and the pics DO show the wtc 5,6 ABLAZE and producing significant SMOKE.


And given the wind was blowing to the south, what direction did the smoke go?  Or, along with the truthtard silent explosives, have you now come up with a way for smoke to move the opposite direction of the wind?



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Listen idiot, WTC 7 had fires in it, but not the kind of "inferno" you are being led to believe. By comparison,WTC 5-6 had  significantly larger, hotter, and more devastating fires then 7, and that is a fact.


As said by a known proven liar like you.    No thank you.  You're a piece of shit liar and the claims you make are likewise pieces of shit.  One of the truthtard "witnesses" made the claim that there was only smoke coming from one corner of the south face.  That has now been clearly shown to be a complete lie.  Now you, in a pathetic attempt to try and save face, are trying to compare the fires themselves to WTC 5 and 6.   



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> When the FDNY fought these fires, it created a lot of the light smoke you retards are claiming all came from 7, and that is not true. And all this talk about smoke is meaningless anyway retard! The fucking buildings came down too fast to be caused by fires alone! The molten metal/steel/ in their sub basements point to this so STFU and quit your crying over "all the smoke".


Lies built on lies built on lies.  The videos show you're a fucking liar.  The fact the wind was blowing to the south proves you're a liar.  The fact you're WAY too stupid to make any kinds of claims about how fast a building can or cannot collapse proves you're an ignorant asshole of epic proportions.  Keep it up, junior!  You're doing a wonderful job of making the truthtard bowel movement look like a bunch of incompetent fucktards.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You said (quote)"WTC 7 didn't fall into its own footprint and despite this liar's claims, the post office and Verizon buildings both suffered significant damage from the debris of WTC 7" end quote.
> The pics proved you to be a lying POS about the post office suffering "significant damage", because of "WTC 7 not falling into its own footprint" as your claimed.


So why do your pics not show the sides of the buildings facing the WTC 7?  The pics show the other sides.   



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> FYI, the wind was blowing NNE that day, and could have caused a vortex hitting the buildings who knows, but what I find strange is how the same smoke you claim is from WTC 7 is still around AFTER it collapsed. All in all, you have to be a moron to look at 7 and conclude that fire brought this building down and believe NIST after all the lies they told.


  Thanks for confirming the wind was blowing from the North.  The videos quite clearly show the smoke was not a vortex.  How about explaining why the smoke STARTS at the south face of the WTC 7 and doesn't extend past that?  Face it, moron.  The sources you're defending are outright lying to you about this and everything else.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Anyone with any sense will examine the events of 9-11 in an honest and objective manner, taking many many things into consideration, and try to fit the pieces of the puzzle together themselves.


I have.  Unlike you, I didn't have to throw out evidence that didn't fit my preconceived notions.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Going by what all the disingenuous posts you have made here since you signed on these forums, I'm not the least worried about my credibility.


You should be.  You've been caught in numerous lies and are still in the process of defending known liars.  Your credibility has nothing to do with me other than the fact I have been routinely proving you wrong.  The fact you don't have the balls to stand up and admit you're wrong only shows what a little bitch you are and how you will ignorantly allow others to pull your strings.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> I post the discrepancies of NIST and the govs version and the counter arguments made by credible people not under the influence of political pressure and who don't have any reason to lie.


  Man are YOU gullible if you think they don't have reasons to lie.  Why do all you truthtards lie?  Simple.  You have an anti-government / anti-semitic / anti-whomever you're blaming this week agenda.  The very fact you shitheads can't even agree on what did or did not happen, by whom or how shows that you, as a group, are doing nothing but a circle jerk.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Your non audio videos are a piss poor excuse, and offer no viable explanation for the collapses of 3 buildings, at or near free fall, pulverized into dust, with molten metal/steel under them that burned for 3 months.


You can't even get the simple facts straight.  Care to prove the molten metal was there for three months?    Regardless, here's a real simple excercise for you.  Look up what chemical reaction can keep steel melted for more than a few minutes.  You won't find one.  If you did, you would solve most of the world's fuel and energy problems.   

As for the audio on the videos you shitheads can't explain, why doesn't that bother you?  If I were making the claim there were massive explosions just before the collapse which is what allowed it to fall for a period of time at free fall acceleration and someone came up with a video that clearly showed no explosions and was clearly not doctored from the people's reactions, I would seriously have to question my beliefs.  Not you truthtards, though!    That is why you have no credibility.  You run from evidence or try to dismiss it for no real reason, much less a valid reason.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The best you can do is parrott the official fantasy and look like a fool in the process. Terrorists with box cutters, Jet fuel and office fires! What a crock of shit! You're a fucking idiot!


Yet you have zero evidence that anything else actually happened.  So who is the bigger idiot?  The one who has to ignore the evidence that is there because they're too fucking stupid to look at the facts, or the one who looks at ALL the facts and comes to a conclusion that may not sound realistic on the surface?



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The fires weren't massive


Says a known, proven liar despite all the video evidence to the contrary.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> and the explosions were not investigated according to national standards.


Because there was ZERO actual evidence to support the explosions theory.  No audio tapes showed explosions prior to or during the collapse.  You can't have explosions large enough to cut all the columns without sound.  This is a fact you will continue to ignore in your haste to tell your lies.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> NIST lied, the 9-11 investigation is flawed, and your an idiot for not seeing this.


I see you lying your ass off.  I see you running away from evidence you don't like.  I see you making claims you can't back up.  I see you failing to come up with an actual working theory as to what happened.  I see you failing to back up others who make claims.  Sucks to be you!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> I've seen several on video say they thought the buildings came down like a CD, easy to find on u-tube.


And?  Opinions are not evidence.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> When we post videos of FDNY saying they heard explosions, it is because you assholes denied explosions


I have never denied explosions.  What I have denied is the SOURCE of those explosions.  YOU and your fellow truthtards pretend all explosions have to be caused by explosives.  THAT is truly retarded.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> and when explosions are witnessed by hundreds of people in a major attack on our country, that resulted in major loss of life, NIST and the government are supposed to conduct a thorough investigation and not leave anything out, or to chance, and certainly not deliberately destroy the fucking evidence.


So why is it only TWO of all the people who heard explosions actually think they were caused by explosives?  Not only that, but their testimony is DIRECTLY refuted by not only other witnesses, but by physical evidence in the form of multiple audio recordings of the collapse.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> No not retarded listen to FDNY for yourself. In this video first we hear a fire fighter explaining his involvement on 9/11, then we hear a firefighter who says they cant say anything due to a gag order, he can not even provide his name and he says that it is because he wants to keep his job for the next week, and after the next week..
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y41DnwHBsaE&feature=player_embedded


  Fire fighters, like police officers, are not suppose to talk about what is going on while it is going on.  Those are the RULES.  That is why the police and fire departments have spokespeople; to control the rumors and outright lies pieces of shit like you constantly make up.  In fact, if you listen to what the firefighter says, he directs the reporter to the command center where the spokesperson is that can tell them what is going on.    Did you even watch the video or are you just parroting what others are pretending is on the video?



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Wow you and another OCTASS are always projecting your homo fantasies on here  Alex Jones sure must turn your little queer ass on! Your thinking about another mans dick!?
> Now we know what you think about when you get frustrated. Do you always think about AJs dick? Good God you really shouldn't expose your fantasies, Hey if anybody is doing any pole sucking it would be you. You seem to open up and swallow like a good little sheeple bitch  You're a queer on top of being an asshole and an idiot! You just exposed it for all here to see!


Way to respond!  WOOHOOO!!!!!!  So you can't actually respond as to how a CONSULTANT to the FDNY can hand down a binding gag order.  Let it be known all you could do is talk about dicks.   



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You need to seriously get a grip and read what was posted again you are seriously twisting shit up again  Ah fuck it you're a hopeless troll anyway.
> But no matter what you say or how you try spin it and use all your little sissy disinfo techniques, and try to bolster the lie that is the official fantasy,.. you lose, because there is more reason to believe then not that 9-11 was a false flag attack on the nation as a pretext for war for obtain energy sources and military bases. They killed innocent American citizens and count on treasonous commie loving  faggots like yourself  to swallow their obvious lies and spread anti American propaganda. You are the type of scumbag that I pray will pay for every single lie that comes out of your filthy faggot mouth.


I see you couldn't even begin to respond to that set of your lies either.  Way to go!  Truthtards truly suck ass at trying to defend what they claim is true!  It is the only thing you've proven so far.  Must make you feel good.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 28, 2011)

[quote*Edited*]
Nothing worth repeating
[/quote]

Bush won Ohio and the Presidency twice.  How'd that taste?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 29, 2011)

> =Patriot911;3260702]
> 
> Sulfidated steel?  What is that evidence of?  It doesn't happen due to explosives.


 I find it amusing that you don't know what the significance of sulfur is, but in the same sentence claim that explosives wouldn't produce evidence of sulfer!  You are a fucking idiot!
  The addition of a small amount of sulfur 2%,  increases the effectiveness of the steel melting or steel vaporizing process (eutectic) while barium nitrate creates a light orange flame. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence.
They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes. 

FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and* sulfur*" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion." *Following are excerpts from Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination. *
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and *sulfidation *with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and *sulfur *formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and *sulfidation.*
...
The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of *sulfur forming sulfides *that contain both iron and copper.
...
*liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.*
...
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event.* No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified*. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of *long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings.* It is also possible that the *phenomenon* started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires. 
To answer your question--in short is  *The melted steel, the severe corrosion, intergranular melting, and the abundance of sulfur are consistent with the theory of thermite arson.* 
Now you know, or will you continue to try to come up with some more outrageous bullshit, or ignore this by covering your eyes?
9-11 Research: Forensic Metallurgy



> "Nanothermite"?    First off, they don't even claim to have found "nanothermite".  They claim to have found an "active thermitic compound".


The nine authors undertook an in-depth study of unusual red-gray chips found in the dust generated during the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. The article states: The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. *When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 &#730;C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite.* Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.
*When one understands how Thermite and Thermate work, and that these violent reactions produce intense heat, white smoke, and molten iron, the visible evidence of thermitic reactions in the photographs and videos of 9-11 becomes quite obvious. The evidence of flowing molten metal preceded by pressure pulses of white smoke are clearly indicative of thermitic reactions, and can be seen in many videos and photos of the towers.*
Dr. Farrer is featured in an article on page 11 of the BYU Frontiers magazine, Spring 2005: Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, lab director for TEM (TEM stands for Transmission Electron Microscopy). The article notes: The electron microscopes in the TEM lab combine to give BYU capabilities that are virtually unique rivaling anything built worldwide. The article is entitled: Rare and Powerful Microscopes Unlock Nano Secrets,* which is certainly true as regards the discoveries of the present paper.*
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe | 911Blogger.com

It was found and totally ignored by the cowards you fully endorse. What, are you saying nano thermite doesn't exist? You are as stupid as they come.



> Not only that, but the "scientific" method they used was found to be complete horseshit.


 LOL!  Says who, a woefully ignorant liar like you? No thanks you're the last idiot people should trust, and you obviously can't tell the difference between horseshit and horse shoes. What method of testing would you have conducted, and why don't you provide any links to your sources that back up your claims?



> Why do you think they had to pay to get it published and won't have it peer reviewed?


Formally published in a peer-reviewed Chemical Physics journal:
  Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen
*The peer-review on this paper was grueling, with pages of comments by referees. The tough questions the reviewers raised led to months of further experiments. These studies added much to the paper, including observation and photographs of iron-aluminum rich spheres produced as the material is ignited in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter*
Horseshit he says!! 
Whether they paid or not what does it matter anyway? Because they may have had to pay a fee, an ignorant fool like you would have us believe that the contents or science within it are false or not credible? I'm no expert but I trust these guys more then the blatant liars you do.
But this is just another example of you using your failed tactics to attack something of little significance to distract from the major points and topic  Your BS is sooo blatantly obvious!



> You fucktards will fall for anything won't you.


 On the contrary, it's idiots like you that swallow even the most obvious lies and impossible phenomena because you are too scared of a little pussy to see what a great majority of courageous people have come to accept, that is that the official explanation for the events of 9-11 point to a false flag attack and cover up.



> Molten metal.... what is that suppose to be evidence of?


 The bluish smoke that rose from the rubble pile contained large amounts of nanosized particles of metals created only in fires hotter than the boiling point of the metal.That is fucking hot, and your office fires and kerosene is not going to be able of those kinds of temps.
 Neither the lack of air nor the continuous dousing with water affected these intense hot spots. Thermite has its own oxygen supply so it can remain covered up by rubble and still burn. They even resorted to using the chemical additive Pyrocool and ordered thousands of gallons of the stuff to try to put the fires out. This is evidence of thermite, which can be used underwater, cooking under the pile.



> Thermite?  That produces molten iron for a very short period of time.  So what does molten metal prove other than your paranoid delusions apparently override common sense and logic?


Wrong, The discovery of thermite in the dust of the WTC is solid scientific proof that this steel melting and steel vaporizing material was used to demolish the twin towers on 9-11. The peer reviewed scientific paper- Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9-11 World Trade Center Catastrophe by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsenthat presents the evidence of Super-Thermite (nano-sized Thermite compounds) in the dust of the twin towers.

 Time to get off the C-4 and RDX crap you been reading about, as the primary source for this clandestine op. Thermite/thermate is now the substance most thought of as being used to cut the steel, especially since it was found there, and is the primary source that explains the molten metal.



> Testimonial evidence of explosives?  BULLSHIT.  You have testimonial evidence of EXPLOSIONS.  I realize you're too big of a fucking idiot to realize not all explosions are caused by explosives, but for Christ's sake!  Learn something for once!


 If there are hundreds of people that heard explosions, logic would say that explosives were used, and should have been included in the NIST investigation. You can see the towers exploding and not collapsing, or toppling like one would expect, in the videos. It's so fucking obvious to everyone except dumbfucks like you that suffer from a denial of severe proportions. So according to you, if you hear an explosion, your first reaction is anything other then an explosive causing it? You are in a class of moron unto yourself.



> Really?  So they heard the massive explosions liars like you claim were *going off the entire time *the towers were collapsing?  Wow.  Please point out how you came to that ludicrous conclusion.


It is possible that the collapsing floors and the sounds they made were the explosions. The collapsing floors sounded like explosions to many there that day, and for all we know very well could have been. I read that they charges could have been placed every 3rd floor. But you are assuming sounds that C4 and the like would make but anyone with half a brain should be able to figure out that had the buildings been rigged like a conventional CD, the entire deception wouldn't work!



> And NONE of them witnessed explosives.  They witnessed EXPLOSIONS.  Again, get it through that pea brain of yours they are not the same.  We realize a dishonest piece of shit like you can't help but lie your ass off at every opportunity, but why do you insist on putting words in their mouths?


Evidence of you distorting and twisting is so obvious here again. The point has been made to you time and again-an investigation that includes looking for the use of explosives is part of routine fire investigations, that NIST did not do. Explosions were heard and you finally gave up denying this, so now you try with all your disinfo might to separate the two and say that explosions and explosives somehow probably shouldn't be connected!  The dishonesty you display is rampant and obvious 



> No, fuck you, you traitorous piece of shit.  I am not the one putting words in their mouths or pretending every explosion was caused by explosives.  That would be you.


 Your argument here fails so bad! Again explosions were heard-investigations for explosives should have been done, when will you finally get this through your dumb fucking delusional pea size brain? 



> Nobody ignored your sorry excuse for evidence.  Unfortunately for you, your "evidence" isn't.  Read above and weep, pussy!


 Yes NIST ignored evidence, fabricated evidence, distorted evidence, the 9-11 commission even rejects its own findings. If you continue to refuse to acknowledge what most people can see and except, it shows you are lacking the most basic of human functions.



> Shouting it doesn't make it true.  I am guessing you never made it past the first grade given your schoolyard tactics most people grow out of.


 A cursory glance at your posts since your chest thumping arrival here will show who the "1st grade school yard child" is 



> I've shown you a video where you can clearly hear the collapse, but don't hear a damn thing prior to or during the collapse that could in any way be described as an explosion.


There are videos with audio that one can clearly hear rumblings, and there are videos that were released by NIST under the FOIA, that clearly show signs of tampering with the audio. But anyway So?
 It still does not mean the steel reacted the way it did by fire alone, you leave out the fact that a thermite cutting charge would not be as noisy as C-4 or RDX. You have to fall back on NIST presuming the use of conventional explosives, when clearly their use would have failed to be clandestine.
 Again your audio silence does nothing, NOTHING to further the belief in the NIST fantasy. 3 Buildings, pulverized to dust, fell at or near free fall, with molten metal under the rubble pile that burned for 3 months, and evidence of thermite was found in the dust, and some steel- those are facts. Facts that the NIST explanation does not explain! It actually creates more questions, and makes them look more dishonest by finally admitting to free fall! Only idiots like you continue to swallow their bullshit!



> Truthtards are neither intelligent or informed.  You are a prime example.  You don't know what constitutes evidence and you have to ignore evidence in order to make your bullshit stand.


  Nope NIST is the agency ignoring evidence, it has been shown and proven in many cases, even their computer model is a laughing stock! It looks nothing like the actual cvollapse of 7! And continuing to ignore their shortcomings and lies shows what a truly stupid individual you and the OCTASSes are.



> You think politics doesn't produce a bias?  What rock do you hide your sorry ass under?


 Of course it does asshole! What do you think the point I was trying to make was? God you are stupid! I showed you how many scientist and Nobel Prize Laureates signed the statement about "Bush Science"! 



> "Scientific" reports have been used repeatedly as political tools by the supposed scientists that perform the studies.  How fucking naive does a person have to be to blindly trust a "scientific" study that can't stand a peer review and has clear motivations to "prove" a theory the "scientists" had been promoting before the "experiments" were even performed.


 Take a good look at the "scientific study" you are defending and who was in charge, and who had political control and pressure over them, and you will see evidence of  exactly what you are saying.



> MR. Jones-The thermitic material that was found is much more then aluminum and rust! You've been giving too much credence to the guys trying to desperately deny all of this. They try to say that thermite was some kind of a natural material to find at ground zero. I guess you and they think that if you have all the ingredients to make a cake in your cupboard, you can just throw them out the window and presto..you have a cake!





> Which explains why the "scientists" had to process the "dust" in order to get it to react, right?    What they fail to explain is why the "thermitic material" ignited at the wrong temperature and gave off the wrong amount of energy for thermite.


LOL, what you should be asking is what the fuck was this material doing in the WTC! You idiots are saying these are naturally occurring chemicals that would have made themselves into what was found? Fucking crazy!
The fact remains that it was found, and it is the possible explanation to the molten metal under the buildings, get over it and start asking yourself the really important questions others have moved onto, like how, and who would do this. You really are behind the curve junior.



> Bullshit.  First off, they're not credible scientists, second, they had to pay to get their report published, third, it was never peer reviewed, and fourth, despite your ignorant claims to the contrary, they didn't find nano-thermite but an "active thermitic substance".


 Blah blah blah, who says they aren't credible scientists? Is that your opinion, or someone else saying this? Of course you have to attack their credentials cause you people got nothing else to attack! 
 All the crying and BS in the world you try to come up with, will not change what these brave men from the scientific community found and that many of their peers have excepted. Why don't you try to grow a pair and move the fuck on, if you give a shit about your country. "Patriot911".....What a joke!



> Care to link these supposed other studies done by other agencies?


 I care. Do you care enough to read them? I doubt it. 



> The bullshit ramblings of a delusional piece of shit.  The NIST hasn't been caught in any lies, and the truthtard bowel movement consists of hundreds or MAYBE thousands, but definitely not millions.  We know you like to stroke your own ego among other things, but you're not kidding anyone.


 Not my ramblings, facts from credible people, way more credible then agencies, or governments that have lied to us in the past and continue to so, and way better human beings then you could ever dream to be.



> How fucking stupid are you to think every explosion is caused by explosives?  The NIST along with everyone else knows how loud explosives are.  They know how much would be needed to cut the main column of WTC 7 and at a half mile it would sound like a gun going off right next to you.


 I'm sure that there were explosions that were possibly not caused by explosives, but you are stupid to presume they are all caused by cans of furniture polish!
 but your argument has been proven false many times, and thermite/thermate partially explains this but you can't seem to move on past this point. I guess you can't because your whole belief system will come crashing down on you and you're not man enough to except it.



> They also know that these explosives would be going off just prior to and maybe even during the collapse, yet audio evidence shows no such explosions going off.


 Already been explained to you. 



> And one has to ask themselves this... of all the people who heard explosions, why do only TWO claim it was explosives and neither one of them is an expert at what explosives sound like?  Not to mention the fact the audio tapes prove they are outright lying or exaggerating to the point of lying.


 Ha ha! Yeah ok sure. Explain to us then how these buildings came down, you claim to know so much, and are so certain that what NIST says is so true. Truth is you can't, you have to use strawmen and BS tactics like attacking the integrity of people to make your theory work, because scientifically, and just plain ole common sense, NIST theory is so full of shit it's laughable, and so are you.



> The explosive blast in 93 was recorded by seismographs.  No such record exists on 9/11.


I read there are, and there's also thermal imaging taken from space depicting the intense heat at GZ, that no office fires could ever generate.



> There was no van with explosives.  There were no explosives in the basements.


Police radio reports are all over the tubes on this! Like I said, you are severely behind the curve and sorely lacking in information. That is why you say stupid shit like this. What a joke!! You really expect people who read this to take you seriously 



> There is overwhelming evidence that the people who make the claim of explosives in the basements are doing so for reasons other than honest ones.


Like what reasons? Or are you just talking out of your ass again? Maybe you could elaborate, cause you sound like an idiot again.



> Wrong yet again.  The NIST has NOT been caught lying unless one wants to buy into your bullshit lies.  You have yet to show any real evidence to back up your claims, much less proven anything.


 NIST lied, I posted information and links to back this up, but you will have to read NIST own reports, to confirm it for yourself which you wont do, so you will continuing to repeat BS arguments that have been kicked to the curb already.




> Repeating lies you can't even back up doesn't make them true no matter HOW much you whine like a little bitch about it.


This fits you so well it's funny that you yourself posted it 



> And given the wind was blowing to the south, what direction did the smoke go?


From what I can gather it went totally up your ass, through your empty dome and out your ears.



> As said by a known proven liar like you.    No thank you.  You're a piece of shit liar and the claims you make are likewise pieces of shit.  One of the truthtard "witnesses" made the claim that there was only smoke coming from one corner of the south face.  That has now been clearly shown to be a complete lie.  Now you, in a pathetic attempt to try and save face, are trying to compare the fires themselves to WTC 5 and 6.


 Why didn't 5-6 collapse and pulverize like 7? Why don't you ask yourself things like this instead of desperately holding on to dogshit about smoke? It doesn't make a difference, the fires were not hot enough to reach all the critical support beams, and move them out of the way to facilitate free fall you dumb ass MFKER! Or leave all that molten metal underneath! Dumbfuck! Can't you at the very least, _TRY _to use what little common sense you may have left?



> Lies built on lies built on lies.


 Exactly what the government and its agencies have done, and you cannot except this reality, or are too dumb to see it no matter what. You have no fucking sense. You are a lost fool!



> The videos show you're a fucking liar.


Actually many videos show the government, NIST and others you defend are the liars.



> The fact the wind was blowing to the south proves you're a liar.


 What a fucking whiny pussy! The wind!! What a desperate silly tool you are. I told you the wind and smoke has been blown straight up yer ass dumbfuck!  Now the _wind_ is supposed to prove and answer all these questions? Good God man, you are really desperate!



> The fact you're WAY too stupid to make any kinds of claims about how fast a building can or cannot collapse proves you're an ignorant asshole of epic proportions.  Keep it up, junior!  You're doing a wonderful job of making the truthtard bowel movement look like a bunch of incompetent fucktards.


 I vote for you as the #1 asshole of the OCTASSes! 
The buildings...3 of them..fell at or near free fall speed..NIST had to admit free fall...kerosene does not burn hot enough to cause this, or the molten metal...you are a fool if you can not fathom these very basic FACTS!!



> Thanks for confirming the wind was blowing from the North.  The videos quite clearly show the smoke was not a vortex.  How about explaining why the smoke STARTS at the south face of the WTC 7 and doesn't extend past that?  Face it, moron. The sources you're defending are outright lying to you about this and everything else.


 I can show you a video of a vortex at GZ but it doesn't matter fuckwad, WTC7 did not come down the way it did, because of "intense fires"!!! You are defending treason so by doing this you are a traitor to the country, and you shit on the principles that it was founded on.



> I didn't have to throw out evidence that didn't fit my preconceived notions.


 Yes you do, you ignore common sense, and very good science, and evidence that supports a real plausible explanation, evidence that has not been corrupted by politics and created out of fear. You ignore evidence that is not based on an agenda that is necessary to coincide with on energy policy that PNAC developed. You are a goddamned foolish idiot to refuse the overwhelming evidence that clearly points at the real enemies to the nation.



> Man are YOU gullible if you think they don't have reasons to lie.  Why do all you truthtards lie?  Simple.  You have an anti-government / anti-semitic / anti-whomever you're blaming this week agenda.  The very fact you shitheads can't even agree on what did or did not happen, by whom or how shows that you, as a group, are doing nothing but a circle jerk.


 You show quite a lack of knowledge of world events and politics, and I normally feel sorry for people like you, but your such an asshole that is too stubborn to realize how misinformed and plain wrong you actually are!
Your attitude further prohibits you from learning very important things about our nation and world that greatly effects you! You are a sorry ass person who has to resort to vulgarities and school yard tactics to bolster your obvious wrong beliefs.



> You can't even get the simple facts straight.  Care to prove the molten metal was there for three months?


 Look, all you have to do is search...it's in all the archived papers and can still be found online. This isn't the first time you have been told this, and you still seem to have to be led by the hand to perform even the most simplest of tasks, and resort to having to ask others to help you along. Get with it man, you really look like a fool typing things like this.



> Regardless, here's a real simple excercise for you.  Look up what chemical reaction can keep steel melted for more than a few minutes.  You won't find one.  If you did, you would solve most of the world's fuel and energy problems.


Show us where a hirise building fire burned for months under ground. Try that one for one of your _exercises._



> You run from evidence or try to dismiss it for no real reason, much less a valid reason.


 Sorry guy, but it really is you that is running away from reason.



> Says a known, proven liar despite all the video evidence to the contrary.


 Your description OF YOURSELF to a T.



> Because there was ZERO actual evidence to support the explosions theory.  No audio tapes showed explosions prior to or during the collapse.  You can't have explosions large enough to cut all the columns without sound.  This is a fact you will continue to ignore in your haste to tell your lies.


 Thermitic cutter charges, and there were explosions you lying dumbfuck.



> I have never denied explosions.  What I have denied is the SOURCE of those explosions.  YOU and your fellow truthtards pretend all explosions have to be caused by explosives.  THAT is truly retarded.


 And you pretend that in a scenario like a terror attack on 9-11, in a complex that was BOMBED before, an explosion being caused by an explosive should be treated as an afterthought!   "Nah don't worry about it, just a couple cans of WD40, or Lemon Pledge"!  You really have no idea just how stupid you sound by saying this do you?
You are definitely a stupid, fucking moron!
 NIST should have investigated it, plain and simple. How can you back such a flawed investigation? You probably _do _think the explosions were cans of furniture polish! 



> So why is it only TWO of all the people who heard explosions actually think they were caused by explosives?


Thinking something so absurd is typical of your reasoning. 


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


 He was following orders and admits "we are gagged". It is well known that many people are afraid to say what they really think, and and stupid idiots that have no clue of the real world like yourself are the only ones that wouldn't know this. Strange how NIST didn't _follow the RULES._



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


 Hey anyone that wants to know who started projecting homo fantasies about other mens privates can just go back and read your filthy posts. This particular consultant obviously had a lot of pull you stupid fuck, they were following their consultants orders, and if they didn't what do you think would have happened to them, and their job at FDNY, faced disciplinary actions and the like, possibly lose years of pensions, are you that stupid that you can't figure this stuff out and put the simplest of things together?



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You need to seriously get a grip and read what was posted again you are seriously twisting shit up again  Ah fuck it you're a hopeless troll anyway.
> But no matter what you say or how you try spin it and use all your little sissy disinfo techniques, and try to bolster the lie that is the official fantasy,.. you lose, because there is more reason to believe then not that 9-11 was a false flag attack on the nation as a pretext for war for obtain energy sources and military bases. They killed innocent American citizens and count on treasonous commie loving  faggots like yourself  to swallow their obvious lies and spread anti American propaganda. You are the type of scumbag that I pray will pay for every single lie that comes out of your filthy faggot mouth.





> I see you couldn't even begin to respond to that set of your lies either.  Way to go!  Truthtards truly suck ass at trying to defend what they claim is true!  It is the only thing you've proven so far.  Must make you feel good.


 I've responded to your asinine BS long enough. You're a hopeless idiot, and not doing anybody one bit of service by posting garbage that has been refuted time and again, you have been exposed as the lying troll you really are, and a disgrace to all OCTASSes everywhere.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 29, 2011)

candycorn said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing worth repeating
> ...


 It looks like you are misquoting people again. I suggest you you double check when and where I said that, and while your at it, use it in a context that makes fucking sense. When the hell were we talking about Bush and the elections? Besides most everybody knows that they were both ripe with fucked up and rigged voting machines.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 29, 2011)

> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > > *Edited* Nothing worth repeating
> ...



I just love rubbing your nose in the truth you grotesque bitch.  Somehow the same voting machines decided Obama was the winner in 08 right bitch.  

I own you; always have, always will.  Too bad you're not worth anything.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 29, 2011)

candycorn said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


yeah, funny how those faulty machines got it right that time

and dont forget those same faulty machines gave the democrats a landslide win in 06 too


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 29, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> > =Patriot911;3260702]
> >
> > Sulfidated steel?  What is that evidence of?  It doesn't happen due to explosives.
> 
> ...


Really?  I'm not the one who just laid down a whole bunch of evidence that the sulfidation had nothing to do with explosives.    You're too stupid to realize when you expose your own ignorance!  How classic!  Are you intelligent enough to know what explosives do?  They CUT steel.  They don't make holes in it.  Way to prove your ignorance though.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> > "Nanothermite"?    First off, they don't even claim to have found "nanothermite".  They claim to have found an "active thermitic compound".
> 
> 
> 
> It was found and totally ignored by the cowards you fully endorse. What, are you saying nano thermite doesn't exist? You are as stupid as they come.


  Those stupid fucks you worship and kiss their ass wouldn't know proper scientific method if it came up and bit them on the ass.  In true truthtard fashion, they come up with something they don't expect and PRETEND it means something.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Formally published in a peer-reviewed Chemical Physics journal:


  You stupid fuck!  You don't even know the difference between a peer reviewed project and a peer reviewed journal!  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe


I thought you said they found nano-thermite, yet here they don't state that.    Your lies just keep compounding!  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen
> *The peer-review on this paper was grueling, with pages of comments by referees. The tough questions the reviewers raised led to months of further experiments. These studies added much to the paper, including observation and photographs of iron-aluminum rich spheres produced as the material is ignited in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter*
> Horseshit he says!!


So where is the peer review and who was it done by?



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> On the contrary, it's idiots like you that swallow even the most obvious lies and impossible phenomena because you are too scared of a little pussy to see what a great majority of courageous people have come to accept, that is that the official explanation for the events of 9-11 point to a false flag attack and cover up.


Wrong again.  I demand EVIDENCE.  There is plenty of evidence that supports the official theory.  What have you stupid fucks produced?  Jack shit.  Not one of you assholes can produce a real piece of evidence when asked.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The bluish smoke that rose from the rubble pile contained large amounts of nanosized particles of metals created only in fires hotter than the boiling point of the metal.


Bullshit.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> That is fucking hot, and your office fires and kerosene is not going to be able of those kinds of temps.


So you post a lie and then base other lies on top of the original lies.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Neither the lack of air nor the continuous dousing with water affected these intense hot spots. Thermite has its own oxygen supply so it can remain covered up by rubble and still burn. They even resorted to using the chemical additive Pyrocool and ordered thousands of gallons of the stuff to try to put the fires out. This is evidence of thermite, which can be used underwater, cooking under the pile.


OK, and here we can expose your extreme ignorance and total stupidity.  How long does thermite burn, genius?   Depending on the volume, it can burn from seconds to minutes.  It most certainly can't burn for days or weeks.  It takes a special kind of fool to be able to overlook such obvious flaws. 



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Wrong, The discovery of thermite in the dust of the WTC is solid scientific proof that this steel melting and steel vaporizing material was used to demolish the twin towers on 9-11.


Bullshit.  Here is where your extreme lack of education in science shows just how truly fucking stupid you are.  How does thermite work?  It works by producing super heated molten iron that then burns through whatever is below it.  Is that what FEMA found in the sulfidated steel?  Not even close.  What was done to the steel was done through exposure to high temperatures.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The peer reviewed scientific paper- Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9-11 World Trade Center Catastrophe by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsenthat presents the evidence of Super-Thermite (nano-sized Thermite compounds) in the dust of the twin towers.


No, look at the title.  Active thermitic material is non super thermite.  It isn't nano-thermite.  It is a thermitic material, in other words a material that can undergo a chemical reaction that produces heat.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Time to get off the C-4 and RDX crap you been reading about, as the primary source for this clandestine op. Thermite/thermate is now the substance most thought of as being used to cut the steel, especially since it was found there, and is the primary source that explains the molten metal.


Wrong on ALL counts.  First off, there is a reason thermite in ANY form is not used in controlled demolitions.  It only cuts DOWN.  It can't cut ACROSS.  It can't be timed with the precision necessary for controlled demolitions.  Now, since it is you stupid fucks that claim the symmetry in which the buildings came down is proof of controlled demolition, how is it you can also claim the way it was done is the one way you can't control?  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> If there are hundreds of people that heard explosions, logic would say that explosives were used, and should have been included in the NIST investigation.


Nope.  First off, you claim it was nano-thermite.  Nano-thermite doesn't explode.    Caught in your own bullshit again.  Second, it is not uncommon at all to hear explosions in small fires.  It is almost a given in larger fires.  Since NONE of the other evidence of explosions was ever found, it rules out explosives.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> You can see the towers exploding and not collapsing, or toppling like one would expect, in the videos.


Only an ignorant moron of EPIC proportions would think the towers should have toppled over.    Only goes to show you have a non-existant education in engineering and physics.  Play with some building blocks and try to get a top block to topple to the side.  I figure you're immature enough to still have some blocks and probably still play with them.  Think about it for a bit.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> It's so fucking obvious to everyone except dumbfucks like you that suffer from a denial of severe proportions.


Wrong as you prove above.  In your ignorance, you pretend you actually know what you are talking about, but you don't.  The tops of the towers couldn't topple because the lower floors wouldn't be able to take the strain, and would have to at LEAST partially collapse for the top part to topple in the first place.  Why do you think only stupid truthtards pretend toppling is an expected occurence?  No structural engineers are claiming the towers should have toppled because that is such a retarded claim to anyone who has studied engineering.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> So according to you, if you hear an explosion, your first reaction is anything other then an explosive causing it?  You are in a class of moron unto yourself.


When there is several huge fires raging out of control caused by a couple of airliners hitting buildings?  Yeah, I think my first line of suspicions would be the fires were causing them.  The explosions in the basements of the towers were shown to be elevators falling down, yet you fucking liars ignore this to pretend it was explosives in the basement.  The experts of explosives on the scene were the fire fighters, yet not one of them has stepped forward and said the explosions were caused by explosives.  They paid with their blood, sweat and tears on 9/11.  If they thought something was wrong, you would see them out in force.  That right there tells me stupid fucks like you hiding behind keyboards are wrong about the explosives.  The fact there is no other evidence of explosives only drives home that point.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> It is possible that the collapsing floors and the sounds they made were the explosions.


No.  Look at other controlled demolitions.  The sounds of the demolition charges are many times louder than the collapse itself.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The collapsing floors sounded like explosions to many there that day, and for all we know very well could have been.


Only if one is as ignorant as a truthtard who wants to ignore all the other evidence.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> I read that they charges could have been placed every 3rd floor. But you are assuming sounds that C4 and the like would make but anyone with half a brain should be able to figure out that had the buildings been rigged like a conventional CD, the entire deception wouldn't work!


So if that is the case, wouldn't they hear boom boom BOOM boom boom BOOM?  Come on.  You're disproving your own claims!  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Evidence of you distorting and twisting is so obvious here again. The point has been made to you time and again-an investigation that includes looking for the use of explosives is part of routine fire investigations, that NIST did not do.


When the cause of the fire is unknown and the structure exploded, you're absolutely right.  Explosives are looked for.  Otherwise ACCELERANTS are looked for to see if it was arson.  Pretending looking for explosives is part of every fire investigation only shows how completely ignorant of reality you really are.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Explosions were heard and you finally gave up denying this


Stop lying.  I've NEVER denied explosions.  You really are a pathologicial liar, aren't you.  You can't help it!  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> so now you try with all your disinfo might to separate the two and say that explosions and explosives somehow probably shouldn't be connected!  The dishonesty you display is rampant and obvious


Really?  So one should always assume explosions are caused by high explosives regardless of what else is going on?  Because that is what little shits like you are doing.  You're pretending there CAN'T be any other explanation even when other explanations are not only more plausible, but the evidence points to them instead of explosives.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Your argument here fails so bad! Again explosions were heard-investigations for explosives should have been done, when will you finally get this through your dumb fucking delusional pea size brain?


Explosions were heard, but not at the right times.  A controlled demolition has very large explosions going off just prior to the collapse event and then sometimes during the collapse event.  THIS DID NOT HAPPEN.  I've shown you audio where the collapse is clearly heard and not so much as a pop is heard prior to or during the collapse.  You have been completely unable to address this point.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Yes NIST ignored evidence, fabricated evidence, distorted evidence, the 9-11 commission even rejects its own findings.


All bullshit from you.    Continue to make up obvious lies.  It is your credibility being decimated.  Not mine.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> If you continue to refuse to acknowledge what most people can see and except, it shows you are lacking the most basic of human functions.


No, it shows I have honor, I respect the truth, I use logic, I examine ALL the evidence, and I don't listen to obvious liars like you.  Don't you wish you could say the same?



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> There are videos with audio that one can clearly hear rumblings, and there are videos that were released by NIST under the FOIA, that clearly show signs of tampering with the audio. But anyway So?


NONE of them, including ones not released by the NIST, show the clear signs of explosives.  NOT ONE.  Are you going to try and claim they were ALL doctored even though most come from non government sources?  Way to expose your paranoid delusions for all to see!  Wow!  I think the count of the people needing to be in on the conspiracy has now reached hundreds of thousands of people!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> It still does not mean the steel reacted the way it did by fire alone, you leave out the fact that a thermite cutting charge would not be as noisy as C-4 or RDX. You have to fall back on NIST presuming the use of conventional explosives, when clearly their use would have failed to be clandestine.


And why am I not surprised to see a dumbshit like you ignoring the use of thermite in controlled demolitions?  We all know you like to ignore evidence, but even someone as dishonest as you should not be able to deny the shortcomings of thermite.

Besides, doesn't it strike everyone as odd that Jones is arguing both sides of the case?  The explosions heard is proof of explosives, but the cutting charges were thermite so didn't make a sound.    You can't even get out of your own fucking way!  CLASSIC!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Again your audio silence does nothing, NOTHING to further the belief in the NIST fantasy. 3 Buildings, pulverized to dust, fell at or near free fall, with molten metal under the rubble pile that burned for 3 months, and evidence of thermite was found in the dust, and some steel- those are facts.


Some of that is fact.  Some of that is lies.  You still can't do a controlled demolition with thermite and thermite most definitely doesn't burn for three months.  You're just digging a deeper hole by continuing to make these retarded claims.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Facts that the NIST explanation does not explain! It actually creates more questions, and makes them look more dishonest by finally admitting to free fall! Only idiots like you continue to swallow their bullshit!


So you want the NIST to explain YOUR lies?  Wow!  What an ego!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Nope NIST is the agency ignoring evidence, it has been shown and proven in many cases, even their computer model is a laughing stock! It looks nothing like the actual cvollapse of 7! And continuing to ignore their shortcomings and lies shows what a truly stupid individual you and the OCTASSes are.


  Way to prove your ignorance again.  Apparently you've never studied chaos theory.  It is almost impossible, even with computers today, to accurately model every possible factor that shows a complex event like the collapse of a building happening in the model exactly as it happens in real life.  Apparenly the only laughing stock here is you!



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Of course it does asshole! What do you think the point I was trying to make was? God you are stupid! I showed you how many scientist and Nobel Prize Laureates signed the statement about "Bush Science"!


OK, so let me get this straight.... YOUR scientists don't have any bias, but everyone else does.    You stupid, stupid fuck.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> Take a good look at the "scientific study" you are defending and who was in charge, and who had political control and pressure over them, and you will see evidence of  exactly what you are saying.


Except the NIST studies have been examined IN DEPTH by universities and engineering agencies the world over and in general, everyone agrees with the NIST findings.  



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> LOL, what you should be asking is what the fuck was this material doing in the WTC! You idiots are saying these are naturally occurring chemicals that would have made themselves into what was found? Fucking crazy!


Aluminum and rust what make up thermite.  Don't believe me?  Look it up.  Processing the dust and refining it to the point they got a thermitic reaction that was patently NOT a thermite reaction because it started WAY too soon SHOULD tell any scientist worth a hill of beans that they need to do more research into the chemical reaction that DID happen.  Instead they stamp it as an active thermitic compound and feel you stupid fucks terms like nano-thermite so you'll go off and pretend you're intelligent.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> The fact remains that it was found, and it is the possible explanation to the molten metal under the buildings


No, it is NOT a possible explanation of the molten metal.  It CAN'T be.  NO CHEMICAL REACTION KNOWN TO MANKIND can keep steel melted for any length of time.  This is a truth you refuse to acknowledge.  Now, we realize you are living in a fantasy land where you can bend the laws of physics and the laws of thermodynamics, but this one is a law you just cannot bend.  Thermite reacts and causes superheated iron.  That reaction happens in seconds to minutes depending on the amount.  Past that it is over.  Once again you are faced with having to find an alternate explanation because your bullshit just does not fly.



			
				Mr. Jones said:
			
		

> get over it and start asking yourself the really important questions others have moved onto, like how, and who would do this. You really are behind the curve junior.


Wrong again, dumbfuck!  You've come up with a seriously fetid pile of bullshit, but it is all based on lies and seriously retarded guesses.  

And with that, I'm done with you.    You have proven yourself to be, without a doubt, the most stupid dumbfuck ever to wear the title of truthtard.  Come back when you grow up and get an education.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 29, 2011)

> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 29, 2011)

candycorn said:


> [quote*Edited*]
> Nothing worth repeating





> Bush won Ohio and the Presidency twice.  How'd that taste?


I see you got caught lying again! Loser!


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 29, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> > Patriot911 said:
> >
> >
> > > Really?  I'm not the one who just laid down a whole bunch of evidence that the sulfidation had nothing to do with explosives.    You're too stupid to realize when you expose your own ignorance!  How classic!  Are you intelligent enough to know what explosives do?  They CUT steel.  They don't make holes in it.  Way to prove your ignorance though.
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 29, 2011)

What a fucking loon....

Even Eots will tell you that thermite does not burn for weeks.

By the way your hero Jones lost his job with BYU because of his papers, and an Editor at another place resigned probably because she was asked to back him up.... LOL


----------



## candycorn (Jan 29, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > [quote*Edited*]
> ...



Bush did win Ohio twice; I love it!


----------



## eots (Jan 30, 2011)

candycorn said:


> > candycorn said:
> >
> >
> > > bush won ohio and the presidency twice.  How'd that taste?
> ...



what a fucking loon


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 30, 2011)

> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > You stupid dumb fuck.  They had the pieces of steel.  There WAS NO *IRON* DEPOSITS ON THE STEEL.  Your whole bullshit claim is that there was sulfur in the thermite to do whatever.    Yet the steel didn't show melting but sulfidation.
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 30, 2011)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > > it looks like you are misquoting people again. I suggest you you double check when and where i said that, and while your at it, use it in a context that makes fucking sense. When the hell were we talking about bush and the elections? Besides most everybody knows that they were both ripe with fucked up and rigged voting machines.
> ...



No shit, it brings something like this to mind...







WEEEE BUSH WON WEEEE!!


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 30, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> > Patriot911 said:
> >
> >
> > > You stupid dumb fuck.  They had the pieces of steel.  There WAS NO *IRON* DEPOSITS ON THE STEEL.  Your whole bullshit claim is that there was sulfur in the thermite to do whatever.    Yet the steel didn't show melting but sulfidation.
> ...


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 30, 2011)

Richard Falk, a retired professor from Princeton University, wrote on his blog that there had been an &#8220;apparent cover up&#8221; by American authorities.

UN Human Rights Official Claims 9-11 Was US Plot | 9-11 News | World for 9-11 Truth | W9T.org

*Excerpt from Richard Falk&#8217;s blog post:*

_&#8220;What fuels suspicions of [the 9-11] conspiracy is the reluctance to address the sort of awkward gaps and contradictions in the official explanations that David Ray Griffin (and other devoted scholars of high integrity) have been documenting in book after book ever since his authoritative The New Pearl Harbor in 2004 (updated in 2008).
&#8220;What may be more distressing than the apparent cover up is the eerie silence of the mainstream media, unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials. Is this silence a manifestation of fear or cooption, or part of an equally disturbing filter of self-censorship?
&#8220;Whatever it is, the result is the withering away of a participatory citizenry and the erosion of legitimate constitutional government. The forms persist, but the content is missing.&#8221;_
Full post available at www.richardfalk.wordpress.com

*
He added that most media were &#8220;unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events&#8221; on 9-11, despite it containing &#8220;gaps and contradictions&#8221;.
And he described David Ray Griffin, a conspiracy theorist highly regarded in the so-called &#8220;9-11 truth&#8221; movement, as a &#8220;scholar of high integrity&#8221; whose book on the subject was &#8220;authoritative&#8221;.
Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary-General, described the comments as &#8220;preposterous&#8221; and &#8220;an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in the attack.&#8221; But Mr Ban said that it was not for him to decide whether Prof Falk, who serves the organization as a special investigator into human rights abuses in the Palestinian territories, should be fired by the UN.
Vijay Nambiar, Mr Ban&#8217;s chief of staff, said this was up to the human rights council, a 47-nation body based in Geneva, Switzerland, that was created by the UN in 2006.
UN Watch, a pressure group that monitors the organisation, has called for Prof Falk to be sacked. Hilel Neuer, the group&#8217;s chief executive, described him as &#8220;a serial offender with zero credibility&#8221;.
The row came as the new Republican-led US Congress opened an inquiry into &#8220;urgent problems&#8221; with America&#8217;s contribution to the UN, including its membership of the human rights council.
*

AE911Truth.org

Military Officers for 9/11 Truth

Scientists for 9/11 Truth

Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth  FF 911 Truth

Pilots For 9/11 Truth

The Truth is coming.  God Bless America.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 30, 2011)

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 | Stand with the 911 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?

WTC 7 Free fell for 2.25 seconds into its own foot print.  This is only possible with explosives in a controlled demolition.  *Fact.*

Nanothermite was found in the WTC dust by the tons.

Reinvestigate 9/11 for the 3,000 people who died that day.  They deserve justice.


----------



## Mini 14 (Jan 30, 2011)

We are assembled and ready, Sir!!!!


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 30, 2011)

and PE is back to his usual SPAM


----------



## Meister (Jan 30, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> and PE is back to his usual SPAM



Like I said, Dive, he's a one trick pony.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 30, 2011)

Truthers Episode IX

Return of the Retard


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 30, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Richard Falk, a retired professor from Princeton University, wrote on his blog that there had been an apparent cover up by American authorities.
> 
> UN Human Rights Official Claims 9-11 Was US Plot | 9-11 News | World for 9-11 Truth | W9T.org
> 
> ...


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 30, 2011)

Meister said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > and PE is back to his usual SPAM
> ...




www.MilitaryOfficersfor911truth.org



> *As officers in the U.S. military, we took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Regardless of our current status -- active duty, reserves, retired, or civilian -- that oath remains in force. Therefore it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, how much we have to suffer, or where it leads us. We owe this to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and we owe it to those who are following that same oath today in Iraq and Afghanistan. We believe the official account of 9/11 as defined in the 9/11 Commission Report is grossly inaccurate and fatally flawed. It is imperative that we have an accurate understanding of 9/11 so that those responsible can be identified and brought to justice in order that they and similarly-minded people never again commit such heinous crimes. It is also imperative that we have an accurate understanding of 9/11 so that governmental policies resulting from 9/11 are based on truth rather than deception.*
> 
> *We join with other organizations of professionals, such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, and Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, and millions of individual citizens in demanding a thorough, impartial, open and transparent reinvestigation of the terrorist acts of 9/11.*




[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72eIYJhPeEI&feature=player_embedded[/ame]


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 30, 2011)




----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 30, 2011)

Gage, Avery and the troofers get made fools of by this one.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMr3ZSL6l-4&feature=related[/ame]

You really see the agenda at the 9:02 point. !


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 30, 2011)

eots said:


> OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation



I always find it funny when truthtards post this article as though it proves they are right.    Hey eots, you do realize the author doesn't question 9/11, just parts of the NIST report and not because he thinks there were explosives.  

Truthtards are such funny, silly little creatures.  Too bad they are true traitors to this great nation of ours.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 30, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
> ...


and i emailed the man, he calls troofers nutters
LOL


----------



## The T (Jan 30, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Gage, Avery and the troofers get made fools of by this one.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMr3ZSL6l-4&feature=related
> 
> You really see the agenda at the 9:02 point. !


 
Some of these idiots by their own admission state "_We don't know what happened..." _it's IN the video...but yet they remain rock-ribbed _truthers..._

Why?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 30, 2011)

The T said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Gage, Avery and the troofers get made fools of by this one.
> ...



They have a new version of truth.

It doesn't rely on facts.


----------



## The T (Jan 30, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...


 
Astounding. That remark in the video caught my attention...


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 30, 2011)

The T said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


mine too


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 30, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...



The little prick really dropped his pants with that comment, didn't he?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 30, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


and avery's comment at the end is very telling


----------



## The T (Jan 30, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


 
Yep.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 30, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Bypassing spam.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 30, 2011)

all you post is SPAM


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 30, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMr3ZSL6l-4&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

"I don't care what fucking experience he has" 

And this is who we're supposed to turn to for "THE TRUTH"?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 30, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


hey, but they have 0.01% of architects and engineers that agree with them
and our 99.99% are all in on it


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 30, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



They hope that sometime in the next 20 years, they can get to the magic 6%!


----------



## Meister (Jan 30, 2011)

Looks like when there is any truth to be seen or read, it's considered spam by Physicsexist.  That is very telling with this one trick pony.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 30, 2011)

I wonder if PE will ever get around to answering if he believes the towers had concrete cores.

If all of the "truthers" really possess "THE TRUTH", he should validate professor Christophera's theory.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 30, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> I wonder if PE will ever get around to answering if he believes the towers had concrete cores.
> 
> If all of the "truthers" really possess "THE TRUTH", he should validate professor Christophera's theory.


he wont answer


----------



## eots (Jan 31, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I e-mailed him and he says he never made this comment and he supports a re-investigation of 9/11


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 31, 2011)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...


sure you did
LOL
and no, i dont still have the email and i wouldnt post it for you anyway cause you are a proven LIAR


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 31, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > Steel is made out of *IRON *you stupid dipshit!
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 31, 2011)

You guys sure do like to write whole books don't you. Me, I'm a simpler person who tries to keep things as uncomplicated as possible.

So just for the sake of argument let's say that the buildings were wired with some secretive new type of nanothermite and/or explosives and that it was all set up to cause this progressive demolition of the towers.

Then after months of setting this elaborate system of explosives and thermite, we take a fully loaded 757 and crash it randomly into the side of the building at full speed.

Now, how the fuck do we expect this not to fuck up months of work on our firing sequences? How do we now get the buildings to start to fall right at that precise place where the plane hit? How do we protect all the wiring from thousands of gallons of jet fuel going off at one time?

And don't forget we also have to make sure that there is massive damage done to building 7, because the 2 towers by themselves won't be good enough.

And just for cover we'll crash another plane into the ground in rural PA or maybe we'll fake that and just try to make people think they saw a plane crash there. 

Oh and while we're at it we'll crash something into the Pentagon, that way we can really pretend we are under attack.

Hint: It's not going to work.


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 31, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## Meister (Jan 31, 2011)

merged


----------



## eots (Jan 31, 2011)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6C6uJUzHn0&feature=player_embedded[/ame]


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 31, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> And you couldn't make a valid point if you had the entire educational staff of Harvard trying to coach you.
> Let's review:
> You, in your ignorance, are trying to pretend the sulfidation of the two steel beams was caused by thermite.  Thermite would have left iron deposits on the steel.  You, in your complete buffoonery, claim steel has iron in it!  *Which, of course, exposes your ignorance because while steel has iron in it, *it is no longer iron and the investigators would  have seen raw iron, not steel.


 This is sooo self explanatory, it requires no explanation on my part...Wow..You..are..an..idiot!



> So NOW what do you do?  Expose your dishonesty by now pretending we're talking about the molten metal.


Hey you're the one who asked about it's significance, your lack of comprehensive skills is showing again. 



> So make up your fucking mind!  You say thermite, nano-thermite and thermate as though they are interchangeable.  They're NOT.


 Thermites produce Aluminothermic reactions, Aluminothermics range from low-tech preparations that take seconds to react and therefore release nearly all their energy as heat and light, to advanced engineered materials with accelerated reaction rates that yield explosive powers similar to conventional high explosives.  It obvious to everyone except you of the significance of the discovery of thermitc substances that has been established, and that the testing revealed another form of the same substance. It's like you would say that a vitamin enriched wheat bread is a totally different bakery product then white bread because it is made with added ingredients!



> Second, thermite, thermate and nano-thermite don't "degrade steel".  That is complete bullshit made up by you.


 Here's your chance to provide a link and show me I'm wrong. So go ahead. I would first look up the actual definition of "degrade" 
You are an idiot, I can always count on getting a good laugh from your stupidity!



> The byproduct of thermite or thermate reactions is MOLTEN IRON that then CUTS the STEEL.  It doesn't degrade or sulfidize the metal as they found on those two beams.  If thermite or thermate were to have been used, they would have found cut beams and lots of iron residue.  Did they see that?  Not even close.


Generally, thermite is made by mixing Iron Oxide and Aluminum powder and igniting it at very high temperatures. *The reaction releases so much energy, molten Iron metal is produced as one of the products.* But again you provide no links to back up your assertions, your opinion alone means nothing, and you've shown an inability to be truthful. Links ??BTW.. You show here again that your claim of no iron deposits being found is false.



> And what is a thermite reaction?  Does it pit and corrode metal or does it cut metal due to superheated iron being produced?


A thermite reaction refers to a very exothermic process occurring between a metal oxide and a more active pure metal. The more reactive metal reduces the metal Oxide, Oxidizing itself and releasing a substantial amount of energy during the reaction which is what cuts the steel, and leaves behind the molten iron in its wake.



> Of course you're going to stop.  You know if you continue you will only expose your dishonesty and lack of intelligence.


 I have explained to you many times I'm no scientist, or physicist, I have learned what I have through reading and research, perhaps you would do well to do the same. 



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


 Of course it was found to be exaggerations after people used their brains and realized that what they were saying was utter BS! 
Can't you even try to understand that you first said there was no reports of the raging high temp fires that claimed to have melted the steel, then you tried to say that if there were, it came from the side that you call truthers!? You're a complete nutcase.
 The media is a very powerful propaganda tool, and in the first few days and months this is exactly what was being said to the public when we were all still in a state of panic and disbelief. I have shown you and provided links to back up my claims that you were wrong, quit twisting things around it only shows you trying to sneak your BS through this debate and is not working.



> And with that, we're done.  You still haven't grown up.  You are still an ignorant little fuck who wouldn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, and you are still a pathological liar.


 This better fits you as I have shown.



> Come back when you actually have something to discuss.  Your bullshit is repetitive and boring.


That's because your ADD is quite a serious handicap for you and no matter how many times something is explained to you and even linked for you, you still can't comprehend or put things together like most people could.



> The least you could do is learn what a thermite reaction is and why the two beams found are not in any way, shape or form, proof of a thermitic reaction going on.  But that would require a brain or a conspiracy site you can cut and paste from.  You have neither in this regard.


 Pretending this is true in your little mind must be a reaction that comforts you, I understand but in order to grasp the implications of what was found you had better get over it via meds, or just stop being such a coward and face the reality. We have found the smoking gun in nano thermite in the dust. This nanothermite was made in a lab, and not in a cave.
 The thermite debate is but one of the many anomalies about the 9-11 attacks. There are a myriad of things that have yet to be explained with a reasonable amount of certainty. How all the critical support beams in all 3 buildings were moved out of the way to allow the top halves to come down through them in the short amount of time relative to collapse one would assume is another mystery of huge implications. The discovery of the active thermitic substance sheds some light and provides a very logical explanation.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 31, 2011)

As per normal they can't answer the simple questions. I guess they haven't been told the answer yet.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 31, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> As per normal they can't answer the simple questions. I guess they haven't been told the answer yet.



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6C6uJUzHn0&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

This is as basic as it gets.

Nanothermite was found in the WTC dust by the tons. 

This is as simple as it gets.

WTC 7 freefell for 2.25 seconds.  This means it was a controlled demolition.

The Truth Hurts.


----------



## Meister (Jan 31, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > As per normal they can't answer the simple questions. I guess they haven't been told the answer yet.
> ...



That's why your in denial.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 31, 2011)

Meister said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


and why he NEVER answered my question to him


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 31, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



He ignores any questions posed to him.

How dare we ask him questions, he possesses "THE TRUTH" (copyright and patent pending)


----------



## Fizz (Feb 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> This means it was a controlled demolition.



says who?!!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 4, 2011)

Meister said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...




Yep you Bush dupes are in denial alright.Like he said,the truth hurts you OCTA'S. "official conspiracy theory apologists."


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 4, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## Meister (Feb 4, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



And your a friggin' moron, so what?


----------



## Fizz (Feb 4, 2011)

no explosions. fact vs fiction.


----------

