# National Geographic on 9/11



## creativedreams (Feb 3, 2010)

Anyone here watch the new 9/11 debunking tactic on Nat Geo last night?

I am putting together detailed and comprehensive information that will show what a farse it was all the while setting a mood or atmosphere of "what makes people want to believe".

It was basically a "magic show" tactic with psychological propaganda.

At least thay admitted 1/3 of Americans think 9/11 was an inside job.....by the way which is likely a much higher number now...

Can you believe they start off with some propaganda BS right off the bat that 50% of all Americans in 1941, right after it happened, thought Pearl Harbor was intentionally allowed to happen by the government?

I know I never thought that and where did they get those bogus numbers to start their propaganda piece?

Don't you find it a bit odd that our government now resorts to television propaganda to try and sway people instead of having new official investigations?


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Feb 3, 2010)

In 1941 there was the question of why the carriers weren't there.  There was  the big argument between the Roosevelt administration and the Japanese over our embargo against them on strategic metals, and the fact that Perl was caught flat footed.

There was also the fact Yamoto was, as Attache here, part of an exercise doing in 1928 exactly what he did in 1941, fly over the top of Oahu  from the north because there were no defensive assets on that side.  Worked in 28 too.

Things that make people ask questions now that they didn'tn know back then was the fact we were able to read their diplomatic traffic faster than they could.    The poor schmucks at the Japanese embassy were not told ahead of time, and their code guy was off that morning, so when they got traffic that day they had to find the code guy to translate the final Japanese message.      Roosevelt had it two hours before the Japanese ambassador did.   (We couldn't do military traffic in 41, but we broke that by April of 42.    The Japanese were so full of themselves they couldn't believe we could read their messages.)

That doesn't mean Roosevelt was culpable.  The Japanese had their hands full, and he didn't believe they were serious.  

But lots of folks had problems with the official story at Pearl too.

I don't have TV.  I will have to wait for You Tube.

There have been lots of serious investigations.  Serious lunatics refuse to believe the facts of physics,  chemistry and any other science that gets in the way of their silliness.


----------



## Trojan (Feb 3, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> Don't you find it a bit odd that our government now resorts to television propaganda to try and sway people instead of having new official investigations?



National Geographic is not a government owned media outlet


----------



## manu1959 (Feb 3, 2010)

people want to believe it was an inside job...because if it wasn't it means we are an inept bunch of twits and that we are not safe and our government can't protect us.....

the police won't stop your murder but they will notify next of kin and call the morgue.....


----------



## creativedreams (Feb 3, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> In 1941 there was the question of why the carriers weren't there.  There was  the big argument between the Roosevelt administration and the Japanese over our embargo against them on strategic metals, and the fact that Perl was caught flat footed.
> 
> There was also the fact Yamoto was, as Attache here, part of an exercise doing in 1928 exactly what he did in 1941, fly over the top of Oahu  from the north because there were no defensive assets on that side.  Worked in 28 too.
> 
> ...



They place a 1/2" thick *horizontal* metal beam over the fire with no fireproofing and the same alleged heat. Not only is this a farse because it was *NOT* placed *vertical* like the actual support columns....but it was only 1/2" thick compared to the actual *vertical* core columns that are up to 4.91" thick........that somehow cut themselves and blew out of the way fast enough all the way down so the top floor of each building would hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would if dropped right beside them. 

We will get more into how much fireproofing could have been lost and what sides, areas, etc later.

This has nothing to do with the 47 tree trunks, *vertical* support columns that run from bedrock to the top floor which are welded together fusing them to be one tree trunk each or 47 tree trunks all the way up. 

The horizontal beam they heat up could only represent a tree branch, floor truss on the perimeter of the core columns.








They have this same demolition "expert" on every debunking propaganda...

He portrays the dinosaur methods of controlled demolition using dynamite, one of the oldest forms of explosives ever made. There are now countless forms of explosives that have been developed and they play dumb using dynamite with miles of wires. This method of demolition may be more cost economical when bidding demolition contracts instead of using exotic explosives...but don't play it off as the *ONLY* type of explosives *EVER *developed.

They play it out like the *ONLY* way to use explosives is with miles of wires. So your telling me that the cave dwellers in Afghanistan, Iraq etc are more advance than our best military technology when they can use a cell phone wireless signal to detonate bombs? With todays wireless technology they play it out like there *MUST* have been some evidence of wires.

They clear out the entire floor of the building to show what it's like when controlled demolition explosives go off. This produces thunderous loud bangs trying to prove what it should have sounded like if explosives were used in the WTC buildings.

All the vertical support columns were in the core of the WTC buildings and the outer shell would actually act like a muffler keeping decibels way down. Like the difference on how loud your car before or after the muffler falls off.
Or the difference how loud a gun is with our without a silencer...etc.

I have thoroughly researched controlled demolitions and it is far different than the dinosaur method the debunking propaganda portrays.

There has been extensive research developments on controlled demolition methods. These are in areas of controlling sound decibels, ground vibration, and even controlling horizontal direction of debris. This is to prevent damaging nearby buildings windows by keeping sound decibels down and protect underground pipes by keeping ground vibrations down.

This is accomplished by using many smaller explosives that produce a harmonic rumbling sound and not the loud bangs with fewer larger explosives.

I distincly recall seeing episodes on the learning channels like 15yrs ago where they were showing new technology. One of the things I seen was where they put only one droplet of a substance on an ink pen that was powerful enough so when someone clicked it would have blown their head off. It was liquid form and dried. 

I really love the part where they use 5/8" thick cement board which is used for tile backing and call it a scaled down pentagon wall and fire a 500 mile an hour projectile through it...LOL

I really love how they use a lb. of explosives on the whole cement board apparatus and blow the whole thing to smithereens and portray it like another segment of the scaled down experiment...OMFG!!!

They kept showing footage of flight 93 crashsite where there was no sign of a plane and I was really looking forward to hearing that part but they didn't address it.

So why did they try and portray it like those are the only types of explosives available (first type invented) and there have been no further developments in explosives and wireless technology?

There is technology to wireless control several Unmanned Planes with various flight paths and destinations now completely automated with computers but this doesn't cross over to controlling explosives?


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 3, 2010)

I watched that, at the insistence of the wife.
What I saw, even during the 'experiments', was a show designed to show how stubborn and quick to discredit information that doesn't fit their narrative that "truthers", the hard core ones, can be.

The truthers on the show did the same thing you are doing, going out of their way to "prove" the 'debunking' is wrong. debunking the debunking.

The show was successful in showing that. At the end they even said that some of the truthers would never believe anything, despite how or who proved it.

Now, carry on with all your point by point arguments for or against your favorite 911 theories.....

It is I who knows what really happened.
If your not talking about space aliens, midgets and elvis, your on the wrong track.


----------



## creativedreams (Feb 3, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> I watched that, at the insistence of the wife.
> What I saw, even during the 'experiments', was a show designed to show how stubborn and quick to discredit information that doesn't fit their narrative that "truthers", the hard core ones, can be.
> 
> The truthers on the show did the same thing you are doing, going out of their way to "prove" the 'debunking' is wrong. debunking the debunking.
> ...



So what manipulating steps were taken to slowly evolve our country to have "debunking propaganda" instead of new official investigations when the citizens ask for one?


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 3, 2010)

Thus far, the NIST investigation and both this 'debunking' and the one done by popular mechanics were considered garbage by the truthers.(wait for it, I know you want to say they are)
The show i watched last night did say that maybe a new investigation would happen, but it likely would not as _no investigation would ever be accepted by the truther movemnet_
It would be a waste of time and money.
Are you the exception?


----------



## creativedreams (Feb 3, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> Thus far, the NIST investigation and both this 'debunking' and the one done by popular mechanics were considered garbage by the truthers.(wait for it, I know you want to say they are)
> The show i watched last night did say that maybe a new investigation would happen, but it likely would not as _no investigation would ever be accepted by the truther movemnet_
> It would be a waste of time and money.
> Are you the exception?



How can you look at this and believe this is just a collapsing building?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_B_Azbg0go"]YouTube- South Tower Smoking Guns[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBVhxnkK6s8"]YouTube- South Tower Smoking Guns (Follow-up)[/ame]


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 3, 2010)

You are absolutely right, I already know what really happened though.
Ok, I am going to go through this one more time;
Evil aliens abducted the planes, and all the passengers on 911. They had abducted humans before, to breed a super race of humans. Unfortunately they abducted a midget, thus they were only able to breed a race of evil midgets. They had also abducted Elvis, but he was impotent and his dna was damaged by drugs, so all he was good for was training the evil midgets. The evil midgets were the ones that cleaned up the mess on the ground, killed a few people to make it look real and likely planted the explosives that actually took down the buildings since when they abducted the planes they could not have hit the buildings. (yes, that exactly why you don't see any wreckage in PA, it was all staged by the midgets.) Now that was just the beginning, the abducted plane passengers are being used to breed a race of normal sized super humans to take over the world.
Now all we need to figure out is how long it takes to breed, raise and train a race of normal sized super humans.
Now doesn't that just make much more sense than either the official story or the wired together theories that are casually tossed around by the conspiracy theorists?
Yes there is a conspiracy, but our government simply isn't smart enough or skilled enough to pull it off.
Therefore, it must be evil midgets, its the only thing that makes sense.


For more information, see my thread entitled "prepare for your new midget masters"
http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/73624-prepare-for-your-new-midget-masters.html


----------



## Wicked Jester (Feb 3, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> Anyone here watch the new 9/11 debunking tactic on Nat Geo last night?
> 
> I am putting together detailed and comprehensive information that will show what a farse it was all the while setting a mood or atmosphere of "what makes people want to believe".
> 
> ...


So, what  you are actually saying is:

Nat geo completely blew my asinine theories out of the water, making all of us twufer morons look like the fools we truly are. So, i'm pissed, and will still spam this board with even more bogus and unsubstantiated bullshit just to save face and continue to look like the fucking moron I truly am.

Is that what you're saying?

And one more question:

Are you a Paulette?

You know, a Ron Paul supporter?


----------



## creativedreams (Feb 3, 2010)

Wicked Jester said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone here watch the new 9/11 debunking tactic on Nat Geo last night?
> ...



Nope.... I couldn't care less about politics. I just call a spade a spade and then go fishing for a few hours, drink a couple beers, sleep 8 hrs. and do it all over again.

Waiting for a fulltime job offer by someone in government to post for their side of the story...


----------



## Wicked Jester (Feb 3, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...


Well then, maybe you ought lay off the beers, clear your head, and get a fuckin' job.

Spending all day being a twufer clown is obviously impairing your ability to live a normal life.

Just sayin'!


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 4, 2010)

Trojan said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > Don't you find it a bit odd that our government now resorts to television propaganda to try and sway people instead of having new official investigations?
> ...



He didn't say ngo is government owned.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 4, 2010)

Creative,

This picture here.





The caption says that "pieces of the tower have been thrown 70 meters". Can you prove that? 

Those pieces are the aluminum cladding that was attached to the outside of the perimeter columns. Do you mean to tell me that it is totally impossible for those ALUMINUM pieces to have a parabolic trajectory, falling from somewhere above as the perimeter columns fell outward?


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Feb 4, 2010)

useful picture to beat troofers over the head with.  They keep claiming the towers came down faster than free fall in a vacuum, but around the tower is stuff in free fall, but the tower itself still stands above the free falling debris for about 20 stories.   So the tower did not come down faster than free fall in a vacuum as troofers insist.

I don't think the troofers can verify the distance, but I will had them that some of that aluminum is flying pretty far.  Aluminum is pretty light stuff and it can fly pretty far given the right impetus.  Why, when a huge structure is falling apart and knocking everything down and around the idea that some stuff wouldn't have outward momentum as it is knocked around is kind of amazing.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 4, 2010)

manu1959 said:


> people want to believe it was an inside job...because if it wasn't it means we are an inept bunch of twits and that we are not safe and our government can't protect us.....
> 
> the police won't stop your murder but they will notify next of kin and call the morgue.....



wrong again as always,if there was any evidence that surfaced that it wasnt,I would be glad to say so.No people like you are just in denial that it was an inside job and only see what you want to see.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 4, 2010)

Wicked Jester said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone here watch the new 9/11 debunking tactic on Nat Geo last night?
> ...



wrong moron,David Ray Griffins book Debunking the 9/11 Debunking blows that fairy tale show of National Geographics  out of the water and proves what a liar it is,but thats right,you wont read it cause you only see what you want to see and Ron Paul would have been a far better president than any of those other evil corrupt presidents Bush or Obama.National Geographics did the same exact same thing the history channel does,omit key facts,evidence and witness testimonys.

He has said he got out of washington while serving in the Reagan administration cause he saw how corrupt washington was and wanted no part of it.thats why he ran as an independent for so many years before going back to a republican to run for office since the independent never getes elected.


They also conviently dont show this video as well that nobody here has ever been able to debunk despite their laughable  attempts to do so.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw[/ame]


----------



## creativedreams (Feb 4, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> .  They keep claiming the towers came down faster than free fall in a vacuum,



Why do you feel the need to lie like that? What is your true agenda here? Don't talk if nobody can believe a word out of your fucking mouth...Nobody has ever claimed that from what I've seen in my endless research.

Everybody knows that all three world trade center buildings collapsed at *CLOSE* to freefall speeds.

Somehow the vertical steel support columns in each building that run from bedrock to the top floor which are welded together fusing them to be one piece all the way up....cut themselves  and blew out of the way fast enough for the top floors in each building to hit the ground *almost* as fast as a ball would if dropped right beside it.

A ball dropped right beside each buildings top floor would hit the ground only a few seconds before the top floor would in each building......even though the top floor in each building had many vertical support columns holding them up.......

Grow a damn braincell or two..................


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 4, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > .  They keep claiming the towers came down faster than free fall in a vacuum,
> ...



That's bullshit. Are you telling everyone here that the total collapse time, from the moment the collapse initiated to the time the entire tower had come down was only 11 seconds? If that's the case then you're going to have to explain why a portion of the core was seen still standing after the dust cleared enough for all to see and then IT collapsed.

Please explain how you get 11 seconds as the full collapse time.


----------



## creativedreams (Feb 4, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > Baruch Menachem said:
> ...



Fuck you and your deflection tactic you piece of shit......the top floor still supposedly crushed vertical support columns all the way down and had those collapse times.

*Fuck you, you disinfo piece of shit!*


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 4, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...



Really? 

Read what you just wrote again dumbass. How can your claim that the top floor crushed vertical columns ALL THE WAY DOWN when there are pictures of the PARTIAL CORE still standing AFTER the perimeter columns and floors are gone?!


----------



## creativedreams (Feb 4, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



God you're fucking dumb. Yes there was a *partial *core still standing towards the bottom.....but it still had to continue crushing the rest of the core columns that *WEREN'T * still standing.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 4, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> God you're fucking dumb. Yes there was a *partial *core still standing towards the bottom.....but it still had to continue crushing the rest of the core columns that *WEREN'T * still standing.



so your claim is that the entire building collapsed except the part that didnt collapse and therefore proves explosive demolitions were used?

so if the buildings were demolished with explosives why did part of the core still stand after the collapse. any controlled demolition would certainly need to take out the building core at its base.


----------



## creativedreams (Feb 4, 2010)

Fizz said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > God you're fucking dumb. Yes there was a *partial *core still standing towards the bottom.....but it still had to continue crushing the rest of the core columns that *WEREN'T * still standing.
> ...



The fact that a partial of the bottom of the core stood strong reinforces that explosives were used and planted in the upper floors to blow the supports out of the way to achieve these collapse speeds.

How the fuck did a section of the very bottom of the supports that supported *ALL *the weight and had *ALL * the fucking debris fall on them still stand and sections of the core with far less weight and debris on them collapse near the top? Because the very bottom didn't have fucking explosives blowing the columns out of the way.....

*Fucking moron...*


----------



## candycorn (Feb 4, 2010)

Well because you believe that the building fell straight down as if there was some sort of gyroscopic device guiding it down.  In actuality, since it wasn't a controlled demolition, there was a diffusion of the wreckage on the way down and by the time it got to the extreme bottom of the towers, there was little left to compact the lower floors and it was sustainable.  Try thinking.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 4, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Well because you believe that the building fell straight down as if there was some sort of gyroscopic device guiding it down.  In actuality, since it wasn't a controlled demolition, there was a diffusion of the wreckage on the way down and by the time it got to the extreme bottom of the towers, there was little left to compact the lower floors and it was sustainable.  Try thinking.


he also ignores that the lower level box columns were STRONGER


----------



## Fizz (Feb 4, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...



ok... let me get this straight. you claim that they tried to blow up the world trade center from the top but didnt go down to the bottom. they just stopped planting explosives at some random point.

and for some reason the explosives didnt explode while the building was burning and planes hitting and cutting through the building did nothing to the wiring of all these explosives.

plus they waited until witnesses saw the building was leaning and starting to buckle before starting to explode the building.

and then you need to explain how we can actually see the building buckle and start to collapse WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN7B5Z7o6Q4]YouTube - WTC Demolition Debunked[/ame]


----------



## creativedreams (Feb 4, 2010)

Anyone with a lick of common sense can see that this is not just a collapsing building and that everything but the steel was exploded into dust before it even hits the gound.....unless of course they are a full time propaganda pusher on a constant "debunking" mission......

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_B_Azbg0go"]YouTube- South Tower Smoking Guns[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBVhxnkK6s8"]YouTube- South Tower Smoking Guns (Follow-up)[/ame]


----------



## candycorn (Feb 4, 2010)

Fizz said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



If you have thermite, you don't have a boom so it debunks thermite being there if you have explosions.  In truth ther ewas neither:

Follow this link:

WTC Buildings Linked to Controlled Demolition: Solid Sources - Page 4 - Political Forum

And try not to laugh too hard at him.


----------



## creativedreams (Feb 4, 2010)

Anyone with a lick of common sense can see that this is not just a collapsing building and that everything but the steel was exploded into dust before it even hits the gound.....unless of course they are a full time propaganda pusher on a constant "debunking" mission......

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_B_Azbg0go"]YouTube- South Tower Smoking Guns[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBVhxnkK6s8"]YouTube- South Tower Smoking Guns (Follow-up)[/ame]


----------



## candycorn (Feb 4, 2010)

Fizz said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



*This pretty much sums up why the twoof movement hasn't gone anywhere in 8 years:
*


SlateRockwell said:


> Well, that one is an easy one. These buildings are VERY tall. The explosives are put on the lower levels of the building tht was not harmed by the plane. Trapping the people over the top of those floors.


*
Not only can they not agree on how explosives were supposedly planted in 3 buildings with nobody noticing, they can't agree on where they were planted.  Yet all of them claim to have evidence.  Usually evidence points in one direction, not 64.  LOL*


----------



## creativedreams (Feb 4, 2010)

Anyone with a lick of common sense can see that this is not just a collapsing building and that everything but the steel was exploded into dust before it even hits the gound......unless of course they are a full time propaganda pusher on a constant "debunking" mission......

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_B_Azbg0go"]YouTube- South Tower Smoking Guns[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBVhxnkK6s8"]YouTube- South Tower Smoking Guns (Follow-up)[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 4, 2010)

anyone with a lick of common sense knows that all troofers are fucking morons


----------



## candycorn (Feb 4, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> anyone with a lick of common sense knows that all troofers are fucking morons



You mean it wasn't a bow shockwave that brought down the towers?  They're pretty powerful....lol.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Feb 4, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > .  They keep claiming the towers came down faster than free fall in a vacuum,
> ...



Its from one of your videos that you keep posting over and over.

I am not the one coming up with these insane numbers.   I am giving them back to you, as you inflict them on us.

Now if you look at that picture you keep posting, you will notice that debris is way down below the level of floor failure.   

Steel is strong stuff at normal temperatures, but it isnt strong enough to withstand being pounded by 15 floors worth of material, plus all the `live load` or the things that were in the building besides the structural components.  There is a limit to the amount of abuse that a structure (or a message board member) can take before it fails.


----------



## creativedreams (Feb 4, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > Baruch Menachem said:
> ...



Please show this video because I have never seen anyone claim they fell faster than freefall in a vacuum....you lying piece of shit.


----------



## creativedreams (Feb 5, 2010)

candycorn said:


> *This pretty much sums up why the twoof movement hasn't gone anywhere in 8 years:
> *


*

National Geographic just aired some debunking propaganda, which nowadays somehow replaces new official investigations, and said 1/3 of all Americans believe 9/11 was an inside job.

Surely if more Americans took the time to look into it then the percentage would be much higher.

It is you and your fellow debunking dumbasses that are the fucking piece of shits trying to sway and keep from having a new investigation.

In your twisted fucking mind you somehow think you stand for what's right by trying to sway away from a new investigation......*


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 5, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > *This pretty much sums up why the twoof movement hasn't gone anywhere in 8 years:
> ...


*
you lie
they did not say 1/3 believe your bullshit*


----------



## candycorn (Feb 5, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > *This pretty much sums up why the twoof movement hasn't gone anywhere in 8 years:
> ...


*


Wow, you should do something about that instead of being up past midnight on a message board.  

Its too bad that nobody believes a fucking word you say; otherwise that alleged and laudable 110 million Americans would be a political force.  If only you were more credible, or honest, or even a little less insane, you may have something.  Instead, you have...nothing.  Too bad, so sad.*


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Feb 5, 2010)

Keep looking at this picture.   You post it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.     Do you ever look at the thing?  It demonstrates that the tower is not remotely coming down at free fall speed, as all the debris is falling far faster.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


*


Why is it every time you read something you don't like you accuse people of lying?  You do it all the time you shitbag.  Grow up.

"More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University Poll."
New National Poll: 36% of Americans Believe 9/11 Was an Inside Job

"A 2007 Zogby poll found that 26 percent of Americans believe the government let it happen."


"On Sept. 11, an NBC reporter quoted New York Fire Department Chief of Safety Albert Turi as saying he believed there were explosives planted in one of the towers. After the attacks, the New York Fire Department interviewed firefighters to create an oral history of 9/11. These tapes&#8212;which were not released until 2005&#8212;contain numerous references to explosions heard just before the buildings fell. Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, a Web site started in 2008, says the government destroyed evidence that 7 World Trade Center was blown up and hosts a petition asking Congress to look into the possibility that "exotic accelerants" destroyed the buildings."
Do firefighters believe 9/11 conspiracy theories? - By Christopher Beam - Slate Magazine


I love how OCTAs constantly refer to Troofers as whackos and claim only crazy people question that day because it shows they have absolutely no respect for themselves or others.*


----------



## candycorn (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...



Please link to where the National Geographic Special said that.  Your link was to something called "Organic Consumers Association".  Not the same thing.

Here is what the poll actually said:



> Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."



The "somewhat likely" isn't very convincing.  The statistic--if you can call it that--even becmoes more dubious when you factor in the other caveat:  "....or took no action to stop them...".  Since our defense forces were unable to stop the attacks, one could make that assumption pretty logically with zero sympathy for the whackjob twoofer movement.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

candycorn said:


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




"Let it happen" isn't talking about simply a military response.  I'm not surprised you don't know what that means just like you didn't know New York kept hundreds of eyewitness testimonies hidden from the public for four years.  Why is it we troofers know the factzzz about that day better than you?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 5, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> Somehow the vertical steel support columns in each building that run from bedrock to the top floor which are welded together fusing them to be one piece all the way up....cut themselves  and blew out of the way fast enough for the top floors in each building to hit the ground *almost* as fast as a ball would if dropped right beside it.



Let's try this again.

You are saying that the CORE COLUMNS were CUT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE GROUND which led to the TOP FLOORS hitting the ground at almost free-fall speed.

I have shown you that your statement is incorrect. The core columns were not ALL CUT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE GROUND so as to allow the TOP FLOOR to reach the ground at almost free-fall speed. If you didn't know already, the floors were not supported by CORE COLUMNS directly beneath them. They were connected to the sides of the core columns and to the sides of the perimeter columns as shown in this next detail.





Your comment about the columns having to be cut in order for the top FLOORS to reach the ground are asinine because the floor SURROUNDED THE CORE COLUMNS. For the floors to collapse, all you had to do was overload the CONNECTIONS to the columns. Proof of this is shown here in this photo which proves your statement incorrect.





The core is still partially standing, yet the floors have been stripped away. This proves that the columns were not CUT ALL THE WAY DOWN for the top floors to hit the ground.

You have a lot to learn.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 5, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> How the fuck did a section of the very bottom of the supports that supported *ALL *the weight and had *ALL * the fucking debris fall on them still stand and sections of the core with far less weight and debris on them collapse near the top? Because the very bottom didn't have fucking explosives blowing the columns out of the way.....
> 
> *Fucking moron...*



If the floors were on the OUTSIDE of the core columns as has been explained to you, then what debris are you speaking of that fell onto the core columns? 

Elevator motors, electrical panels for those elevators, part of the roof, concrete floors of the mechanical floors...

That's what was in the middle of the core. The floors and perimeter columns surrounded the core. 

Get a clue.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


*


We all look forward to seeing you apologize for the false accusation he lied:


"More than 1/3 of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll."
channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/9-11-science-and-conspiracy-4067/facts


Candycorn, I posted the OC link to help show you are anything but honest or informed. That link cites the same study that NG cited.  This is simply another example of how OCTAs make false accusations because they are arrogant and ignorant.*


----------



## creativedreams (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...



You disinfo piece of shit......it is the same fucking thing*........NO MATTER HOW YOU TRY AND SPIN THIS SHIT IT STILL SHOWS 1/3  OF ALL AMERICANS BELIEVE IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB.*


----------



## creativedreams (Feb 5, 2010)

Anyone here watch the new 9/11 debunking tactic on Nat Geo last night?

I am putting together detailed and comprehensive information that will show what a farse it was all the while setting a mood or atmosphere of "what makes people want to believe".

It was basically a "magic show" tactic with psychological propaganda. Listen to the difference in background music compared to the so called scaled down experiments to set the mood diffferences....Look at the Typing style of the words on they use for the  "Truth" side compared to the so called scaled down experiment side........and they claim it to be an unbiased piece? BS propaganda again.

Why are we getting BS television propaganda instead of new official investigations nowadays?

At least thay admitted 1/3 of Americans think 9/11 was an inside job.....by the way which is likely a much higher number now...

Can you believe they start off with some propaganda BS right off the bat that 50% of all Americans in 1941, right after it happened, thought Pearl Harbor was intentionally allowed to happen by the government?

I know I never thought that and where did they get those bogus numbers to start their propaganda piece?

Don't you find it a bit odd that our government now resorts to television propaganda to try and sway people instead of having new official investigations?

They place a 1/2" thick *horizontal* metal beam over the fire with no fireproofing and the same alleged heat. Not only is this a farse because it was *NOT* placed *vertical* like the actual support columns....but it was only 1/2" thick compared to the actual *vertical* core columns that are up to 4.91" thick........that somehow cut themselves and blew out of the way fast enough all the way down so the top floor of each building would hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would if dropped right beside them. 

We will get more into how much fireproofing could have been lost and what sides, areas, etc later.

This has nothing to do with the 47 tree trunks, *vertical* support columns that run from bedrock to the top floor which are welded together fusing them to be one tree trunk each or 47 tree trunks all the way up. 

The horizontal beam they heat up could only represent a tree branch, floor truss on the perimeter of the core columns.







They have this same demolition "expert" on every debunking propaganda...

He portrays the dinosaur methods of controlled demolition using dynamite, one of the oldest forms of explosives ever made. There are now countless forms of explosives that have been developed and they play dumb using dynamite with miles of wires. This method of demolition may be more cost economical when bidding demolition contracts instead of using exotic explosives...but don't play it off as the *ONLY* type of explosives *EVER *developed.

They play it out like the *ONLY* way to use explosives is with miles of wires. So your telling me that the cave dwellers in Afghanistan, Iraq etc are more advance than our best military technology when they can use a cell phone wireless signal to detonate bombs? With todays wireless technology they play it out like there *MUST* have been some evidence of wires.

They clear out the entire floor of the building to show what it's like when controlled demolition explosives go off. This produces thunderous loud bangs trying to prove what it should have sounded like if explosives were used in the WTC buildings.

All the vertical support columns were in the core of the WTC buildings and the outer shell would actually act like a muffler keeping decibels way down. Like the difference on how loud your car before or after the muffler falls off.
Or the difference how loud a gun is with our without a silencer...etc.

I have thoroughly researched controlled demolitions and it is far different than the dinosaur method the debunking propaganda portrays.

There has been extensive research developments on controlled demolition methods. These are in areas of controlling sound decibels, ground vibration, and even controlling horizontal direction of debris. This is to prevent damaging nearby buildings windows by keeping sound decibels down and protect underground pipes by keeping ground vibrations down.

This is accomplished by using many smaller explosives that produce a harmonic rumbling sound and not the loud bangs with fewer larger explosives.

I distincly recall seeing episodes on the learning channels like 15yrs ago where they were showing new technology. One of the things I seen was where they put only one droplet of a substance on an ink pen that was powerful enough so when someone clicked it would have blown their head off. It was liquid form and dried. 

I really love the part where they use 5/8" thick cement board which is used for tile backing and call it a scaled down pentagon wall and fire a 500 mile an hour projectile through it...LOL

I really love how they use a lb. of explosives on the whole cement board apparatus and blow the whole thing to smithereens and portray it like another segment of the scaled down experiment...OMFG!!!

They kept showing footage of flight 93 crashsite where there was no sign of a plane and I was really looking forward to hearing that part but they didn't address it.

So why did they try and portray it like those are the only types of explosives available (first type invented) and there have been no further developments in explosives and wireless technology?

There is technology to wireless control several Unmanned Planes with various flight paths and destinations now completely automated with computers but this doesn't cross over to controlling explosives?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

creativedreams said:


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



Hey Jackass, you just called me a piece of shit when I am the one that provided the links proving NG did say 1/3 suspect a false flag op.


----------



## creativedreams (Feb 5, 2010)

*All us so called "Truthers" can do is sit back and watch our country fall apart and become hated by the world......because the likes of you have it in your twisted thoughts that you stand for what's right by swaying people against wanting a new official investigation.*


----------



## Fizz (Feb 5, 2010)

about a third of americans also believe that saddam hussien was behind 9/11. does that mean  we need a new investigation to see if he was? no, it just means that about a third of americans are stupid uneducated idiots that will believe almost anything such as "saddam was behind 9/11" or "9/11 was an inside job".

Bill Maher: New Rule: Smart President &#8800; Smart Country


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 5, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF70L4f9m0c]YouTube - SpongeBob SquarePants-- Prophet of Doom 9-11 Conspiracy[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 5, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> YouTube - SpongeBob SquarePants-- Prophet of Doom 9-11 Conspiracy


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > YouTube - SpongeBob SquarePants-- Prophet of Doom 9-11 Conspiracy



You are such a fucking birth regret.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...


and the moronic fucking troofer does his projection again


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



When one's faith is challenged and it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny, it's all one has left; to make personal attacks.

When the facts are not on your side, attack.

When you have no answer to your challengers, attack.


I bet this guy either 11 years old or retarded. 

Yes dammit I said retarded!


----------



## Liability (Feb 5, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > I watched that, at the insistence of the wife.
> ...




I have unanswered questions about the Lincoln Assassination.

I have unanswered questions about the John F. Kennedy Assassination. 

I have unanswered questions about the Robert F. Kennedy Assassination.

I have unanswered questions about the the Pearl Harbor attack.

I have unanswered questions about Area 51.

We should re-open all old investigations, because some of us (Americans, no less) have "questions!"

No really.  I'm asking for one, so that should be all that's needed to engage in a complete do-over!


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 5, 2010)

slackjawed said:


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


i'd lean to the side of BOTH


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

slackjawed said:


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




What are you talking about?  Divecon accused someone of lying about what NG said so I posted the link showing his accusation is pure bullshit and he and his little buddies, like you, completely ignore that then claim the facts are not on m side?  Rotfl....his ignoring the facts is why I say he is a piece if shit.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...




Hey divecon and crew....this is why you are nothing but pathetic little bitches.  Even when the factual information is presented you wholly ignore it.  Fucking ***** like you have no business anywhere near a political message board because you are nothing but whiny thieves.


----------



## Liability (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



"More than 1/3 of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them . . ." is NOT the same thing as "National Geographic * * * said 1/3 of all Americans believe 9/11 was an inside job."

Suspect means suspicion.  It is not the same thing as an actual "belief."

That's for starters.

Even if they were the same thing (which they aren't) a belief that SOME public officials were complicit is NOT the same thing as believing that the attacks were "an inside job."

So divecon's denial of your false claim is perfectly valid.  It is your claim that is false.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

Liability said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...




These distractions serve one purpose: to avoid being honest about 9E.


----------



## Liability (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...



As always, you are wrong.  Deliberately so it appears.  My contentions are premised on the VERY logic which I was addressing.

I am a citizen.  If I am ASKING for such investigations, then according to sillydreams, the government has some obligation to satisfy my expressed desire.  

Hey government! I have an itch.  Scratch it.

In short, I offered no distractions.  Instead, I casually exposed the glaring fallacy of the position espoused by sillydreams.

Honest about 9/11?  Please.  You Troofers are the ones who disdain truth.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

Liability said:


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




I didn't make any claims.  Try paying attention before jumping in and making ridiculous responses.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



you claimed he lied. he didnt. trying reading what you wrote.



> We all look forward to seeing you apologize for the false accusation he lied:


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




So all the victims families who demand a new investigation have a "disdain" for truth?  You're a fucking ignorant ****.


----------



## Liability (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I realize you are both a liar and a fucking retard, but THIS was your post, scumbag:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/reputation.php?p=1976866

In it YOU did make a claim.  You accused others of lying.

Then, when confronted with an examination of what had been said, you now find it expedient to lie.

It's what fucking retarded liberal liars like you do.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Holy FUCK you guys are fucking morons!  Try to pay attention:

1.  Creativedreams said NG pointed out 1/3 of Americans believe it was an inside job.

2.  Divecon accused him of lying and that NG never said that.

3.  I posted the quote from the NG site that cited the SH/OU poll showing 1/3 of Americans believe elements in our government either assisted in 9E or let it happen.  Both of those categories fall under the "Inside Job" because if they knew it was going to happen and they let it happen that makes them no less guilty than the actual perps.

What the fuck is wrong with you jackasses?


----------



## Liability (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You love that word "****."  It must be your vanity.  You look in a mirror and that's all you ever see.  

But in any event, you lying scumbag, the families have an excuse.  They suffer grief.  They may have questions.  

But assholes like you who have spent actual time looking into the "questions" and have had the chance to get valid answers to those "questions" PERSIST in making your outrageous allegations and claims DESPITE the truth.  You are the epitome of a rancid twat with nothing BUT disdain for the truth.

Troofers tend to be both retarded and outright liars.  *You* are even such a fraud that YOU have pretended not to even be a Troofer.  But you are.  You even lie about that.  You are a vile loathsome diseased rat twat.


----------



## Liability (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Holy shit!  You can't even keep you lies straight when they have been shoved in your diseased rat twat face.

A liar and a retard wrapped together in a diseased rodent vulva is no way to go through life, you stupid shithead, but you seem to be managing it handily.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




I pointed out divecon's accusation that CREATIVEDREAMS LIED is bullshit.  I didn't say divecon accused ME of lying you fucking retard.  Learn how to read. 

And your "examination" showed how fucking dumb you are because letting the attacks happen is still an inside job.  Damn you are fucking stupid!


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


you made a claim that NatGeo said something that was NOT backed up by your broken link


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


you DID lie


----------



## Liability (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Take your own advice rat vulva.  I don't give a shit if you ever claimed that divey had accused YOU of lying.  The POINT, you stupid fucktard, was that YOU accused OTHERS of having lied when they didn't.



CurveLight said:


> And your "examination" showed how fucking dumb you are because letting the attacks happen is still an inside job.  Damn you are fucking stupid!



No, you mental midget.   SOME people having knowledge and not lifting a finger (if that fantasy even had a rational basis in reality) would NOT be the same as any action OF the GOVERNMENT.

Good God in heaven, you truly are a retarded rancid rat twat.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



no moron. letting it happen can also be from incompetence. your entire argument isnt valid. creativedreams said 1/3 thought it was an inside job and that is a lie. you accused divecon of lying and he didnt.

oh... where is the FBI information you said you had? you refuse to post it. so apparently that is a lie also.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



Fuck you bitch.  You're nothing but a shit stain that doesn't know how to read simple posts.  You still get your fat ass kicked all the time?  Is that why you come on here and make shit up you worthless piss bag?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Holy fuck you're an idiot! It means they let it happen on purpose.  Read the fucking poll you shit bag!


----------



## Liability (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Good come-back.   Idiot. 

But the facts remain despite your sissy-ass attempts to deflect.

You stand exposed as the incredibly retarded, woefully ignorant, deliberately dishonest, vile diseased rat twat you are.

Your words were recorded for posterity when you hit the submit button and then they got quoted by others, anus breath.  There's nothing you can now do (successfully) to undo the self-inflicted damage.  LOL!



Too fucking bad, ya punk ass scum.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 5, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


if anything, it was sheer incompetence, not willful negligence


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


more projection


----------



## Fizz (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



how many different fucking things are you going to claim? first you claimed 1/3 thought it was a false flag op. now its "they let it happen on purpose". Yet your original quote of the poll says "took no action to stop them".


----------



## candycorn (Feb 5, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



His lying is a shock to absolutely no one.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 5, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


nor a shock
LOL


drats, you fixed your typo


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




I didn't change anything.  It is a false flag whether they took an active role or knew it was happening and let it happen.  Both fall under the false flag category which is why the SH/OU poll question was asked like that.  You guys just scream until you drown out all reason then claim victory.  You're fucking cowards.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

candycorn said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




You've all taken on the divecon method of just calling people liars when your ignorance is shown.  Holy fuck you people are beyond pathetic.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


except the only ignorance being shown is your's


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




This is the perfect divecircle clubhouse pattern. You accuse someone of lying and when you are proven wrong you just stomp your feet, close your eyes, plug your ears, and chant in your deranged twisted mind until you can drown out the facts.  You're a bitch.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


again, you are such a dishonest fucktard you don't even realize your broken link proved me correct that you did indeed lie about what the poll found
you proved yourself a liar and now you continue to prove you are a dishonest fucktard


----------



## Fizz (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



holy fuck!! you really are on a roll today. the lies just keep piling up. first you claimed the survey said 1/3 of americans thought 9/11 was a false flag, which wasnt even the question. then you claimed that they thought america "let it happen on purpose" which again isnt what the question asked. it only said "let it happen" which could also mean by incompetence. then you claim a false flag somehow means to let other people attack you. sorry, assmunch, but that is not even close to what the definition of a flase flag operation is. the term false flag comes from the deceptive practice of flying another countries flag to make your army look as if a different country is doing the attacking.

how many more lies can you spit out before the day is over?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




If you ever bring your punk fat ass to Boston let me know so I can buy you a beer and we can discuss this face to face.  Other than that, you are a waste of time.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> If you ever bring your punk fat ass to Boston let me know so I can buy you a beer and we can discuss this face to face.  Other than that, you are a waste of time.



considering i live in asia most of the time the chances of that happening arent very good. boston is too cold and not enough pretty, skinny girls in bikinis especially at this time of year.


----------



## Liability (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



A pussy call out over the interwebz is so enormously macho.

You are a classic leaky old douchebag, bent-tight.

Now hurry back to call me a "****," you listless twerp.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




I'm just pointing out you assholes love to put on your bullshit egos for your little circle jerk parties.  You're so fucking stupid you will read:

"More than 1/3 of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll."
channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/9-11-science-and-conspiracy-4067/facts


And somehow....in that twisted mind shit fuckwad you call a brain try to conclude it doesn't say anything about an inside job.  I think it was fizzie mcguire that tried to say "Well, they could have been talking about incompetence" and that smelly **** candycorn also tried to make a similar claim.  Can any of you cowards ever be honest?  You're like a MadTV skit reject that keeps getting flushed.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > If you ever bring your punk fat ass to Boston let me know so I can buy you a beer and we can discuss this face to face.  Other than that, you are a waste of time.
> ...




Oh that's right....entertain us all again with how you were hanging out with Mohammad Atta!  Rotfl.......remember your dumb fucking "incompetence" claim?


"More than 1/3 of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll."


If they let it happen on purpose that makes it an inside job you slimy fart fuck.  But I look forward to laughing at your pathetic reply that will be anything but to address the facts of the poll.  Naw....you and the circle ***** know how to close your eyes when faced with anything that proves you wrong.  Hell, the fact you're dumb enough to swallow any dick cheney the government can throw at you is evidence in itself of your stupidity.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


this is why you are a dishonest fucktard

and here is an ACTUAL working link
9/11: Science and Conspiracy | Facts | National Geographic Channel


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




The quote I posted is on that link yet you still ignore it.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


no, i didnt ignore, i just read it with COMPREHENSION

something you LACK


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



If they let it happen on purpose that is an inside job you dumb fuck.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


"taking no action" is not letting it happen on purpose, dipshit


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



Great example of your dishonesty.  You cherry pick three words instead using comprehension and reading:

"...took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East..."

Lie again you worthless bitch.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



holy fuck, you are a just plain FUCKING STUPID!!

where are you getting the "let it happen on purpose" part of your statement from? and now you are completely forgetting your original claim was that 1/3 of americans thought it was a false flag!!!

how fast can you peddle backwards?!! 

i dont go out of my way to meet mental retards but if you want to find me i will tell you where i am tomorrow night. i'll be at mandalay bay events center section 3, row C, seat 4. try not to be too late because i need some sleep before my flight on sunday.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


you are the known and exposed liar
fucktard


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



Good job on not letting us down and proving again how dishonest you are.  The truly sad part?  Out of your little girl scout troop there must be at least one, if not two, who see what you did but will ignore it because they let personal feelings get in the way of honesty.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


wow, what a surprise, more projection from a lying fucktard


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

Fizz said:


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



There is no back pedal at all.  You are just too fucking dumb to comprehend.  Let's try this once more you idiot.

"...took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East..."

What is the reason they let it happen?  To justify going to war.  Either you really are too dumb to understand or you pretend to be that dumb to justify being dishonest.

Tell us again how you were hanging out with Mohammad Atta.....what's telling another gonna hurt?


----------



## mudwhistle (Feb 5, 2010)

manu1959 said:


> people want to believe it was an inside job...because if it wasn't it means we are an inept bunch of twits and that we are not safe and our government can't protect us.....
> 
> the police won't stop your murder but they will notify next of kin and call the morgue.....



Which is pretty much all Obama is concerned with.

What was his answer during the Debates on what his primary goal would be if we have another 9/11???

He said he wanted to make sure we had good first responders.

Screw making sure it never happened again.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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




Every time you avoid facts you call others a liar.

Every time you get called out for avoiding facts you cry projection.  Grow up.

"...took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East..."


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> > people want to believe it was an inside job...because if it wasn't it means we are an inept bunch of twits and that we are not safe and our government can't protect us.....
> ...




What a joke.  Why do you always pretend to be rush limbaugh?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


i'm still waiting for you to post your first fact
your paranoid delusions are NOT facts


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 5, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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




Your definition of a fact is information you like....everything else in the world is a "lie."


----------



## Fizz (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Tell us again how you were hanging out with Mohammad Atta.....what's telling another gonna hurt?



another fucking lie. you really are racking them up today!!

i said i was in a bar at the same time as him in the philippines. i never said i was hanging out with him. once again you are lying. how typical.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



Speaking of lying...are you accusing the parents of Renee May of doing so?  You don't seem to be able to answer a simple yes or no question so all of your other "answers" are pretty much inadmissible on site since you can't come up with single syllable responses.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 5, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


wrong again, fucktard
a fact is not your delusional rantings


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 6, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Tell us again how you were hanging out with Mohammad Atta.....what's telling another gonna hurt?
> ...




Why don't you explain how taking no action on 9E so we can go to war in the ME isn't an inside job?  Your logic is hilarious.  As for Atta, from what I've heard the gay bars in the Philippines has a close knit group so if you were in the Vanilla Banana the same time as Atta you were hanging out with him.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 6, 2010)

candycorn said:


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




Got deflection?  Lol......pathetic....and no I've never accused the Mays of lying. That's your stupid logic farting up the dialogue again.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




I don't think I ever said you did.  You have said that there is no physical evidence of their daughter calling them on 9/11 to report that American Airlines Flight 77 was hijacked.  The 9/11 Commission Report says that the May family then called the American Airlines Operation Center.  

I'm simply asking you if you *THINK* that the May's are lying about it since you continuously point out that there is no physical evidence and that the 9/11 Commission Report did not post the May family's phone bill as Exhibit A.

Its a yes or no question.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You seem to know a lot about gay bars at your age...maybe thats why you're so fucked in the head (and likely other places)


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 6, 2010)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




So if you've heard about pedophilia I guess that makes you a pedophile.  Your logic is neato.  Maybe that's why you keep asking if I've accused the mays of lying after I l already said no.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



never been in a gay bar in my life. i find gay people disgusting. i have no idea if atta was in one or not but it wouldnt suprise me. the muslim guys really seem to like the ladyboys. maybe the facial hair reminds them of their mother. the bar i saw him in was not a gay bar. it was a gogo bar. he was drinking mixed drinks and generally being a jerkoff. he seemed to have much the same attitude as you do.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 6, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




So you were scoping him pretty tight....at least you were in a gay bar so it would have seemed normal.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



So you're saying the call took place now?  Earlier you were saying the calls didn't take place.  Which is it?


----------



## candycorn (Feb 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



So you're saying the call took place now?  Earlier you were indicating the calls didn't take place.  Which is it?


----------



## mudwhistle (Feb 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



It's simple. The intelligence was so non-specific that we couldn't take proper precautions....the ACLU would have had a field-day with it.....not to mention the press and the Democrats in Washington.

After 9/11 the threat was so obvious that just about any action we took was if you remember extremely justifiable.....at least for awhile. The Dems and their (f'n) retards shut the fuck up for a spell because they knew that doing their usual number would be the kiss of death.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> So you were scoping him pretty tight....at least you were in a gay bar so it would have seemed normal.



once again your reading comprehension problem rears its ugly head. 


or you are lying.

you choose.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 6, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



That is why what poll tickles me; Unable to prevent means, to a truther, allowed it to happen.  I'm sure if the Colts or the Saints lose this Sunday, it will be an inside job because they were unable to prevent the other team from winning.  Sheesh!


----------



## candycorn (Feb 6, 2010)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Well, which is it?  Do you think the May call took place or not--the call from Flight Attendant Renee May to her parents in Las Vegas, NV indicating to them that AA77 was a hi-jacking?  You said the May family isn't lying about it...but you also indicated that there was no physical evidence saying it had taken place....  You seem to be standing on both sides of the fence; clarify.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 6, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




You need to read the poll question.  It's talking about people within the government being fully aware of the specific attack and knowing for a fact it was going to happen and specifically did nothing to stop it.


----------



## Liability (Feb 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



There is, however, as you know, not a single solitary shred of credible evidence that U.S. government officials had any specific prior knowledge of any of the details of the attack or the timing of the attack.  Knowing that the Islamofilth Jihadists were bent on making an attack and even knowing (to some extent) that their unclear plans included hijacking aircraft is simply *NOT* the same thing as having  specific prior knowledge of any of the details of the attack or the timing of the attack.

So if many Americans "think" that, or if they "suspect" something along those lines, etc., that only means that they are articulating a rather baseless paranoia.

And what actual difference does it make anyway?  If we had a national referendum on the topic of "why Nazi Germany won World War II," and even a majority of the voters believed that the Nazis had won, would that somehow alter history?  

Since you are fucking retarded, bent tight, I'll *give* you the answer.  It's "No."  Regardless of the outcome of such a referendum, it remains an historical FACT that the Nazis were defeated.

If as many as 1/3 of the American people are so confused that they harbor so much as a _suspicion_ along the lines of your retarded conspiracy theory, that only speaks to their pitiful ignorance.  It does nothing to substantiate ANY of the absurd things *you* have to say about the 9/11 attacks.  9/11 Troofers are fucking lying  idiots.

*You* remain a vile ignorant dishonest troll, you rancid diseased rat twat.  With all due respect.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 6, 2010)

candycorn said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




The poll question didn't ask about competency.  That is what you have injected to justify, in your frail egos, ignoring what the poll states.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



The poll question doesn't indicate complicity.  That is what you have injected to justify, in your frail ego, ignoring what the poll states.  

So did the phone call from Renee May to her parents take place or not?  You seem to be on both sides of the fence on this (and most) subjects


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 6, 2010)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Try again:

"Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."
Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy | ScrippsNews


It states a specific motivation for not stopping the attack:

"because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."

It doesn't say anything about "unable to prevent."

The LIHOP theory has been around for a while.  

Lihop - Google Search

It's humorous to see you asswipes tap dance.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Federal officials....riiiiight!.  Could your "poll" get any less specific asswipe?

Complicity is never mentioned. You're simply implying it.  

*CHECKMATE BITCH!!!​*
Speaking of tap-dancing; 

So did the phone call from Renee May to her parents take place or not?  You seem to be on both sides of the fence on this (and most) subjects?

*Take a stand for a change bitch.​*


----------



## Liability (Feb 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



In light of your imbecility, the question will be repeated for you, bent tight:



> *what actual difference does it make anyway?* If we had a national referendum on the topic of "why Nazi Germany won World War II," and even a majority of the voters believed that the Nazis had won, would that somehow alter history?
> 
> Since you are fucking retarded, bent tight, I'll give you the answer. It's "No." Regardless of the outcome of such a referendum, it remains an historical FACT that the Nazis were defeated.
> 
> *If as many as 1/3 of the American people are so confused that they harbor so much as a suspicion along the lines of your retarded conspiracy theory, that only speaks to their pitiful ignorance. It does nothing to substantiate ANY of the absurd things you have to say about the 9/11 attacks.* 9/11 Troofers are fucking lying idiots.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 6, 2010)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




You are completely ignoring they stated the reason for not taking action:

"because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 6, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




What absurd things have I said about 9E?  Please provide the links to the posts without any editing.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



*"they"

Does your poll mention who the nebulous "they" are supposed to be?    Fraid not bitch.  

Amazingly complicity is still not in the poll.  Do you think it is a bit strange that your poll doesn't do anything other then blame "they"?  Why do you think that is.  Oh yeah, I forgot, "yes" or "no" questions are your arch enemy lol.  I'll tell you why it is; its easier to blame an non-specific "they".  Put the words "George Bush" into the question and you'll see it drop  big time because, unless the poll is set up to get a specific result, you'll lose 1/2 of the respondents.  Cheney will get you the same result.  

Of course common sense would get you even a greater return since they had only been in office for 8 months and there would be zero chance of orchestrating such a complex and brain-dead plot in 8 months but common sense never stood in your way now did it?

But any, complicity is still not there loser.  

Any word on whether the May phone call actually took place.  Simple question that you're too afraid to answer.  
*


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 6, 2010)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




You are completely ignoring they stated the reason for not taking action:

"because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."

Here's some more info for you to ignore:

"Participants in the poll were asked to respond to "several serious accusations that some people have made against the federal government in recent years." Five conspiracy theories were described and participants were asked if each was "very likely, somewhat likely or unlikely."

It's absolutely pure comedy to watch you all have such a fizzfit.


----------



## Liability (Feb 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You are an asshole, bent tight.  You ask "questions" as though we don't all see what you are really doing.  Your "questions" are just another way of making assertions.  We all know it.  Why do asswipes like you always pretend that you are clever enough to pull that shit off?

Stop.

You are an asshole Troofer plain and simple.

It's not "9E," fuckface.  It WAS 9/11/2001 when this country got attacked.  Why do shitforbrain Godforesaken jerkoff cockscrapers like you never stop and ponder the implication of your contentions (oh, sorry, your "questions")?

Seriously, go fuck yourself.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 6, 2010)

more people believe aliens have contacted the US Government than believe 9/11 inside job.

CNN - Poll: U.S. hiding knowledge of aliens - June 15, 1997


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 6, 2010)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




Wanted to point out a couple of things about the "8 month" bit to show how stupid you are.  Once.  Again.

1.  I never claimed it was an inside job.  For some reason it pisses you girl scouts off so much that I am honest in saying I don't know what happened that you have to repeatedly put words in my mouth.

2.  If it was an inside job on any level, what makes you think it would have to be done by those in the Oval Office?  If you'll remember, the fifteen page Op Northwods plan was drawn up by the top military leaders and not civilians.

3.  You may not be aware, but here in the US the POTUS election is held on November 2 the year preceding being sworn into Office.  For instance, Obushama won the election around November 3, 2009 so he had a hint......just a TINY CLUE he would be Sworn in January 2010.  That means there is a ten month period between knowing who would be in office and not 8 as you claimed.

4. If there was a plan for a False Flag what makes you think the planning could ONLY START once the POTUS is in office?

5.  Isn't it possible some become aware of the 9/11 attack and let it happen?  Why would they need to be in office for 8 or 80 months?

Once again, when you try to analyze a situation you expose your utter inability for even the slightest whisper of critical thinking.  Like when you claimed it would have made more sense to blame Saddam for 9E.......hahahahah....fucking clown.

4.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 6, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Rotfl!  Damn, when your diaper doesn't get changed quickly enough you sure do go all ollie on us.  You're such a control freak you whine about 9E......lol!  Why don't you tell us again how the Op Northwoods documents were all planted fakes to boost the troofer movement.  It's always a pleasure to remind you the docs were declassified months before 9E 9E 9E 9E 9E 9E 9E 9E.  It's also hilarious to see you claim such a stupid conspiracy when you don't have any fucking reason for it.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 6, 2010)

Fizz said:


> more people believe aliens have contacted the US Government than believe 9/11 inside job.
> 
> CNN - Poll: U.S. hiding knowledge of aliens - June 15, 1997



You idiot.  You just posted a link they also says:

More americans believe aliens have contacted the US government than believe the Bush admin was honest about 9E.  Rotfl....


----------



## Fizz (Feb 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > more people believe aliens have contacted the US Government than believe 9/11 inside job.
> ...



yeah, so?

37% believe aliens have contacted the US government. what was the percentage that believe the inside job shit in your poll again? 

i guess i was overestimating your intelligence at being able to extract the number from my poll and compare it to yours. fucking dumbass.


----------



## Liability (Feb 6, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




Nice attempt at deflection.  You are just a fucktard.

I already heard your dishonest story, don't forget, you dumbass unconvincing liar.

Here's your plodding and utterly unconvincing shtick:  "I don't necessarily subscribe to the Truther belief in a conspiracy, but I, being the totally objective swell fellow that I am, do believe that it is important to ask the questions!"

(In your mind, do they play some really cool heraldic type music in the background as you pontificate?)

But your shtick is tired and unconvincing for a lot of reasons.  NOBODY who was actually just being (honestly) "objective" would be as dismissive of every answer to your "questions" as YOU always are.  

Nobody who is JUST asking open-minded questions would EVER ask SOME of the stupid "questions" you ask.  And nobody who was being objective would refuse to consider the implications of the the conspiracy which the Troofers postulate and  about which you have that (faux) open mind.

By the way, you dishonest tool, you never DID get the point of my comment about Operation Northwoods.  You are too wooden and foolish.  But I decline to accept your invitation to have THIS discussion morph into that stupid shit.  Try to stay focused, dufus.

You Troofers are all assholes.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 6, 2010)

> 1.  I never claimed it was an inside job.  For some reason it pisses you girl scouts off so much that I am honest in saying I don't know what happened that you have to repeatedly put words in my mouth.



Thats true, you have never taken a stand on anything; its called being a coward and you're very good at it.




> 2.  If it was an inside job on any level, what makes you think it would have to be done by those in the Oval Office?  If you'll remember, the fifteen page Op Northwods plan was drawn up by the top military leaders and not civilians.



The top military leaders attacked their own headquarters.  And you call others stupid?  You may have just set the gold standard there fry-chief.



> 3.  You may not be aware, but here in the US the POTUS election is held on November 2 the year preceding being sworn into Office.  For instance, Obushama won the election around November 3, 2009 so he had a hint......just a TINY CLUE he would be Sworn in January 2010.  That means there is a ten month period between knowing who would be in office and not 8 as you claimed.



Actually dumbass, it is held on the first Tuesday that follows a Monday in November.  Now if I wanted to, I could point this out for the next 15 posts like you do when you think you've shown someone to be ignorant (the difference being is that you are actually ignorant of a great many things none the least of which is 9/11).  



> 4. If there was a plan for a False Flag what makes you think the planning could ONLY START once the POTUS is in office?



I think actually you usurped #2 which previously set the gold standard with that; So they would just trust the structure in place to pull off this elaborate plan?  Yeah...right.  Of course, in your world President-Elects probably have the power to appoint generals and whatever to allow such events to take place.  LOL.  

Gee, you are a never ending source of amusement aren't you.  God bless the girl that beat the shit out of you that bent you into the twisted joke of a twit you are today.


----------



## Toro (Feb 6, 2010)

Speaking of polls



> From a telephone survey of 204 Americans, Spring 1993
> 
> 65% of all Americans believe that frozen pizza will never be any good and there's nothing science can do about it.
> 10% of the American public would pay $5 to see Senator Orrin Hatch (R - Utah) fight a big mean dog on Pay TV.
> ...



TV Nation Polls from the NBC Days - JokeTribe Humor

These were all polls commissioned by Michael Moore's first tv show called _TV Nation_.

EDIT -  I found the entire list.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 6, 2010)

Toro said:


> Speaking of polls
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All of the above are more specific than the "they" CL has been harping on for the last 16 hours.


----------



## Toro (Feb 6, 2010)

Oh, and lets not forget that a third of all New Jersey Republicans believe that Obama is either the anti-Christ or don't know whether he is or not.  Also, in line with what CL has been arguing, a third of all New Jersey Democrats believe Bush had something to do with 9/11 or don't know.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...l-conservatives-and-democrats-are-morons.html


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 7, 2010)

candycorn said:


> > 1.  I never claimed it was an inside job.  For some reason it pisses you girl scouts off so much that I am honest in saying I don't know what happened that you have to repeatedly put words in my mouth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There's some shit there too dumb to address but I will point out once again you lie about my position just to do name calling.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 7, 2010)

Toro said:


> Oh, and lets not forget that a third of all New Jersey Republicans believe that Obama is either the anti-Christ or don't know whether he is or not.  Also, in line with what CL has been arguing, a third of all New Jersey Democrats believe Bush had something to do with 9/11 or don't know.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...l-conservatives-and-democrats-are-morons.html




Try to pay attention.  Creativedreams said NG pointed out 1/3 of americans believe it was an inside job.  Divecon accused him of being a liar.  I posted the poll that NG referenced and has on their website showing Creativedreams did not lie.  Divecon never apologized because he's an ignorant bitch, and the rest of the girl scout club, including you, is ignoring what the poll states.  I've never said the poll is accurate.  I simply pointed out what it said and that NG cited it.  You dumb ***** really should learn how to participate on a board.  And learn how to read.


----------



## Douger (Feb 7, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> A  At least thay admitted 1/3 of Americans think 9/11 was an inside job....
> B Pearl Harbor was intentionally allowed to happen by the government?


A. Shows that 2/3 of Murkinz are flag waving, brainwashed idiots.
B. The military industrial complex made a fortune on that " movie".
The " Chosen" , self chosen, even wound up with a serious piece of real estate out of the deal.It's called IsNtReal.


----------



## Toro (Feb 7, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and lets not forget that a third of all New Jersey Republicans believe that Obama is either the anti-Christ or don't know whether he is or not.  Also, in line with what CL has been arguing, a third of all New Jersey Democrats believe Bush had something to do with 9/11 or don't know.
> ...



Frankly, I'm not interested in page after page of vile name calling.  I was just juxtaposing the point about polls showing a third of Americans believe the government had something to do with 9/11.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 7, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> In 1941 there was the question of why the carriers weren't there.  There was  the big argument between the Roosevelt administration and the Japanese over our embargo against them on strategic metals, and the fact that Perl was caught flat footed.
> 
> There was also the fact Yamoto was, as Attache here, part of an exercise doing in 1928 exactly what he did in 1941, fly over the top of Oahu  from the north because there were no defensive assets on that side.  Worked in 28 too.
> 
> ...



Yep. Things like absorbtion spectra mean nothing to most idiots here.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 7, 2010)

Toro said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...




You fit right in with the rest of the girl scouts.

"Also, in line with what CL has been arguing..."

You don't have a clue.


----------



## Toro (Feb 7, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> You fit right in with the rest of the girl scouts.
> 
> "Also, in line with what CL has been arguing..."
> 
> You don't have a clue.



I understand that your vitriolic ego and self-esteem is completely wrapped up in winning every single argument on a message board and that it kills you if you don't get the last word but I couldn't care less about your little argument in this thread.  It reminds me of the aggrieved eight year-old crying to the teacher about huge self-perceived injustices.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 7, 2010)

Toro said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > You fit right in with the rest of the girl scouts.
> ...




Lol....you fit right with the rest of the snotty whiny kids because when you fuck up you try to play Dr Phil (full of shit) to hide that.  Clue: nobody ever wins or loses in debating.  There is simply an exposure of honesty, or specifically in your case, dishonesty.  Thanks for the useless additions.


----------



## Toro (Feb 7, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Gee, thanks for disproving my point.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 7, 2010)

Toro said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Thank you for proving mine.


----------



## Liability (Feb 7, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



_bent tight_ is slipping.  In his last couple of unpersausive posts, he failed to call somebody a "****."

This clearly means that he realizes that he's lost.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 7, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Really? What did I lose?  I pointed out you guys are dishonest about the poll and divecon falsely accused creativedreams of lying. The problem is you are so mentally immature you let personal feelings trump basic honesty.


----------



## Toro (Feb 7, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



I was going to post the same thing.  Its been what, *nine whole posts* and he hasn't called anyone a "****" yet!  That's pretty impressive.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 7, 2010)

Toro said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Wow.  You must have one truly boring life.


----------



## Toro (Feb 7, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I have a good life.  And I'd bet you'd argue for the next 100 pages that I don't.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 7, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > > 1.  I never claimed it was an inside job.  For some reason it pisses you girl scouts off so much that I am honest in saying I don't know what happened that you have to repeatedly put words in my mouth.
> ...



[Translation] I (Curvelight) have nothing.

You're deriding others for name calling.  

Here's a question you won't answer; what exactly is your position on anything?  Hmm?  What is your position on 9/11?  What is your position on Fench Toast versus Pancakes?  What is your position on whether it's partly cloudy or partly sunny?  

The only reason you are here is to get attention.  I think I am just about ready to stop giving you mine.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 7, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


not that you lost the argument, but that you ARE lost

see, you need a remedial reading comprehension class


----------



## Liability (Feb 7, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I knew he wouldn't get it.

I knew I could count on an intelligent member of USMB to catch the nuance.

Kudos to you, again, divey.  

Ridicule and associated razzings to the idiot, bent tight -- again -- too!


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 8, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Let's see...you, liability, fizz, and candycorn all claimed part of the response to the poll was about competency and not an inside job.  Once again, you accused creativedreams of lying for saying that NG said 1/3 suspect an inside job.  Even after the poll was linked you refused to man up and admit you were wrong, but you want to preach about reading comprehension?  The entire poll was nothing but conspiracy questions:

"Participants in the poll were asked to respond to "several serious accusations that some people have made against the federal government in recent years." Five conspiracy theories were described and participants were asked if each was "very likely, somewhat likely or unlikely."

The title of the article covering the Poll says:

"Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy"

So we have the title from the Scripps website verifying creativedreams did not lie and rock solid proof all of the questions asked were conspiracies, but you want to preach about reading comprehension?  I seriously doubt you or the rest of your little whiny camp will ever admit you fucked up because that would require honesty and between the four of you there is absolutely zilch.  


(divecon is so predictable his only response will be to say I'm a liar or some other name calling and he will completely avoid the facts and his little whiny crew will help him by trying to scream loud enough to avoid admitting they fucked up too.  You guys are a fucking joke.)


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 8, 2010)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I have taken a stand.  The reason why it upsets you so much is because taking a stand based on factzzz is so boring to you the only response you have is to make false claims.  When you grow up and realize the difference between facts and beliefs it will much easier for you to be honest and have good dialogues.  I suspect your response will prove you are no where near that point.  Especially in how you ignore the fact the poll asked nothing but conspiracy questions.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 8, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Okay...what is your stand on the 9/11 Commission Report?

This should be good.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 8, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



I also question any poll where "they" are involved.  Mention specifics and your numbers nosedive.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 8, 2010)

candycorn said:


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



More of your dishonesty.  The "they" is referencing the government.  Once again, the poll asked questions based on 5 conspiracies all involving the government.  Do you retract your deflection about "competency" or are you going to shock us and be honest and admit the poll asked all conspiracy questions?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 8, 2010)

candycorn said:


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




Holy fuck your dishonesty is amusing and it shows how pathetic you are.  You purposefully edited this part out of my post from the Scripps article:

The entire poll was nothing but conspiracy questions:

"Participants in the poll were asked to respond to "several serious accusations that some people have made against the federal government in recent years." Five conspiracy theories were described and participants were asked if each was "very likely, somewhat likely or unlikely."


You're a fucking dishonest shitbag.  You actually edited out the very facts that prove your claim about "competency" is wrong.  This is why you deserve nothing.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 8, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


LOL
you seriously need professional help


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 8, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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




Good job on not letting anyone down and avoiding the facts again.  I never thought for a second you would man up and apologize to creativedreams but I had to post the facts repeatedly to remove any doubt.

 The entire poll was nothing but conspiracy questions:

"Participants in the poll were asked to respond to "several serious accusations that some people have made against the federal government in recent years." Five conspiracy theories were described and participants were asked if each was "very likely, somewhat likely or unlikely."

The title of the article covering the Poll says:

"Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy"

So we have the title from the Scripps website verifying creativedreams did not lie and rock solid proof all of the questions asked were conspiracies, but you want to preach about reading comprehension?  I seriously doubt you or the rest of your little whiny camp will ever admit you fucked up because that would require honesty and between the four of you there is absolutely zilch.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 8, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


see, more proof you lack reading comprehension skills

the title(written by either the reporter of the editor) was not substantiated in the actual poll
the poll question lumped SEVERAL options into one
so, you can NOT conclude that the people that responded ALL believed it was an inside job
only dishonest troofer fuckers like you do shit like that


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 8, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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




Your stupidity is stupendous! 

ALL OF THE QUESTIONS WERE CONSPIRACY QUESTIONS AND THEY DID NOT LUMP THEM ALL TOGETHER.

Do you get what that means?  I doubt it.  Pay attention you dumbass: 

From the FIRST paragraph:

"More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll."


It really is hard to tell if you are truly that fucking dumb or if you prefer being seen as that dumb to avoid apologizing to creativedreams.  On that ONE QUESTION 36% responded in the affirmative.  They asked other questions such as a missile on the Pentagon and if explosives were used on the towers:

"Sixteen percent said it's "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that "the collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings." 

Twelve percent suspect the Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists." 

They did not "lump" those together you idiot and you can't add percentages.  I'm guessing you read this part:

"Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."

...and from that your stupid ass tried to claim they "lumped" them altogether.  They did not lump them together.  Learn how to read and be man enough to apologize when you falsely accuse someone of lying.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 8, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


god damn you are too fucking stupid


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 8, 2010)

The stupendous stupidity is stupendously stupid today.


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 8, 2010)

Remember;
"They laughed at Noah right up until the time it started raining too."
Terall, USMB 2/6/2010


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 8, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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




Thank you for ignoring the facts again.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 8, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Okay, The Government:  Do they mean Congress, (538 members).  The Executive Branch (lord only knows how many members), the Pentagon Commanders (5-3,000 commanders or so if you want to extrapalate it out)?  NYC Government (Guliani...Kerik)?  

The words "the government" are not very specific at all.  Find a poll that puts a cross-section of Americans laying the blame at the feet of a few people and you may have something.  Until then, you have a bunch of people blaming "them"; and you can't indict "them", you can't incarcerate "them", and you can't do jack shit against "them".  Someday you'll learn the difference between chickensalad and chickenshit.  What you're peddling isn't chickensalad loser.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 8, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


how can i ignore what wasn't there?


----------



## Fizz (Feb 8, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> Remember;
> "They laughed at Noah right up until the time it started raining too."
> Terall, USMB 2/6/2010



and we continue to laugh at the Heaven's Gate idiots when their prophecy didnt come true and they committed suicide.

fucking morons.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 8, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



You ar
e a lying bitch.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 8, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


and bent tight resorts to projection once again


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 8, 2010)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




So now that you can't hide behind the "competency" bullshit you want to ignore the poll because you don't like the term the "government?"  Lol......you're so fucking sad.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 8, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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




I would say you "resort" to lying but you begin and end your posts like that all the time.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 8, 2010)

^^^^and here is yet another example of projection


----------



## eots (Feb 8, 2010)

what the skinny little Mexican snorkeler ?-


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 8, 2010)

eots said:


> what the skinny little Mexican snorkeler ?-


proof you are a racist as well as a moronic troofer


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 8, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > what the skinny little Mexican snorkeler ?-
> ...



naw, eots is just misguided by the company he keeps.
We will fix that when the ice goes off the lake and he comes out to go fishing.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 8, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



In truth neither one is mentioned but "they' is more weighty than competency.  They are not ruled in or ruled out.  

Find a poll of a good cross-section of Americans that is specific and you'll have something.  Currently, your poll is about as important and about as useful by the way as those who ask if Elvis is still alive.

Speaking of ignore, what about this:

I've asked like 4 times if you think the phone calls happened since now you're saying that the May family isn't lying about their daughter giving them a call and reporting AA77 as being hijacked.  

You won't answer.  So are you "so fucking sad" too because you're too afraid to answer?  Earlier you were indicating that you were doubtful they took place.  But now you are saying that the May family isn't lying about getting the phone call.  So which is it today?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 8, 2010)

slackjawed said:


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


you still have hope it's "fixable"?


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 8, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



yeah, he is just young and impressionable.
I think if he spent some time fishing and spent his evenings chasing ranch girls, he would straighten right out.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 8, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...


i dont believe that Eots is that "young"


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 8, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Really? From talking with him I would have guessed him in his early twenties....course there could be another reason. it starts with r......


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 8, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...


ooooh, you don't want to go there


----------



## eots (Feb 8, 2010)

you are both correct I am 45 going on twenty


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 8, 2010)

eots said:


> you are both correct I am 45 going on twenty





shocked!
where's that r word when you need it?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 8, 2010)

eots said:


> you are both correct I am 45 going on twenty


20??? more like 12


----------



## eots (Feb 8, 2010)

that would be your girlfriend dive..you are getting confused again


----------



## eots (Feb 8, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > what the skinny little Mexican snorkeler ?-
> ...



racist wtf is racist about that ??..


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 8, 2010)

eots said:


> that would be your girlfriend dive..you are getting confused again


projecting again


----------



## eots (Feb 8, 2010)

I hear the air marshals and homoland security are hiring..


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 8, 2010)

eots said:


> I hear the air marshals and *homoland *security are hiring..


i'm sure you tried to get the job


----------



## Fizz (Feb 8, 2010)

eots said:


> you are both correct I am 45 going on twenty



holy shit. who would have guessed we had something in common?!


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 8, 2010)

the bennies are pretty good at HMS, I mean, I'm just sayin'.......


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 9, 2010)

candycorn said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




First you tried to ignore the poll by falsely claiming it was talking about competency.  When that is proven wrong you then try to ignore it on the basis you don't like the word "government."  Just another example of your dishonesty.  If the word "government" rendered the poll invalid then it was not valid to claim they were talking about competency.  So wiggle and jive some more you dumb dishonest bitch.

For the last time.....there is no record of any phone call from flight 77 to the Mays nor the DOJ.  Go ahead and lie again and say I've never answered you ****.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 9, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > what the skinny little Mexican snorkeler ?-
> ...




You are the dumbass.  Want evidence?  You keep trying to dismiss the poll to avoid admitting you fucked up.  Pay.  Attention.  You.  Useless.  Bitch.  It doesn't matter if the poll is legit or not.  Why? You accused creativedreams of lying for saying NG said 1/3 of Americans suspect an inside job.  It has been repeatedly proven NG in fact did say that and they cited that poll.  It doesn't matter if you like the poll or not.  Creativedreams did not lie as you accused.  Now do your usual routine of ignoring the facts because you have no self respect so you have nothing to lose by lying yourself.  Bitch.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 9, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > you are both correct I am 45 going on twenty
> ...



Love the new avatar.


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 9, 2010)

Is this thread over?

It looks like National Geographic put together a show that is just so good that it has to be accepted.

I am sending my letter to congress to adopt this show into the official 911 commission report as an appendix. 

Who will support that?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 9, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> Is this thread over?
> 
> It looks like National Geographic put together a show that is just so good that it has to be accepted.
> 
> ...



Just hope they don't quiz you on the CR or you'll look mighty silly requesting an addition to a document you are ignorant about.


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > Is this thread over?
> ...



So you create abbreviations? 
You really don't see ignorance in that action?
So far my silliness hasn't come close to matching the silliness from the troofer side, and that's saying a lot!


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 9, 2010)

If you can't answer questions about the 9ecr, or the pmdb, or the ngs, or the nistop, then how can you call yourself a troofer?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 9, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...




Creating abbreviations is ignorant?  Holy shit balls.  Now I see why you generally stay in the safe zone of sarcasm.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 9, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> Is this thread over?
> 
> It looks like National Geographic put together a show that is just so good that it has to be accepted.
> 
> ...



UGMV.

(You got my vote)


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



no clownlite, making abbreviations without explanations doesn't help you at all.

the above sentaence abbrevated;
ncmawedhyaa
which makes more sense?
wait, I am asking clownlite about sense, holy shit i fell right into that one.....


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 9, 2010)

saftb



(step away from the bong)


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 9, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> saftb
> 
> 
> 
> (step away from the bong)




They have been explained.  You are still ignoring the question so thank you for proving your insincerity.

CR = Commission Report.  Wow. That was fucking tough.


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > saftb
> ...



Wait wait wait wait wait! You say the towers falling isn't investigated, I said it was addressed in the fact that the crashes and the ensuing fires are cited as the cause of collapse, and you still maintain the point is not addressed?

You realize that none of that follows along the path of logic, right?

That show on National geographic was right to point out the futility of arguing with the truthers. They won't accept anything that goes against the narrative they are intent on presenting. It has become a matter of faith with the truthers, much like fanatical religious people.

That is the reason many really do think that the truthers, or some of them, are actually working with the terrorists. They seem to have the same religious zeal that al quiada nutcase followers have been infected with, and might just be part of them.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 9, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> That show on National geographic was right to point out the futility of arguing with the truthers.



it may be futile but it sure is funny!!


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 9, 2010)

Fizz said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > That show on National geographic was right to point out the futility of arguing with the truthers.
> ...



I will admit to enjoying troofer baiting.........

it's a lot like fly fishing


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 9, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...



I said there was not an investigation on the towers because you can't start an investigation with a conclusion.  NIST did not do an investigation.  It did a Building Performance Report. It assumed the planes brought the buildings down and wrote its report based on that conclusion.  You're such an idiot.  How many more times do you need it explained?


----------



## Fizz (Feb 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I said there was not an investigation on the towers because you can't start an investigation with a conclusion.  NIST did not do an investigation.  It did a Building Performance Report. It assumed the planes brought the buildings down and wrote its report based on that conclusion.  You're such an idiot.  How many more times do you need it explained?



so according to you any investigation can not start with a conclusion. therefore, if a body is found, any investigation into how or why the body got there would be invalid because they already have drawn the conclusion there is a body.

do i have that right?


----------



## eots (Feb 9, 2010)

official story believers won't accept anything that goes against the narrative they are intent on presenting. It has become a matter of faith with the offcial conspiracy believers, much like fanatical religious people.

That is the reason many really do think that the liars or some of them, are actually working with the terrorists. They seem to have the same religious zeal that al quiada nut case followers have been infected with, and might just be part of them...true story


----------



## eots (Feb 9, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I said there was not an investigation on the towers because you can't start an investigation with a conclusion.  NIST did not do an investigation.  It did a Building Performance Report. It assumed the planes brought the buildings down and wrote its report based on that conclusion.  You're such an idiot.  How many more times do you need it explained?
> ...



no as usual you have it wrong..if you find a dead body and you see a wound on the body you can not conclude that the wound is the cause of death

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u3JSEqNtlg]YouTube - Immortal Technique Cause Of Death Lyrics[/ame]


----------



## Fizz (Feb 9, 2010)

eots said:


> official story believers won't accept anything that goes against the narrative they are intent on presenting. It has become a matter of faith with the offcial conspiracy believers, much like fanatical religious people.
> 
> That is the reason many really do think that the liars or some of them, are actually working with the terrorists. They seem to have the same religious zeal that al quiada nut case followers have been infected with, and might just be part of them...true story



as soon as you provide physical evidence for a scenario that proves the official theory wrong then we can discuss how fanatical the believers of the official story are.

until then they are not only believing in the preponderance of evidence..... they are believing in all the evidence.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 9, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



are you really that moronic? if an investigation into a body with a wound is done the cause of death can not be from the wound? you want to re-think that?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 9, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I said there was not an investigation on the towers because you can't start an investigation with a conclusion.  NIST did not do an investigation.  It did a Building Performance Report. It assumed the planes brought the buildings down and wrote its report based on that conclusion.  You're such an idiot.  How many more times do you need it explained?
> ...




No.  You do not have it right.  Your analogy just proved my point.  The "body" represents the collapsed towers.  If they investigated how the body got there and why, that would be an investigation.  For 9E, they saw the "body" (collapsed towers) and immediately formed a conclusion on how the towers collapsed (how the body got there and why).  They made their conclusion before any investigation could start.  Thank you for revealing your stupidity again.  Acknowledging the collapsed towers, just like seeing a dead, is not drawing a conclusion on how or why it happened.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 9, 2010)

Fizz said:


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



A wound does not have to be the cause of death you dumbfuck.  A dead body could have a wound in the arm but the person could have been strangled to death.  Assuming a visible wound is automatically the cause of death is idiotic....but then again....coming from you I understand because you prove your stupidity on a regular basis.  

Just like when you tried to claim the poll cited by NG "could" have been talking about competency when I've already posted the evidence ALL of the questions were conspiracy questions so no, competency was not in question for that poll.  But you ignored your fuck up like you ignore all of them.  Now dance bitch, dance.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 9, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > official story believers won't accept anything that goes against the narrative they are intent on presenting. It has become a matter of faith with the offcial conspiracy believers, much like fanatical religious people.
> ...




That's a false dilemma you dumb fuck.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



gee.... you think the TWO FUCKING AIRPLANES FLYING INTO THE BUILDINGS might be a big fucking clue as to why they collpased? 

and then you are surprised that the investigation reaches the same conclusion? 

my god you twoofers are a bunch of dumb fucking morons....


----------



## eots (Feb 9, 2010)

Fizz said:


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



in the case of wtc 7..a body with a wound was found..that wound would in all other cases  be non-fatal..but that did not fit with the story so they went on a 8 year investigation to try and prove in this rare instants an extraordinary event took place making a non-fatal wound fatal

*This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building,* the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings*, caused an extraordinary event,&#8221;*  The investigation team considered the possibility of other factors playing a role in the collapse of WTC 7, including the possible use of explosives, fires fed by the fuel supply tanks in and under the building, and damage from the falling debris of WTC 1. 

*The team said that the smallest blast event capable of crippling the critical column would have produced a &#8220;sound level of 130 to 140 decibels at a distance of half a mile,&#8221; yet no noise this loud was reported by witnesses or recorded on videos*. 



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q]YouTube - Barry Jennings' account of WTC 7 explosions[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64&feature=related]YouTube - Michael Hess, WTC7 explosion witness[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow]YouTube - 9/11 NYC Firefighters Controlled Demolition[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw&feature=related]YouTube - WTC 7 Explosion on Audio (heard by firemen)[/ame]



*As for fuel fires*, the team found that they could not have been sustained long enough, *could not have generated sufficient heat to fail *a critical column, and/or would have produced &#8220;large amounts of visible smoke&#8221; from Floors 5 and 6, which was not observed. 

Finally, the report notes that &#8220;while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage *had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.&#8221; *

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08


----------



## Terral (Feb 9, 2010)

Fizz:



Fizz said:


> gee.... you think the TWO FUCKING AIRPLANES FLYING INTO THE BUILDINGS might be a big fucking clue as to why they collpased?
> 
> and then you are surprised that the investigation reaches the same conclusion?
> 
> my god you twoofers are a bunch of dumb fucking morons....



There is an obvious problem with your Govt Cover Story thinking:

1. *WTC-7* (my Topic) imploded just like WTC-1 and WTC-2 and was struck by no Jetliner ...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo]Do The Math ...[/ame]

Accept *my "Challenge"* (Do it you coward!) and start *'your' Topic *showing us how building fires took down three skyscrapers on 9/11 ...

GL,

Terral


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 9, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



There was no investigation into why they collapsed.  You can't admit that but you want to call others stupid?


----------



## Fizz (Feb 9, 2010)

secondary explosions happen at fires all the time.

so how do you make the leap from a can of glade exploding on someones burning desk or an electrical tranformer exploding to "there were controlled demolitions planted in the buildings"??


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 9, 2010)

Fizz said:


> secondary explosions happen at fires all the time.
> 
> so how do you make the leap from a can of glade exploding on someones burning desk or an electrical tranformer exploding to "there were controlled demolitions planted in the buildings"??




What post is this supposed to be a response?


----------



## Liability (Feb 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > secondary explosions happen at fires all the time.
> ...



You remain a thoroughly transparent fraud, bent tight.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 9, 2010)

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




Rotfl!  Who the fuck cares what you think you ignorant bitch?  You can't debate 9E with any recognition of being informed or sincere.


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Now, let me get this straight, I am an idiot because I think its ok that because of a big smoking burning pile of rubble, along with the small fact that two towers and some other buildings and structures were missing, that in itself isn't a good reason to start an investigation?
If there had not been a "conclusion", namely the above mentioned rubble and missing buildings, there would have been very little need for an investigation.
The conclusion was the buildings were gone and the space they formally occupied was a pile of smoking rubble.
There were millions of eye witnesses, in person and on TV.
The terrorists themselves have taken credit for the above mentioned pile of rubble, missing buildings, et al.
What makes me an idiot? I understand it and accept it.
You claim to be the SUPER-Genius, enlighten me 'o touched one!

Oh, and whenever I was involved in a post catastrophic building performance report during my engineering career, it was always based upon the best available evidence as to what happened. Like it or not, the official story is the best available evidence. Based on the fact that it was on world-wide TV, the terrorist took credit, and all the missing people from the flights, it is just the best evidence.


So far, despite all the bluster, personal insults, obscene language and innuendo, none of the so called "truthers" (which is a criminal hijacking of that word as far as I am concerned) have presented proof of nothing, not one thing. If you want your material to be the best available evidence, first it must be presented, then reviewed, then


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Millions of people saw what happened on world-wide TV. It is simply stupid to believe them as the ever-knowing SUPER Genius 911insidenutjob knows the "truth".

Stop giving truth a bad name. In fact, stop giving truthers a bad name, dude you even give twoofers a bad name. quit it!


----------



## eots (Feb 9, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



no plane hit the wtc 7 fire alone is what NIST claims caused the collapse


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 9, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



So you do know the truth......fire alone caused wtc7 collapse, just like popular mech and nist said. I am glad to see your finally starting to see the light eots.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> There was no investigation into why they collapsed.  You can't admit that but you want to call others stupid?



you might want to tell that to these guys...

NIST and the World Trade Center


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 9, 2010)

slackjawed said:


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




Lol.....the dumbass relies on the government and poop mechaniks.

How many years and how many organizations were required to give an official explanation on WTC 7?


----------



## Fizz (Feb 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



all the evidence points in one direction.... yet you still scream "i dont know what happened"!!!!!! 

fucking moron.


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 9, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...



I support both the Official 911 commission report and the NIST report based on the fact they are issued with the full faith and force of the US Government. I accept the Popular Mechanics official report as a public service from a highly respected testing facility.
clownlight, you on the other hand stand back and offer nothing, yet claim intelelectual superiority. That just doesn't cut the pancakes on sunday morning and you know it.

This is a perfect example of how you guys went from truthers, to troofers, and finally to twoofers.

People, I am telling you we have a truther deficit here at usmb and it is just a shame.
These so-called twoofers are just wanna-be pretenders, well except for eots, he's a misguided wanna be truther.....


----------



## candycorn (Feb 9, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



*
As stated, they are nothing more than attention whores.  Why do you think Alex Jones carries around a bullhorn?  It isn't to remain anonymous; people's common sense have taken care of that and he and his bullhorn are trying desperately to break through.  *


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 9, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...



Question ignored by OCTA.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 9, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...




Question ignored by OCTA.....for the second time.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 9, 2010)

candycorn said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




Question ignored by OCTA for the third time.  Wonder why you all ignored such a simple question?

Think about this:

Rebuilding of the new WTC 7 completed in:  four years.

Explaining how the old WTC 7 collapsed:

SEVEN MOTHER FUCKING YEARS!


----------



## eots (Feb 9, 2010)

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


&#8220;I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they&#8217;ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.&#8221;


&#8220;I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,&#8221; 
Dr. Quintiere said he originally &#8220;had high hopes&#8221; that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. &#8220;They&#8217;re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what *I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information*. What prevented all of this? I think it&#8217;s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, *those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.&#8221;* &#8220;I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very *difficult to get a clear answer*. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they *could never ask any questions*. And with all the commentary that I put in, and *I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply.&#8221; *

&#8220;In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by *not definitively finding cause*, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by *not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation*, and by the guidance of *government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding. *

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


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 9, 2010)

Eots, you know they will ignore that.


----------



## eots (Feb 9, 2010)

Global warming extinction threat 

Global warming is likely to wipe out plant and animal life from South Africas Cape Floral Kingdom to the tropical Andes - with thousands of species under threat of extinction  according to a new biodiversity study.  


Tourists hike to the top of the Chacaltaya ski slope along the Bolivian Andes outside La Paz, Bolivia March 11, 2006. 

On average, 11,6 per cent of all species could become extinct, the journal Conservation Biology reports. In many cases the predicted effects were even worse than deforestation, in terms of species extinctions. 
Global warming extinction threat | Popular Mechanics

March 2009 
Sudden impacts 
If you think greenhouse gas, climate change, tipping points and related issues are the sole preserve of tofunibbling tree-huggers, environmental alarmists and scientists in pursuit of lucrative grants, youd be wrong. In fact, you should be feeling a little nervous 

Sudden impacts - global warming and climate change | Popular Mechanics



National Geographic -
Global Warming Fast Facts

The report, based on the work of some 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries, concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming. Human-caused global warming is often called anthropogenic climate change. 

Global Warming Fast Facts


----------



## creativedreams (Feb 9, 2010)

The 9/11 Commission Report wasn't about how the buildings collapsed.

It was the NIST Report that explained the buildings collapses and was proclaimed by many Physicists, Scientists, Engineers, Architects, Professors,  around the world to literally re-write physics.

I can post* MANY* well documented, verifiable statements from those people too.

The NIST Report was appointed to be headed by Bush's personal friend Frank Gayle who wrote the final report. There were people who adamantly told Frank Gayle the NIST Report was flat out wrong and the Twin Towers should have easily stood.

Here is a simple comprehensive example that depicts how the NIST investigation went when Bush appointed his personal friend to head the NIST Report and collapse investigation.

The NIST investigation did *NOT* look at the possibility in explosives in the collapses....even though there are countless witnesses live on the news who heard many explosions.


----------



## creativedreams (Feb 9, 2010)

The entire 9/11 Commission Report is a farse and nothing but a cover-up, as stated by the people directly involved with the 9/11 Commission Report. They were stonewalled from the FACTS and EVIDENCE by the Whitehouse and top CIA. They state they ended up with a report completely void of ANY facts. 

Many anti-truthers make the claim that the Commission Report did not get any "facts" wrong so there's nothing to contest...but the *FACT* of the matter is the 9/11 Commission Report is VOID OF ANY FACTS.
.......So what could they get wrong if all the FACTS and EVIDENCE were hidden from them?.......

Here are some disturbing statements from the very people involved in the 9/11 Commission Report and it is beyond me why a few people post full time on many message boards to defend and sway people from asking for a new investigation....



The following paragraph is very compelling so I pasted it at the top...

Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham:... "A U.S. government informant was the landlord to two of the hijackers for over a year, but the White House refused to let the 9/11 inquiry interview him." 

Here is a news link on it...
Hijackers Lived With FBI Informant - CBS News



*9/11 COMMISSIONERS *

Co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton:... "The CIA and the White House obstructed our investigation".

Co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said:... "The 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people."

Co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations. 

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton:... "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right, the Commission was set up to fail, the people should keep asking questions about 9/11, the 9/11 debate should continue."

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey:... "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version, we didn't have access."

9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer:... "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting."

9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".

9/11 Commissioner John Lehman:... We purposely put together a staff that had  in a way - conflicts of interest".

Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission John Farmer who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry:... "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."


*CONGRESS*

Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham:... "A U.S. government informant was the landlord to two of the hijackers for over a year, but the White House refused to let the 9/11 inquiry interview him." 
Hijackers Lived With FBI Informant - CBS News

U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy:... "The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?"

Republican Congressman Ron Paul calls for a new 9/11 investigation and states:... "We see the 9/11 investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on"

Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich:... "We aren't being told the truth about 9/11."

Democratic Senator Mike Gravel:... "I support a new 9/11 investigation, we don't know the truth about 9/11."


Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee:..."A new 9/11 investigation is needed."


U.S. Democratic Congressman Dan Hamburg:..."The U.S. government assisted in the 9/11 attacks, I think there was a lot of help from the inside."

U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee Curt Weldon:..."The U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11. I am open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job."


----------



## candycorn (Feb 9, 2010)

8 years.
No  major inaccuracies have been discovered in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Check please.

Thanks for playing; drive safely.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 9, 2010)

candycorn said:


> 8 years.
> No  major inaccuracies have been discovered in the 9/11 Commission Report.
> 
> Check please.
> ...




Whenever inaccurate information is highlighted your camp gives one of two responses:

Typo. 

or

Not important enough to matter.

On top of that you habitually fail to admit it omits a lot of information about that day.  You jackasses will always find a way to prop up new tent pegs for your circus.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...



and how many times did you ignore the question about whether you thought the Mays were lying?

what difference does it make how long the investigation took? its not significant. doesnt the fact that the investigation was so thorough and that it was investigated so long actually help support the fact that it was NOT an inside job? if it really was an inside job they would have had an explanation ready as to why it collapsed before it even hit the ground.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 9, 2010)

creativedreams said:


>



let me guess. thats you in the skirt, right?


----------



## eots (Feb 9, 2010)

I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable, 
Dr. Quintiere said he originally had high hopes that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. Theyre the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think its the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything. I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply. 

In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding. 

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


----------



## eots (Feb 9, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



*you mean like this agent*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEgHU6pS-tg]YouTube - Fake "Witness" to 9/11 Government Killings Of Its Citizens[/ame]


----------



## eots (Feb 9, 2010)

> Why aren't the Twoofers that claim America was behind 9/11 trying to free an innocent Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?



because he is a terrorist and a dupe..


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 9, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


more deflection and projection


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 9, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


another LIE


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 9, 2010)

eots said:


> > Why aren't the Twoofers that claim America was behind 9/11 trying to free an innocent Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
> 
> 
> 
> because he is a terrorist and a dupe..


HE planned the attack, dipshit
if his people didnt actually DO the attack(the government did it, not terrorists) then how the fuck is he a terrorist?


----------



## eots (Feb 9, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



*you are the lie divemoroncon*


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc&feature=related]YouTube - NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 9, 2010)

eots said:


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


again, you LIE
it NEVER says "fire alone"
you are the fucking proven MORON asswipe


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

Shyam sunders exact quote is.."wtc 7 collapsed because of fires' "we have shown for the first time fire an cause a progressive collapse "...the only mention of damage from debris is when it is credited for starting the fire...then goes on to show a computer model explanation of the collapse where fire alone is the cause of the collapse regardless of any damage...why ya gotta lie like that dive ??


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> Shyam sunders exact quote is.."wtc 7 collapsed because of fires' "we have shown for the first time fire an cause a progressive collapse "...the only mention of damage from debris is when it is credited for starting the fire...then goes on to show a computer model explanation of the collapse where fire alone is the cause of the collapse regardless of any damage...why ya gotta lie like that dive ??


you are the proven liar


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

right blah blah blah,,no way.. you are...anyway those were the direct quotes clearly you can not dispute that fact or if so then tell us what role according to nist how did fuel fires or falling debris contribute to the collapse ??? can you answer that question with something other than denial ?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> right blah blah blah,,no way.. you are...anyway those were the direct quotes clearly you can not dispute that fact or if so then tell us what role according to nist how did fuel fires or falling debris contribute to the collapse ??? can you answer that question with something other than denial ?


wrong, you ASSUME the "alone"
and its not there
that makes you a liar because this has been explained to you before


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

so you can not answer what role if any NIST claims that fuel fires or falling debris played in the collapse of wtc 7 or the computer simulation...is that correct ?...or do you conceed that the only role damage to wtc 7 from falling debris is credited for is the intiation of the fire..


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> so you can not answer what role if any NIST claims that fuel fires or falling debris played in the collapse of wtc 7 or the computer simulation...is that correct ?...or do you conceed that the only role damage to wtc 7 from falling debris is credited for is the intiation of the fire..


you lie once again'


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> so you can not answer what role if any NIST claims that fuel fires or falling debris played in the collapse of wtc 7 or the computer simulation...is that correct ?...or do you conceed that the only role damage to wtc 7 from falling debris is credited for is the intiation of the fire..



It's funny as hell how that useless penis germ obsessively accuses people of lying every single time they point to facts he does not like.  He regularly rewrites the CR and anything else about 9E to try and hide his own ignorance.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 10, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...




I never dodged the question about the Mays and have always said I've never accused them of lying.  Want to be even more embarrassed by having me link the posts or do you want to ignore your fucking stupid claim like you ignored your "competency" claim about the poll NG cited?

Then you create a strawman and say if it was an inside job they would have had an explanation prepared.  Where do you come up with this stupid shit?  Oops.  Never mind......I've read enough of your posts.  Thank you for affirming what I said about OCTAs relying on one of three methods for ignoring information about 9E.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 10, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



Your fellow OCTAs see you are ignoring your fuck up but none of you have an ounce of integrity so you assholes always circle the wagons when you are wrong because your "friendships" on here are nothing but childish utilitarian illusions designed to maintain the fantasy you jackasses are honest or slightly informed.  

Now that it's clear you falsely accused creativedreams of lying you move on to falsely accuse eots of lying.  Everyone knows poop mechaniks is the OCTAs best friend outside of Bush circles and even they admit NIST claims fire alone brought WTC7 down.

"Fire alone brought down the building, the report concludes, pointing to thermal expansion of key structural members as the culprit. The report also raises concerns that other large buildings might be more vulnerable to fire-induced structural failure than previously thought."

And


"Today's report confirms that a fire was, indeed, the cause. "This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires," Sunder told reporters at the press conference. "What we found was that uncontrolled building fires &#8212;similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings&#8212;caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of WTC7."


And


"In fact, the report concludes: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires."
World Trade Center Tower 7 - NIST Report debunks 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Popular Mechanics


You will call me a liar, leave childish comments with the rep button, say I need mental help, and anything else your dumbass feels necessary to avoid the facts.  I don't post this information for you or your OCTA clan. I post it for honest readers.


----------



## Liability (Feb 10, 2010)

There was physical damage to Bldg 7.  Alone, it is not at all clear that the physical damage to Bldg 7 would have caused a collapse.

But the fires did cause it to come down.

Why that conclusion is so difficult for you idiot troofers to grasp is hard to explain.


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



You still have not asked a question, for more time than twice.

I am starting to think you might be a retard


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 10, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> The 9/11 Commission Report wasn't about how the buildings collapsed.
> 
> It was the NIST Report that explained the buildings collapses and was proclaimed by many Physicists, Scientists, Engineers, Architects, Professors,  around the world to literally re-write physics.
> 
> ...



editorial cartoons are not evidence, the pictures you posted are nice, but they prove nothing either.

As stated above, I am starting to lean a little more towards thinking your a retard


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 10, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> The entire 9/11 Commission Report is a farse and nothing but a cover-up, as stated by the people directly involved with the 9/11 Commission Report. They were stonewalled from the FACTS and EVIDENCE by the Whitehouse and top CIA. They state they ended up with a report completely void of ANY facts.
> 
> Many anti-truthers make the claim that the Commission Report did not get any "facts" wrong so there's nothing to contest...but the *FACT* of the matter is the 9/11 Commission Report is VOID OF ANY FACTS.
> .......So what could they get wrong if all the FACTS and EVIDENCE were hidden from them?.......
> ...



Welcome to the tea party. Yrou need to keep the loonieness down to a minimum as the tea party groups won't put up with the BS the twoofers do without kicking you out.


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> > Why aren't the Twoofers that claim America was behind 9/11 trying to free an innocent Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
> 
> 
> 
> because he is a terrorist and a dupe..



wait wait wait! If the US is behind the towers collapsing, then KSM is innocent.
If KSM is a terrorist, the he, and not the us prez is behind 911.


Which is it?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> *Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation*
> 
> 
> I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what theyve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.
> ...



Followed by:



CurveLight said:


> Eots, you know they will ignore that.



Let me ask you something Curvelight. Do you know what Dr. Quintiere says he thinks caused the collapses? Have you read his paper and read his conclusion?


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 10, 2010)

The fact remains that the program on National Geographic was excellent, and should be read into the congressional record as the final word on the nature of the treasonous twoofers.
The program clearly showed, as does the conversation here, that twoofers choose to rely on their faith that boooooosh caused 911 to happen, even when confronted with facts and evidence. 
They choose the side of terrorists, and do their best to help the terrorists spread disinformation. That's called propaganda, and is light treason at best.
The twoofers show no regard for polite discourse, as they are so faithful in  their belief that boooosh caused 9111, they become disagreeable and even hostile when confronted.
The US government investigated and released much, but not all of the information they gathered to the public. The twoofers refuse to accept that. Is it because they distrust the government that much, or is it because they choose to work on the side of Al Quaida? Again, this is treason, heavy treason.
The twoofers movement consists of white surpremacists, New World Order believers, anti-semites(jews are the force behind NWO), fundamentalist christian nutcases, and mentally unstable general malcontents(no not you malcontent, real ones).
Twoofers are only concerned about spreading their message of distrust and discontent, even at the expense of alienating their audience. The divisive message they choose to prothesize is not about freedom, or civil rights, or bringing criminals to trial. The message they choose to spread is about division. These twoofers choose to spread a message of division in order to create a climate in which their prophecies of revolution or new world order, even ethnic cleansing can take place.

Despite the claims that they are looking for the "truth" about 911, that is'nt in any way their intent. They are about obstrcuting the truth for their own purposes.

That makes them treasonous.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You mean to tell me that if someone witnessed this person getting shot in the head they would look for a knife as the weapon?!


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> The "body" represents the collapsed towers.  If they investigated how the body got there and why, that would be an investigation.  For 9E, they saw the "body" (collapsed towers) and immediately formed a conclusion on how the towers collapsed (how the body got there and why).  They made their conclusion before any investigation could start.  Thank you for revealing your stupidity again.  Acknowledging the collapsed towers, just like seeing a dead, is not drawing a conclusion on how or why it happened.



WRONG!!!!

You're forgetting one important piece. The witnesses to the act.

As I said in my previous post, if there was a witness or witnesses that said they saw someone shoot this person in the head with a gun, why would they look for a knife? Unless the autopsy showed a knife wound.

How many people saw the planes hit the towers?

Thanks for playing.


----------



## Liability (Feb 10, 2010)

Secure in the knowledge that a lawsuit for defamation attempted by a public figure is extraordinarily difficult (practically impossible to win for the plaintiff, in fact), the Twoofers are pretty gutless scum for suggesting that the 9/11 attacks were the treasonous efforts of U.S. Government officials.

I still think it would be terrific if -- since he can't really sue the vermin -- a man like President Bush could walk up to a fucking puss like id-eots or Terrral and just punch him in the nadz.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Are you claiming that it's 100% impossible for ANY steel framed structure to collapse due to fire?


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 10, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



I think he is saying that if they didn't look for poison, the witnesses were part of the cover-up that the victim was stabbed........


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 10, 2010)

The national geographic show showed the twoofers in the light they deserve to shown in. As deniers of truth, as unreasonable paranoid delusional mental patients, and as treasonous accomplices of the terrorists.


----------



## creativedreams (Feb 10, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> You mean to tell me that if someone witnessed this person getting shot in the head they would look for a knife as the weapon?!



If someone burns to death in a house they look for a bullet wound you dumb ass...

The NIST Report was appointed to be headed by Bush's personal friend Frank Gayle and was told to not look at the possibility of explosives to explain the collapses.

This is how the NIST Report ended up literally rewriting physics when trying to explain how the top floor in each building could hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would if dropped right beside it..........while somehow crushing straight down through 47 vertical support columns that run from bedrock to the top floor.

The debunking propaganda intentionally misleads by not addressing the *vertical *core columns that run from bedrock to the top floor.











*Somehow everything but the steel was exploded into a huge cloud of dust before it even hits the ground.*


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 10, 2010)

As shown on both the popular mechanics debunking, as well as the National Geographic expose', the steel softened, it did not melt or break up like the concrete structure attached to the steel. 

You refuse to accept FACTS, and the laws of physics.

When addresses with FACTS, you choose to engage in name calling. You only repeat the same arguments over and over, no matter how many times you have been debunked, rejecting the source in an attempt to spread lies and disinformation-propaganda.

Spreading propaganda against the country you live in is TREASON!

You sir, are a treasonous twoofer that is serving the best interests of Al Quaida.


----------



## creativedreams (Feb 10, 2010)

slackjawed said:


> As shown on both the popular mechanics debunking, as well as the National Geographic expose', the steel softened, it did not melt or break up like the concrete structure attached to the steel.
> 
> You refuse to accept FACTS, and the laws of physics.
> 
> ...



Yes the fucking steel softens but they modeled the fucking floor trusses not the vertical core columns.

The vertical core columns are like having 47 vertical tree trunks.

The debunking propaganda showing the horizontal piece represents a tree branch to the perimeter of the vertical core columns..

This is why many physicists around the world believe 9/11 was an inside job

*YOU FUCKING DUMBFUCK!*


----------



## creativedreams (Feb 10, 2010)

The NIST Report was appointed to be headed by Bush's personal friend Frank Gayle and was told to not look at the possibility of explosives to explain the collapses.

This is how the NIST Report ended up literally rewriting physics when trying to explain how the top floor in each building could hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would if dropped right beside it..........while somehow crushing straight down through 47 vertical support columns that run from bedrock to the top floor.

The debunking propaganda intentionally misleads by not addressing the *vertical *core columns that run from bedrock to the top floor.
 The debunking propaganda misleads by focusing on the horizontal trusses at the perimeter of the core of the vertical support columns.

The horizontal trusses are simply tree branches and 

the *vertical* core columns are the 47 tree trunks.











*Somehow everything but the steel was exploded into a huge cloud of dust before it even hits the ground.*


----------



## Fizz (Feb 10, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> The NIST investigation did *NOT* look at the possibility in explosives in the collapses....even though there are countless witnesses live on the news who heard many explosions.



fucking liar.

Simulations of hypothetical blast events show that no blast event played a role in the collapse of WTC 7&#8243;


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 10, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > As shown on both the popular mechanics debunking, as well as the National Geographic expose', the steel softened, it did not melt or break up like the concrete structure attached to the steel.
> ...



The floor trusses are connected to concrete floors. The stress builds up to the breaking point and everything jsut shatters, at least ENOUGH TO MAKE THAT DUST CLOUD.
The FACT is that the steel columns were left as a mangled twisted mass sticking up out of the smoking rubble.

Then they took the steel and recycled it into a battleshipclap2:)
If the steel columns had "exploded" as you claim, there wouldn't be a new battleship made from that steel.

If you persist in your obscene name calling, you won't have anyone to talk to, or even read your posts. I might be the only one that doesn't have you on ignore, but that could change.


I am guessing you have no real life family or friends, and because of that am giving you another pass because it is clear you just do not know how to interact with reasonable people.

So....if you want to end up ignored, and talking to yourself once again, keep it up. If your really interested in discussing, discuss, don't antagonize.

When you make a thread that nobody answers, it isn't because everyone is in awe of your message, it is because everyone has you on ignore due to your inability to engage in discussion in even a semi-polite manner.

When everyone has you on ignore, and therefore cannot see your posts, it doesn't aggrandize you, it makes you insignificant.

You have only a few, including me, that will even talk with you. If you want to lose one more, me, and make one more move towards insignificance, keep up the childlike obscene banter.

Soon, you will not only not have friends or family in person, but will also be all alone in your looney threads on the internet.


----------



## creativedreams (Feb 10, 2010)

Fizz said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > The NIST investigation did *NOT* look at the possibility in explosives in the collapses....even though there are countless witnesses live on the news who heard many explosions.
> ...



*You can shove your rigged simulations up your ass!*

They place a 1/2" thick *horizontal* metal beam over the fire with no fireproofing and the same alleged heat. Not only is this a farse because it was *NOT* placed *vertical* like the actual support columns....but it was only 1/2" thick compared to the actual *vertical* core columns that are up to 4.91" thick........that somehow cut themselves and blew out of the way fast enough all the way down so the top floor of each building would hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would if dropped right beside them. 

We will get more into how much fireproofing could have been lost and what sides, areas, etc later.

This has nothing to do with the 47 tree trunks, *vertical* support columns that run from bedrock to the top floor which are welded together fusing them to be one tree trunk each or 47 tree trunks all the way up. 

The horizontal beam they heat up could only represent a tree branch, floor truss on the perimeter of the core columns.







They have this same demolition "expert" on every debunking propaganda...

He portrays the dinosaur methods of controlled demolition using dynamite, one of the oldest forms of explosives ever made. There are now countless forms of explosives that have been developed and they play dumb using dynamite with miles of wires. This method of demolition may be more cost economical when bidding demolition contracts instead of using exotic explosives...but don't play it off as the *ONLY* type of explosives *EVER *developed.

They play it out like the *ONLY* way to use explosives is with miles of wires. So your telling me that the cave dwellers in Afghanistan, Iraq etc are more advance than our best military technology when they can use a cell phone wireless signal to detonate bombs? With todays wireless technology they play it out like there *MUST* have been some evidence of wires.

They clear out the entire floor of the building to show what it's like when controlled demolition explosives go off. This produces thunderous loud bangs trying to prove what it should have sounded like if explosives were used in the WTC buildings.

All the vertical support columns were in the core of the WTC buildings and the outer shell would actually act like a muffler keeping decibels way down. Like the difference on how loud your car before or after the muffler falls off.
Or the difference how loud a gun is with our without a silencer...etc.

I have thoroughly researched controlled demolitions and it is far different than the dinosaur method the debunking propaganda portrays.

There has been extensive research developments on controlled demolition methods. These are in areas of controlling sound decibels, ground vibration, and even controlling horizontal direction of debris. This is to prevent damaging nearby buildings windows by keeping sound decibels down and protect underground pipes by keeping ground vibrations down.

This is accomplished by using many smaller explosives that produce a harmonic rumbling sound and not the loud bangs with fewer larger explosives.

I distincly recall seeing episodes on the learning channels like 15yrs ago where they were showing new technology. One of the things I seen was where they put only one droplet of a substance on an ink pen that was powerful enough so when someone clicked it would have blown their head off. It was liquid form and dried. 

I really love the part where they use 5/8" thick cement board which is used for tile backing and call it a scaled down pentagon wall and fire a 500 mile an hour projectile through it...LOL

I really love how they use a lb. of explosives on the whole cement board apparatus and blow the whole thing to smithereens and portray it like another segment of the scaled down experiment...OMFG!!!

They kept showing footage of flight 93 crashsite where there was no sign of a plane and I was really looking forward to hearing that part but they didn't address it.

So why did they try and portray it like those are the only types of explosives available (first type invented) and there have been no further developments in explosives and wireless technology?

There is technology to wireless control several Unmanned Planes with various flight paths and destinations now completely automated with computers but this doesn't cross over to controlling explosives?


*First steel frame collapse in history vs controlled demolition:*


----------



## Fizz (Feb 10, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...



right after you you stop licking and move your head out of the way.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 10, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> This is how the NIST Report ended up literally rewriting physics when trying to explain how the top floor in each building could hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would if dropped right beside it..........while somehow crushing straight down through 47 vertical support columns that run from bedrock to the top floor.



I spoke of this before, but you conveniently ignored it. Please explain to or show me how you are getting the idea that the floors were supported by 47 steel columns from below thus creating the "crushing down" of the floors on top of the 47 columns. 

As shown here:





The floor trusses were connected to the OUTSIDE faces of the core columns and perimeter columns. You keep saying that that top floor reached the ground as fast as a ball being dropped next to it, and I quote, "crushing straight down through through 47 vertical support columns". If the floors were constructed AROUND the 47 core columns, how did they then CRUSH them down?

Furthermore, if your claim that the "top floor" fell all the way down to the ground and crushed the 47 vertical columns, how come this portion of the core still stood in this photo?




That photo right there PROVES that your claim, that the top floor crushed the core columns all the way down to the ground, is pure idiocy.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 10, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> The debunking propaganda intentionally misleads by not addressing the *vertical *core columns that run from bedrock to the top floor.



Did you read the report at all? I just looked at it and found all kinds of references to the core columns. Are you being dishonest for a reason?


----------



## creativedreams (Feb 10, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > This is how the NIST Report ended up literally rewriting physics when trying to explain how the top floor in each building could hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would if dropped right beside it..........while somehow crushing straight down through 47 vertical support columns that run from bedrock to the top floor.
> ...




Your little deal there does nothing to explain the interior vertical core columns that are the 47 treetrunks of the building.

You little deal there does explain the horizontal floor trusses on the outside of the vertical core structure.....









even if the floor trusses collapsed it woulded have looked like snow falling off a pine tree where the lower branches shed the weight off to the sides.

I'll bring up a diagram of this when I come back....


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 10, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



No I never came close to saying that.  Just another example of your utter inability to discuss an issue honestly.  You will prove it again with your response.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 10, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> They place a 1/2" thick *horizontal* metal beam over the fire with no fireproofing and the same alleged heat. Not only is this a farse because it was *NOT* placed *vertical* like the actual support columns....but it was only 1/2" thick compared to the actual *vertical* core columns that are up to 4.91" thick........that somehow cut themselves and blew out of the way fast enough all the way down so the top floor of each building would hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would if dropped right beside them.
> 
> We will get more into how much fireproofing could have been lost and what sides, areas, etc later.
> 
> ...



You have no clue do you? Do you understand structural design and loads? How does a tree trunk and branches come close to representing the towers structure and the loads it handle and redistributed?

Let's make this simple for you. 

Let's take a 500 lb. block of cement and put five steel rods under it. One in the center of the block and the other four under each corner. Is the 500 lb. load being shared by all five rods? If I pulled the four corner rods out, does the single rod in the middle now support all of the 550 lb. load? Now let's apply a fire to it and WEAKEN the rod by 60%.

Now what?

Some line of reasoning. If you take out some of the columns due to the impact of the planes and then weaken others due to fire, where does the load get redistributed to? What columns? The perimeter columns? 

You obviously haven't read the NIST report.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 10, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > The "body" represents the collapsed towers.  If they investigated how the body got there and why, that would be an investigation.  For 9E, they saw the "body" (collapsed towers) and immediately formed a conclusion on how the towers collapsed (how the body got there and why).  They made their conclusion before any investigation could start.  Thank you for revealing your stupidity again.  Acknowledging the collapsed towers, just like seeing a dead, is not drawing a conclusion on how or why it happened.
> ...



I don't remember seeing your analogy to a shot in the head but if I had I would have pointed out it is a horrible comparison.  Seeing the planes hit the two towers does not automatically provide an unquestionable conclusion on the cause for collapse.  It was not the first time planes hit skyscrapers.  It was the first time buildings collapsed from planes.  It was also the first time fire alone was blamed for bringing down a skyscraper, WTC 7.  When FEMA first made that claim everyone was so shocked the job of explaining the collapse was handed to NIST, as well as several other agencies.  It took seven fucking years for them to try and give an explanation that fit with the premature conclusions.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You didn't huh?



CurveLight said:


> For 9E, they saw the "body" (collapsed towers) and immediately formed a conclusion on how the towers collapsed (how the body got there and why).



Your above statement PROVES you are once again backpedaling. You have been quoted as saying that they saw the body (the collpased towers) and made a conclusion based upon just seeing the "body". 

Is that correct?

What you failed to add was that they also had WITNESSES and VIDEO that saw the planes fly into them and explode. They had WITNESSES and VIDEOS of the ensuing FIRES. 

They had VIDEOS and PHOTOGRAPHS showing the tilt of the upper portion of the towers and the BOWING of the PERIMETER columns.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> It was not the first time planes hit skyscrapers.  It was the first time buildings collapsed from planes.



Really? Was it the first time lets of that size hit a steel, tube in tube design, 110 story tall skyscraper or are you going to tell me that structural design doesn't matter as to how a structure will react to outside forces?

Show me these other similarly designed buildings that were hit by planes please.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> It was the first time buildings collapsed from planes.



Again, you make two mistakes. 

Show me the buildings that were similar in design to the WTC towers that were also hit by planes.

The buildings did NOT collapse from the planes alone. There were also fires.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 10, 2010)

Gamolon said:


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



Why is it you assholes have to create false claims about what others say?  I never said that.  Shit creeks of lumpy green oatmeal wouldn't stop you guys from swallowing the propaganda pushed by the government. 
In case you try to hide behind the "I just asked a question" bullshit....think twice.  There is nothing in my post that justifies your response.  Hell, you have yet to even acknowledge I answered your original "question."


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 10, 2010)

national Geographic was spot on. The twoofers don't want to discuss anything, they just want to argue and insult those that don't believe the looniness they do- which is the majority of the american people.

Treasonous twoofers work for osama.....


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Look.

You claim that they made an immediate conclusion by seeing the body only. 

What you failed to point out is that there were tons of people who saw the planes hit the towers, the ensuing fires, the tilt of the tops of the towers, the bowing perimeter columns, etc. 

You you STILL go on to claim that they had drawn their conclusion on the "body". 

My point is, if you have a body, and five witnesses say they saw someone shout the person in the head with a gun, what the fuck do you think the immediate conclusion would be? Death by stabbing?

What the hell is the matter with you?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Hey fuckstick.

READ before opening your mouth.

Which post did I quote? Curvelight's or eots's?

What an idiot you just made of yourself.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 10, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



There are witnesses who heard explosions akin to how explosives are used on buildings.  Why is it you only cite the witnesses that support your view?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Wait. So every time I hear someone say that a tornado sounded like a freight train barreling through their property, I'm going to assume it was an actual freight train? 

Or the next time someone says that there tire blew out and it sounded like a gunshot, I'm going to assume someone was shooting at them? Look back and read your post again. What does it say?

..."heard explosion AKIN to explosives"...

How does one describe sounds on many occasions? By using something they are familiar with?


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 10, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




First of all, not all gunshots to the head cause death.  Secondly, your analogy simply sucks because you're trying to equate a bullet to the head as the same as a plane hitting a building.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 10, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




You must be right.  Those idiot cops and firefighters have no idea what explosions look or sound like.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 10, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Some people on here sound like a broken record.


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

cornytcunt


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



The point of the comparison is that 5 people witnessed the person get shot in the head. The conclusion at that point is that the cause of death was a gunshot to the head so they wouldn't look for a knife.

Are you that fucking stupid?



CurveLight said:


> Secondly, your analogy simply sucks because you're trying to equate a bullet to the head as the same as a plane hitting a building.



No, you're wrong. I'm trying to equate that you saying they based their conclusion on seeing a body only and totally leaving out the fact that there were EYEWITNESSES to the planes hitting the towers AND ENSUING fires is complete idiocy. You're trying to say that they had only a body and no other evidence to make an assumption that the planes and fires caused the collapse even though people SAW the planes hit the towers and ENSUING FIRES.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Are you saying the only way to generate something that SOUNDED like an explosion or bomb is with explosives? I suggest you read a little bit.

Newbiggin cliff collapse 'sounded like an explosion' says witness - Northumberland communities - Ashington
City's logic stumps driver - Los Angeles Times


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Why did this person use the term "akin" rather than saying it was explosives that caused the explosion sound?


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



shots to head are normaly fatal ..but no buildings in history ever collapsed due to fire...so you would have to compare it to a wound that is in all other cases was not fatal


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Since you want to compare apples to apples it seems, please show me a building that was of the same steel, tube in tube construction as one of the Twin Towers, and was hit by a jet.

Show me that building and that it survived.


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

wtc 7 was hit buy no plane and fuel fires  and structural damage are not considered as a  factors in the collapse other than initiating the fire...


----------



## Tom Clancy (Feb 10, 2010)

Hmm..

I think this thread should end here.. Even with all the proof we put out you guys are still stubborn and idiotic enough to believe the Truther bullshit. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXxynEDpwrA]YouTube - 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j_c1tPMiG0&feature=related]YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center "Plane Missiles" Explained[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8&feature=related]YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: WTC 7's Collapse Explained[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hBDXB6cifo&feature=channel]YouTube - 9/11 Debunked: WTC Accounts of Bombs & Explosions Explained[/ame]


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

Tom Clancy said:


> Hmm..
> 
> I think this thread should end here.. Even with all the proof we put out you guys are still stubborn and idiotic enough to believe the Truth bullshit.
> 
> ...



STFU..moron..the information in these videos is in direct contradiction with the NIST report...lol..you dint even know the official lie you support..lol..
typical of your ilk


----------



## Tom Clancy (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm..
> ...



This Proves exactly how the Towers Fell.. Which goes against Everything you truthers say. 

Eots, let's not dumb ourselves down by calling each other names, alright?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> wtc 7 was hit buy no plane and fuel fires  and structural damage are not considered as a  factors in the collapse other than initiating the fire...



So you're telling me it's 100% impossible for a steel structure to EVER collapse due to fire alone?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> wtc 7 was hit buy no plane and fuel fires  and structural damage are not considered as a  factors in the collapse other than initiating the fire...



Tell you what eots. 

Tell me one part of the NIST report explaining why WTC7 collapsed that you think NIST got wrong and why it's wrong. Think you can do that?

Let's debate it.


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

no other steel frame building ever has ..with fires far more intense than wtc 7

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


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 10, 2010)

Truthers are nutters who cannot grasp the tbasics of reason so they resort to name-calling and insults to prove a non-existent point that only they believe.

Everyone else is just too stupid to understand, except for the nutters, er I mean twoofer, er truthers.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > so you can not answer what role if any NIST claims that fuel fires or falling debris played in the collapse of wtc 7 or the computer simulation...is that correct ?...or do you conceed that the only role damage to wtc 7 from falling debris is credited for is the intiation of the fire..
> ...


and the putz projects his own faults again


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > wtc 7 was hit buy no plane and fuel fires  and structural damage are not considered as a  factors in the collapse other than initiating the fire...
> ...



the temperatures used in the computer simulation are not corroborated with any forensic evidence and are in excess of normal building fires ..the computer model was never corroborated or validated..no replica test on actual floor models were done...eyewittness testimony that did not fit the scenario was excluded from investigation no other hypothetical scenarios were investigated..there was no official peer review


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> no other steel frame building ever has ..with fires far more intense than wtc 7
> 
> YouTube - Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!



Ok. Answer the two questions below. BTW, the Madrid building was not steel only so your comparison for that one is void. It had a reinforced concrete core.
Case Studies: Historical Fires: Windsor Tower Fire

1. Are you saying that it is 100% impossible for a steel structure building to EVER collapse from an uncontrolled fire?

2. Can you show me any part of the NIST report on the collapse of WTC7 that they got wrong and why?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


troofer morons have a problem with the english language, they dont understand similes


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Ok, so discussing the temperatures used in the computer simulation, can you point me to the document and section of NIST's report that you read about this so we are on the same page?


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > no other steel frame building ever has ..with fires far more intense than wtc 7
> ...



there are many other examples other than madrid in that video


(NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. *This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building,* the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.

Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, *caused an extraordinary event,*


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You still didn't answer my question. 

Is it your opinion that it is 100% impossible for a structure, composed of steel beams and columns, to EVER collapse due to an uncontrolled fire?

Yes or no?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 10, 2010)

eots, 

You mentioned the temperatures used in the computer simulation of the NIST report for WTC7 were too high for a normal office fire and never forensically proven.

Can you please point me to the section of the NIST report that mentions those temperatures, how they obtained those temperature numbers?

I want to look at the same evidence you are while we are debating.

Thanks.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 10, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > creativedreams said:
> ...



How did they make sure the palnes hit the twin towers below where the explosives were planted?


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

Due to the effectiveness of the spray-applied fire-resistive material (SFRM) or fireproofing, the highest steel column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 degrees C (570 degrees F), and only on the east side of the building did the steel floor beams exceed 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F). However, fire-induced buckling of floor beams and damage to connections&#8212;that caused buckling of a critical column initiating collapse&#8212;occurred at temperatures below approximately 400 degrees C where thermal expansion dominates. Above 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F), there is significant loss of steel strength and stiffness. In the WTC 7 collapse, the loss of steel strength or stiffness was not as important as the thermal expansion of steel structures caused by heat. 
NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08

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 of the little steel debris 
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm


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


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 10, 2010)

creativedreams said:


> How the fuck did a section of the very bottom of the supports that supported *ALL *the weight and had *ALL * the fucking debris fall on them still stand and sections of the core with far less weight and debris on them collapse near the top? Because the very bottom didn't have fucking explosives blowing the columns out of the way.....



How did the bottom portion of the core eventually collapse WITHOUT explosives then? 

You also said that the top floor crushed the 47 columns all the way to the ground right? The picture of the partial core contradicts your claim.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> Due to the effectiveness of the spray-applied fire-resistive material (SFRM) or fireproofing, the highest steel column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 degrees C (570 degrees F), and only on the east side of the building did the steel floor beams exceed 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F). However, fire-induced buckling of floor beams and damage to connectionsthat caused buckling of a critical column initiating collapseoccurred at temperatures below approximately 400 degrees C where thermal expansion dominates. Above 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F), there is significant loss of steel strength and stiffness. In the WTC 7 collapse, the loss of steel strength or stiffness was not as important as the thermal expansion of steel structures caused by heat.
> NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08



I thought you said the temperatures they came up with cannot be reached in a normal office fire? Are you saying that office fires can never reach 300C, 400C, or 600C?

Maybe you need to read a bit.
Case Studies: Others: Desk Study High Rise Building

Security & Fire Protection Systems: fire ratings of home safes, hazard test, underwriters laboratories



eots said:


> 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 of the little steel debris
> OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
> 
> 
> YouTube - 9/11: NIST engineer John Gross denies WTC molten steel (extended)



How did they come up with those temperature ranges?


----------



## Fizz (Feb 10, 2010)

"The NIST survey of 22 fire-induced building collapses from 1970-2002 identified a variety of conditions, materials, locations, and buildings. Fifteen cases were from the U.S., two from Canada, and five from Europe, Russia, and South America. The numbers of fire collapse events can be categorized by building material as follows:

Concrete: 7 (1 in Pentagon 9-11 event)
Structural steel: 6 (4 in 9-11 WTC events)
Brick/Masonry: 5
Wood: 2
Unknown: 2"

Fire Protection Engineering Archives - Historical Survey of Multistory Building Collapses Due to Fire


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2010)

Fizz said:


> "The NIST survey of 22 fire-induced building collapses from 1970-2002 identified a variety of conditions, materials, locations, and buildings. Fifteen cases were from the U.S., two from Canada, and five from Europe, Russia, and South America. The numbers of fire collapse events can be categorized by building material as follows:
> 
> Concrete: 7 (1 in Pentagon 9-11 event)
> Structural steel: 6 (4 in 9-11 WTC events)
> ...


oops, there goes the "no other building has collapsed from fire" lie


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > "The NIST survey of 22 fire-induced building collapses from 1970-2002 identified a variety of conditions, materials, locations, and buildings. Fifteen cases were from the U.S., two from Canada, and five from Europe, Russia, and South America. The numbers of fire collapse events can be categorized by building material as follows:
> ...




NIST announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC 

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


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


doesnt make it any less of a LIE, dipshit


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

Fizz said:


> "The NIST survey of 22 fire-induced building collapses from 1970-2002 identified a variety of conditions, materials, locations, and buildings. Fifteen cases were from the U.S., two from Canada, and five from Europe, Russia, and South America. The numbers of fire collapse events can be categorized by building material as follows:
> 
> Concrete: 7 (1 in Pentagon 9-11 event)
> Structural steel: 6 (4 in 9-11 WTC events)
> ...



the only other two steel structure buildings outside of 9/11 experienced relatively small partial collpses...the structures remained standing despite total iinfernos  compared to wtc 7...the Madrid building did not collapse a small portion still under construction did


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

and why is the pentagon listed the collapse was not fire induced it was due to massive structural damage to the wall..and  it was not steel and the building did not collapse did it..total bullshit ..but you knew that already


----------



## Wicked Jester (Feb 10, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnQlBrCPjWU]YouTube - Flight 77 Evidence crashing into Pentagon[/ame]
Looks like airline parts to be sure!


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > "The NIST survey of 22 fire-induced building collapses from 1970-2002 identified a variety of conditions, materials, locations, and buildings. Fifteen cases were from the U.S., two from Canada, and five from Europe, Russia, and South America. The numbers of fire collapse events can be categorized by building material as follows:
> ...


and those buildings didnt have a fucking 110 story building collapse on top of it


you troofers are such fucking moronic asswipes


----------



## candycorn (Feb 10, 2010)

Wicked Jester said:


> YouTube - Flight 77 Evidence crashing into Pentagon
> Looks like airline parts to be sure!



Probably because it is....imagine that.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Feb 10, 2010)

This should take care of the #7 bullshit:
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2010)

Wicked Jester said:


> This should take care of the #7 bullshit:
> Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7


it SHOULD, but it wont


----------



## Fizz (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> and why is the pentagon listed the collapse was not fire induced it was due to massive structural damage to the wall..and  it was not steel and the building did not collapse did it..total bullshit ..but you knew that already



it doesnt say its steel and isnt counted as steel you fucking moron. 

its listed as concrete. the article isnt only on steel buildings.


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



why do you try to deceive like that...wtc 7 did not have a 110 story building fall on it you phrase it that way in a flailing attempt to connect the damage from falling debris to the collapse of wtc 7 when NIST sates that regardless of structural damage the building still would have collapsed from the fires alone...wtf is wrong with you ??


The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse

 Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.


wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf


----------



## Fizz (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> why do you try to deceive like that...wtc 7 did not have a 110 story building fall on it you phrase it that way in a flailing attempt to connect the damage from falling debris to the collapse of wtc 7 when NIST sates that regardless of structural damage the building still would have collapsed from the fires alone...wtf is wrong with you ??
> 
> 
> The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse
> ...



the fire in philadelphia was being fought the entire time it was burning. WTC7 had absolutely no firefighting going on for hours.

not a valid comparison.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


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


you are the deceptive one


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

I know you are but what am I ..lol...what a loser you cant even address that fact your 110 story building line is pointless and according to NIST the collapse would of occurred from the fires alone..its the fact


----------



## Fizz (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> I know you are but what am I ..lol...what a loser you cant even address that fact your 110 story building line is pointless and according to NIST the collapse would of occurred from the fires alone..its the fact



if you have a more logical scenario backed up by physical evidence then please share it with us all.


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > why do you try to deceive like that...wtc 7 did not have a 110 story building fall on it you phrase it that way in a flailing attempt to connect the damage from falling debris to the collapse of wtc 7 when nist sates that regardless of structural damage the building still would have collapsed from the fires alone...wtf is wrong with you ??
> ...


*stfu*


----------



## Fizz (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> *stfu*



no.


----------



## Liability (Feb 10, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *stfu*
> ...



LOL!

When id-eots gets REALLY shot down, he cries.

Little known Troofer fun fact!



"Wahhhh!  Waahhhhhh!!  STFU!"


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

at least I don't send PMS of homo erotic fantasies to other people fruity pants


----------



## Liability (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> at least I don't send PMS of homo erotic fantasies to other people fruity pants



Sure you do.

And then you cry all the more!


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> I know you are but what am I ..lol...what a loser you cant even address that fact your 110 story building line is pointless and according to NIST the collapse would of occurred from the fires alone..its the fact


which is another LIE by you


----------



## Liability (Feb 10, 2010)

FUN FACTS ABOUT TROOFERS:

Did you know that one variation of the conspiracy theory offered by the Troofers was that the jet fuel is NOT what did all the burning in the Twin Towers?  Nope.  I keed you not.  Some of the Troofer scum actually maintain that the "conspirators" (there have to be a lot of those fuckers) sent huge pods filled with NAPALM crashing into the Twin Towers and THAT'S what did all the burning!

I have also discovered that SOME Troofers think that W's daddy (Booooosh the elder) was actually the son of a famous German Nazi.   Evidently, Prescott Bush was ALSO one of the Nazis according to some of these Troofer goons.


----------



## Liability (Feb 10, 2010)

*ANOTHER FUN FACT ABOUT TROOFERS*:

Again, I keed you not:  SOME of the Troofers also seem to believe that George H.W. Bush was IN Dallas Texas on November 22, 1963 standing just outside the infamous book depository!

*BONUS SET OF TROOFER FUN FACTS*:

Some of the Troofers also seem to believe that George H.W. Bush was the inspiration for the *Curious George* monkey!   And, get this, there's a Nazi connection to THAT ONE, too!


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

_some people _...that believe the official story are rapist and murders...fun fact


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> _some people _...that believe the official story are rapist and murders...fun fact


as are some troofers


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > I know you are but what am I ..lol...what a loser you cant even address that fact your 110 story building line is pointless and according to NIST the collapse would of occurred from the fires alone..its the fact
> ...



I just posted the NIST quote stating the collapse would of occurred regardless of the structural damage...you are out of your head..in completely denial...you say its incorrect ..prove it ...back up your statement


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


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


you lie again


----------



## Liability (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> _some people _...that believe the official story are rapist and murders...fun fact



Are you one of the Troofers who believes that George H.W. Bush was the son of a Nazi?

Are you one of the scumbag Troofers who actually believes that our own government committed mass murder to falsely blame some Islamo-nazis as a pretext to take us to war?

Are you the kind of pussy who would deliberately violate one of the rules of this Board?

That tells us all something about YOUR dedication to "truth."  You agree to abide by some pretty basic, simple, easily-kept promises and then you deliberately and willfully violate one of those terms as soon as it's expedient for you.

It would be easier if you'd just tell the truth:  you have doubts but you have NO legitimate ground to make such reckless and vile accusations about anybody in the American government.   Yet, you make those irresponsible accusations all the time, anyway, because you are unconcerned with anything akin to the TRUTH.

You filthy lying scumbag Troofers are a miserable excuse for human beings.


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

cant do it ...you should be ashamed putting two word response like..you lie...are you Brain damaged or what..why waste your time if you cant address an issue beyond that ...it is pathtic...


----------



## Liability (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> cant do it ...you should be ashamed putting two word response like..you lie...are you Brain damaged or what..why waste your time if you cant address an issue beyond that ...it is *pathtic*...



Two words are often all it takes to expose deliberate Troofer dishonesty.

And two words are often far more than any of the shit you post deserves in response.

If you want to know what's *pathtic*, id-eots, just look in  the mirror.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> cant do it ...you should be ashamed putting two word response like..you lie...are you Brain damaged or what..why waste your time if you cant address an issue beyond that ...it is pathtic...



as opposed to this brilliant response by you?



eots said:


> *stfu*


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > _some people _...that believe the official story are rapist and murders...fun fact
> ...



Why are so so schizophrenic in your responses..go start a thread on Prescott bush and his connect ins is thats what you wish to discuss


----------



## Liability (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Hm.  I wonder if it makes sense to take any advice from a lying scumbag Troofer with such a tenuous grasp on English, grammar, spelling, logic, reason and judgment?  



By the way, among the questions you just ducked, this one interests me at the moment, most of all:  *Are you the kind of pussy who would deliberately violate one of the rules of this Board?*

I believe you ducked THAT one for a very obvious reason.


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > cant do it ...you should be ashamed putting two word response like..you lie...are you Brain damaged or what..why waste your time if you cant address an issue beyond that ...it is pathtic...
> ...



you deleted this part of my post...





> Quote Fizz ..The fire in philadelphia was being fought the entire time it was burning. Wtc7 had absolutely no firefighting going on for hours.
> 
> Not a valid comparison.




the fires in wtc 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including philadelphia's one meridian plaza,
wtc.nist.gov/media/nist_ncstar_1a_for_public_comment.pdf 

stfu


----------



## Liability (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


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



You just flat out LIED again.

That seems to be ALL you fucking Troofers can do:  lie.

In reality, your ENTIRE reply was:  "stfu"

You said not one other word.  Not a letter.  Not a period.  Nothing else at all, you outright deliberate lying fucktard scumbag "Troofer."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1997316-post361.html

Here, to preserve it against any editing efforts by you (since you are a lowlife deliberate outright filthy liar), is the entire post ending with your sole four letter response:



eots said:


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


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



oh my spelling and gramme are reasonable enough I am not a typist and did not look up from the keyboard just like you did ..lol...and as far as posting your filthy homo erotic PMs..I did  not know I was obliged to keep your dirty little secrete and your desire was to share your fantasies in private..Mr creepy


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

Liability said:


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



it was the quote function fool..the post that says fizz is mine..


----------



## Liability (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Ah sure.  The "quote" function.  

Learn to use it.  It's actually quite simple.

No wonder the difficult stuff is so far beyond your grasp.

But you happen to be full of shit, anyway, id-eots.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> cant do it ...you should be ashamed putting two word response like..you lie...are you Brain damaged or what..why waste your time if you cant address an issue beyond that ...it is pathtic...


it would be a waste of time to give you any more than i do
however, this does not take much time


----------



## Fizz (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> it was the quote function fool..the post that says fizz is mine..



why dont you worry about something much more personal, such as the quote function, and get that right before moving on to something slightly more complex such as structural engineering.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


and you LIE again


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2010)

Fizz said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > why do you try to deceive like that...wtc 7 did not have a 110 story building fall on it you phrase it that way in a flailing attempt to connect the damage from falling debris to the collapse of wtc 7 when NIST sates that regardless of structural damage the building still would have collapsed from the fires alone...wtf is wrong with you ??
> ...


ah, nevermind, Id-Eots, i see you DID fuck up the quote


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2010)

why doesn't liarability learn how to spell those or e-mail...before spewing forth anymore of his homosexual fantasies


----------



## Liability (Feb 10, 2010)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Publicly posting a PM is a violation of the Board Rules, id-eots.  You SHOULD know as much since you had to AGREE to the terms of service when you signed up.

But, at least you admit that you DID violate the rules, you dishonest fucktard.

And what I wrote (despite your fervent desire) wasn't 'homo-erotic.'  I was merely commenting on your behavior, after all.

Now, stop deflecting.  

You have made it abundantly clear that you are dishonest.  It is really a shame that you use the word "Truth" in such a disrespectful fashion.


----------



## Liability (Feb 10, 2010)

DiveCon said:


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



Yes.  The quote function works fine.  HE is the one that fucked IT up.

But a cowardly dishonest slug like him will always blame the computer.


----------



## Liability (Feb 11, 2010)

eots said:


> why doesn't liarability learn how to spell those or e-mail...before spewing forth anymore of his homosexual fantasies




id-eots:

Liability spells just fine.  You evidently are quite incapable of such things. 

The "those" you make reference to in your own chaotic and incomprehensible fashion remain unclear. 

And, again, your deliberate lies are beside the point.  My PM comment to you wasn't homo-eroticism.  I realize you wish it had been.  But it was just a disparaging comment about YOUR inclinations.  

Now then, back on topic.  

*
Do you have ANY evidence whatsoever that anybody in our government was involved with anybody else to commit mass murder?  

Which government officials committed these treasonous acts?  

I take it you have NO evidence for any such charges? 

 How many people (according to your theory) would HAVE to be involved (minimally) in this conspiracy you allege?  

How have they managed to somehow NEVER break ranks?  Conspiracies are difficult because absolute silence and tight discipline are required.  But you are talking about government officials who live by the "leak."  Yet we see NONE of that.  Why not?
*


----------



## eots (Feb 11, 2010)

> pretty basic, *simpl,e easil- *kept promises and then you deliberately and willfully violate one of those terms as soon as it's expedient for you.
> 
> It would be easier if you'd just tell the truth: you have doubts but you have NO



give it up loser you have no facts...you got typos and homosexual fantasies..take a walk creep..you are as pathetic as divemoroncon


----------



## Liability (Feb 11, 2010)

eots said:


> > pretty basic, *simpl,e easil- *kept promises and then you deliberately and willfully violate one of those terms as soon as it's expedient for you.
> >
> > It would be easier if you'd just tell the truth: you have doubts but you have NO
> 
> ...



Oh nosies.  I made some careless errors and missed them in a failed effort to edit?

LOL!  

And despite your propensity to lie, I have no homosexual fantasies.  Indeed, as has already been pointed out to you (and if you had any honesty in you -- which you don't -- you'd have to admit it), noting your preferences does not a fantasy on my part make.

*You have no valid basis in fact to make the wild-ass accusations you are all too willing to make despite that lack of factual support.*  You are perfectly content to accuse government officials of having committed acts of treason and mass murder -- and a dipshit liar like you happily relies on bullshit like youtube or some nut-bar 9/11 Troofer websites.

You utterly lack honor, integrity, decency, civility, regard for the truth and any shred of support for you irresponsible claims.

You Troofers are scumbags.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 11, 2010)

eots said:


> Due to the effectiveness of the spray-applied fire-resistive material (SFRM) or fireproofing, the highest steel column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 degrees C (570 degrees F), and only on the east side of the building did the steel floor beams exceed 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F). However, fire-induced buckling of floor beams and damage to connectionsthat caused buckling of a critical column initiating collapseoccurred at temperatures below approximately 400 degrees C where thermal expansion dominates. Above 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F), there is significant loss of steel strength and stiffness. In the WTC 7 collapse, the loss of steel strength or stiffness was not as important as the thermal expansion of steel structures caused by heat.
> NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08/21/08



I thought you said the temperatures they came up with cannot be reached in a normal office fire? Are you saying that office fires can never reach 300C, 400C, or 600C?

Maybe you need to read a bit.
Case Studies: Others: Desk Study High Rise Building

Security & Fire Protection Systems: fire ratings of home safes, hazard test, underwriters laboratories



eots said:


> 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 of the little steel debris
> OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
> 
> 
> YouTube - 9/11: NIST engineer John Gross denies WTC molten steel (extended)



How did they come up with those temperature ranges?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 11, 2010)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Ok. Answer the two questions below. BTW, the Madrid building was not steel only so your comparison for that one is void. It had a reinforced concrete core.
> ...



You still didn't answer my question. 

Is it your opinion that it is 100% impossible for a structure, composed of steel beams and columns, to EVER collapse due to an uncontrolled fire?

Yes or no?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 11, 2010)

eots said:


> Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.
> 
> 
> wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf



Are you saying that their conclusion that fire would have caused a collapse without structural damage is wrong?

Based on what?

Please show me where they made a mistake that you have found that leads you to say, without a shadow of a doubt, WTC7 should NOT have collapsed from fire. Take a look through their analysis and show me where the major mistake is in their calculations.


----------



## Tom Clancy (Feb 11, 2010)

Eots got banned?


----------



## Fizz (Feb 11, 2010)

Tom Clancy said:


> Eots got banned?



holy crap?!! how much of a fucking moron do you have to be to get banned here? 

(it must be a super secret government plot or he knew too much)


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 11, 2010)

Fizz said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> > Eots got banned?
> ...


yeah, gunny must be that super secret hyper agent


----------



## elvis (Feb 11, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Clancy said:
> ...



is that when he posted that liability stuff?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 11, 2010)

elvis said:


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


no idea


i'm just making jokes


----------



## elvis (Feb 11, 2010)

It looks to me like Liability may have pushed eots over the edge.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 11, 2010)

elvis said:


> It looks to me like Liability may have pushed eots over the edge.


well, was it a hard push?


----------



## elvis (Feb 11, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > It looks to me like Liability may have pushed eots over the edge.
> ...



maybe he'll defy the laws of physics the way he claims the Twins did.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 12, 2010)

elvis said:


> It looks to me like Liability may have pushed eots over the edge.



If he got banned it's because cowards like lieability whined to staff.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > It looks to me like Liability may have pushed eots over the edge.
> ...



no assmunch. you dont get banned for people complaining about you. you get banned for doing something wrong.

typical fucking twoofer logic


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 12, 2010)

Fizz said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...




You truly are stupid.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...


and typical for the troofer moron, PROJECTION


----------



## Toro (Feb 12, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Fizz said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Wow, good comeback.

He got banned for posting a PM.  He got banned for doing something wrong.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 12, 2010)

Toro said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...



It was a good comeback because what kind of fucking idiot thought I was saying he got banned *only* because someone whined?  It wasn't hard to figure out he got banned because Lieability snitched him out.  I


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 18, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Fizz said:
> ...




Does screaming "projection" really help fool yourself half as much as you hope it fools others?


----------



## Fizz (Feb 18, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Does screaming "projection" really help fool yourself half as much as you hope it fools others?



crybaby.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 18, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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


does what you post do it for you? moron?


----------



## eots (Feb 18, 2010)

what kind of twisted person would send PMs full of graphic homosexual fantasies of what other board members might do to one another...the twisted freak needed to have his shit put out there for all to see...why would it bother him ..unless of course he is embarrassed or ashamed with what he wrote


----------



## eots (Feb 18, 2010)

CurveLight said:


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



I said it to him once and he has been like a child with a new toy every since


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 18, 2010)

eots said:


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


LIAR

i've used that long before i ever knew a dipshit like you


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 18, 2010)

eots said:


> what kind of twisted person would send PMs full of graphic homosexual fantasies of what other board members might do to one another...the twisted freak needed to have his shit put out there for all to see...why would it bother him ..unless of course he is embarrassed or ashamed with what he wrote


you are the sick twisted person in this exchange


----------



## eots (Feb 18, 2010)

no way LIAR
prove IT..LOL


----------



## eots (Feb 18, 2010)

divecon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > what kind of twisted person would send pms full of graphic homosexual fantasies of what other board members might do to one another...the twisted freak needed to have his shit put out there for all to see...why would it bother him ..unless of course he is embarrassed or ashamed with what he wrote
> ...



there is divemorncon projecting again...no way  you are...lol


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 18, 2010)

eots said:


> no way LIAR
> prove IT..LOL


typical dipshit troofer response


----------



## eots (Feb 18, 2010)

Tyipical divemoroncon LAIR
who cant PROVE it
response


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 18, 2010)

eots said:


> Tyipical divemoroncon LAIR
> who cant PROVE it
> response


hey dipshit, you have already proved it


----------



## mudwhistle (Feb 18, 2010)

manu1959 said:


> people want to believe it was an inside job...because if it wasn't it means we are an inept bunch of twits and that we are not safe and our government can't protect us.....
> 
> the police won't stop your murder but they will notify next of kin and call the morgue.....



All of the above is true....and we aren't safe. 9/11 and Katrina proved that.

However Bush tried to prevent another...but now Obama wants to wait till it happens again.

He said so during the primary debates.


----------



## CurveLight (Feb 19, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> > people want to believe it was an inside job...because if it wasn't it means we are an inept bunch of twits and that we are not safe and our government can't protect us.....
> ...




Partisan puss balls like you do nothing but bring harm.


----------

