# Why don't people want to know the truth about 9/11?



## miller (Feb 25, 2011)

Why do people want to fool themselves about anything?

There is no advantage for being ignorant about anything.  The ope and Cardinals didn't want to know about the priests molesting kids.  Now the Pope tries to deny and is forced to apologize for protecting molesters.

None of these people will tell the truth about their reasons because those reasons are stupid.  There are 17,000 people on this forum.  Watch how they refuse to reply to the question.


----------



## whitehall (Feb 25, 2011)

We saw the planes hit the buildings. The same nut case jihadists tried to blow up the buildings in '93 and may have done the job with explosives if they parked the truck closer to the main beams. We know who did it. We heard the voices of the terrified passingers say they were hijacked. What more do you want? A conspiracy that had to involve two or three administrations and explosive experts depending on crazy jihadists to hit the buildings at the right time? If you believe that the Clinton administration cooperated with the Bush administration to blow up the World Trade Center you need your tin foil hat adjusted.


----------



## Madeline (Feb 25, 2011)

I am a pain in the ass, miller.  I already know, but pretend I dun just to aggravate you.


----------



## Obamerican (Feb 25, 2011)

miller said:


> Why do people want to fool themselves about anything?
> 
> There is no advantage for being ignorant about anything.  The ope and Cardinals didn't want to know about the priests molesting kids.  Now the Pope tries to deny and is forced to apologize for protecting molesters.
> 
> None of these people will tell the truth about their reasons because those reasons are stupid.  There are 17,000 people on this forum.  Watch how they refuse to reply to the question.


I'll reply to you.

You'll never catch us. We planned this for DECADES!! Little piss ants such as you are powerless to stop us!!!!!!!!!


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 25, 2011)

we already know the truth


----------



## miller (Feb 26, 2011)

I'm making this real simple because it is real simple.  I'll number each point and see if you number each answer.

1)   Look at the picture.  Its an hour after both planes hit both towers.  The north tower is burning and smoking compared to the south tower exploding.  If you can't see the contrast, you are a liar.

2)   Look at the picture.  There are thousands of steel beams lying on roof tops.  To send steel beams in all directions that weigh tons there must be an explosive force to blast them in all directions.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 26, 2011)

miller said:


> I'm making this real simple because it is real simple.  I'll number each point and see if you number each answer.
> 
> 1)   Look at the picture.  Its an hour after both planes hit both towers.  The north tower is burning and smoking compared to the south tower exploding.  If you can't see the contrast, you are a liar.
> 
> 2)   Look at the picture.  There are thousands of steel beams lying on roof tops.  To send steel beams in all directions that weigh tons there must be an explosive force to blast them in all directions.


liar
that photo is way more than an hour after


----------



## Big Black Dog (Feb 26, 2011)

The truth seems pretty clear to me...  I watched it all on tv and watched it for several days.  What part about the planes flying into the two WTC building don't you understand?  Seemed pretty obvious to me.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 26, 2011)

Big Black Dog said:


> The truth seems pretty clear to me...  I watched it all on tv and watched it for several days.  What part about the planes flying into the two WTC building don't you understand?  Seemed pretty obvious to me.


This is my arguement, but you wouldn't believe the number of people who don't know about building 7.

The weirdest part was Donald Rumsfeld recently saying that he'd "never heard of it".

Uh, say what?


----------



## miller (Feb 26, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> miller said:
> 
> 
> > I'm making this real simple because it is real simple.  I'll number each point and see if you number each answer.
> ...



There's 2 pictures.  The 1 at the top shows the explosion abut an hour after the plane hit.  You're the liar and a stupid one at that.  I'm finished with every conservative asshole in America.  I won't respond to any conservative about anything.


----------



## miller (Feb 26, 2011)

Mad Scientist said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > The truth seems pretty clear to me...  I watched it all on tv and watched it for several days.  What part about the planes flying into the two WTC building don't you understand?  Seemed pretty obvious to me.
> ...



Fuck every conservative.  Elect me to Congress and I'll write a law that makes being a conservative a crime with a mandatory 2 year sentence.


----------



## miller (Feb 26, 2011)

Madeline said:


> I am a pain in the ass, miller.  I already know, but pretend I dun just to aggravate you.



Dip shits never aggravate me.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 26, 2011)

miller said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > miller said:
> ...


sorry, there is and was only ONE photo


----------



## miller (Feb 26, 2011)

At the top left corner there is 1 photo.  1+1=2

CAN YOU SEE THE PHOTO?  CAN YOU COUNT TO TWO?


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 26, 2011)

miller said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > Big Black Dog said:
> ...


This is why you're red. Rational conversations cannot be had with you.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 26, 2011)

Miller...
Nobody cares.

Why do you bother getting out of bed in the morning?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 26, 2011)

miller said:


> At the top left corner there is 1 photo.  1+1=2
> 
> CAN YOU SEE THE PHOTO?  CAN YOU COUNT TO TWO?


dipshit, you only posted ONE PHOTO


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 26, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> miller said:
> 
> 
> > At the top left corner there is 1 photo.  1+1=2
> ...



I think  he is referring to  his avy.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 26, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > miller said:
> ...


is he actually that stupid?
LOL i guess he is


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 26, 2011)

miller said:


> I'm making this real simple because it is real simple.  I'll number each point and see if you number each answer.
> 
> 1)   Look at the picture.  Its an hour after both planes hit both towers.  The north tower is burning and smoking compared to the south tower exploding.  If you can't see the contrast, you are a liar.
> 
> 2)   Look at the picture.  There are thousands of steel beams lying on roof tops.  To send steel beams in all directions that weigh tons there must be an explosive force to blast them in all directions.



After the collapse began the force  of the top  floors sheared through the support beams and lower floors  those floors  cushioning the falling  mass slowing it  throwing out steal beams.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 26, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Oh sure he is  he , thinks the beams after being sheared off should have  just floated down  to the ground in a distinctly non violent  manner rather then  being flung out into space after being struck  by 100,000 tons of mass with  increasing kinetic energy.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 26, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> miller said:
> 
> 
> > I'm making this real simple because it is real simple.  I'll number each point and see if you number each answer.
> ...



Apparently Miller has never encountered a see-saw. Weight (or mass to use the technical term but I didn't want to lose him in such academic language) is applied to one side of a beam and the other side rises if there is no greater weight on that end.  In the case of the twin towers the long beams were quite often put through this phenomenon.  But most of the trusses and such were caused by sheering off their supports. 

Does that dumbass not know the height of the twin towers?


----------



## miller (Feb 26, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



The beams got sheared off simultaneously by a jet fuel fire.  What force sheared the beams?  The force that brought the beams down is gravity.  To overcome gravity there must be a force.  Look at the explosion of the south tower. The explosion is the force.  Can you handle 2 pictures? 

You can call the picture an avatar.  That doesn't change the simple fact its a picture you fucking morons.  Keep the dumb shit coming.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 26, 2011)

miller said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You cornered the market on dumb shit a long time ago.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 26, 2011)

That isn't an explosion, Had it actually been an explosion there would be audio tracks of it. And since no one can produce the sound of an actual explosion, you are once again wrong.

Do play again.


----------



## miller (Feb 26, 2011)

Only the wackos keep making idiotic remarks.  It was pure quiet at the WTC when the explosion blasted thousands of steel beams in all directions.  There's only one suspect on the planet and it sure ain't Osama bin Laden.  Screwed Again: ONLY BUSH WAS CAPABLE


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 26, 2011)

miller said:


> Only the wackos keep making idiotic remarks.  It was pure quiet at the WTC when the explosion blasted thousands of steel beams in all directions.  There's only one suspect on the planet and it sure ain't Osama bin Laden.  Screwed Again: ONLY BUSH WAS CAPABLE


liar


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 26, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> miller said:
> 
> 
> > Only the wackos keep making idiotic remarks.  It was pure quiet at the WTC when the explosion blasted thousands of steel beams in all directions.  There's only one suspect on the planet and it sure ain't Osama bin Laden.  Screwed Again: ONLY BUSH WAS CAPABLE
> ...



More of an idiot if he actually believes even half of this shit.


----------



## whitehall (Feb 26, 2011)

The problem seems to be that libs want to believe that fire doesn't melt steel. Instead of accepting the laws of physics they prefer to imagine a conspiracy that involves both republicans and democrats and supported or ignored by the CIA and the FBI. A gasoline truck cought fire on a bridge in San Francisco in 2000. Even though the fire was on the bridge and not in it and much of the heat radiated into the air the metal bridge supports weakened and buckled. Nobody blew the bridge up and nobody blew the Towers up. It was fire.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 26, 2011)

whitehall said:


> The problem seems to be that libs want to believe that fire doesn't melt steel. Instead of accepting the laws of physics they prefer to imagine a conspiracy that involves both republicans and democrats and supported or ignored by the CIA and the FBI. A gasoline truck cought fire on a bridge in San Francisco in 2000. Even though the fire was on the bridge and not in it and much of the heat radiated into the air the metal bridge supports weakened and buckled. Nobody blew the bridge up and nobody blew the Towers up. It was fire.


correction: this is not a "lib/con" thing
its a it's a paranoid delusional nutter thing


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 26, 2011)

and the tanker fire was in 2007 and in MI not CA

Tanker fire shuts down I-75, collapses Nine Mile bridge | detnews.com | The Detroit News


----------



## Rozman (Feb 26, 2011)

It makes people feel important when they "know" something that no one else does.This way they act like they have a different explanation then what obviously happened.

It's like a pretty girl saying over and over they don't consider themselves attractive to get a response from people....It's all about the attention.

Let's call them silly little attention whores.


----------



## miller (Feb 26, 2011)

Rozman said:


> It makes people feel important when they "know" something that no one else does.This way they act like they have a different explanation then what obviously happened.
> 
> It's like a pretty girl saying over and over they don't consider themselves attractive to get a response from people....It's all about the attention.
> 
> Let's call them silly little attention whores.



99% of Americans are in the same trance as ROZMAN from Brooklyn.  They can't see the explosion at the top left because they are in the trance.  They completely ignore the explosion.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 26, 2011)

miller said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > It makes people feel important when they "know" something that no one else does.This way they act like they have a different explanation then what obviously happened.
> ...


only an idiot like you can look at that and see and "explosion"


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 26, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> miller said:
> 
> 
> > Rozman said:
> ...



Now be fair, It does resemble an explosion. However an explosion that size would have been heard and felt miles away. That's why we know it was a collapse without an explosion.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 26, 2011)

miller said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



No the beams were sheared of from the impact  of the upper part of the building as it fell into the lower floors   after the  impact  site  lost its integrity.


----------



## eots (Feb 26, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> miller said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



but yet simultaneously offered no resistance...


----------



## eots (Feb 26, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > miller said:
> ...



an explosion of what size exactly ?..using what type of explosives. ?..what about sound damping techniques


----------



## miller (Feb 27, 2011)

There's 18,736 members on here but 7 conservatives reply with their delusions.

If you can't see the explosion and the steel beams, its not your eyes, see a shrink.


----------



## miller (Feb 27, 2011)

miller said:


> I'm making this real simple because it is real simple.  I'll number each point and see if you number each answer.
> 
> 1)   Look at the picture.  Its an hour after both planes hit both towers.  The north tower is burning and smoking compared to the south tower exploding.  If you can't see the contrast, you are a liar.
> 
> 2)   Look at the picture.  There are thousands of steel beams lying on roof tops.  To send steel beams in all directions that weigh tons there must be an explosive force to blast them in all directions.



All the beams are straight.  How did they pop out straight?  Here comes more stupid shit.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 27, 2011)

eots said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > miller said:
> ...



There is no evidence of that.


----------



## KissMy (Feb 27, 2011)

Simple response to exhibit picture #2.


----------



## miller (Feb 27, 2011)

Look:  





Upper picture 1st 2 seconds, lower picture 8 seconds into collapse SYMMETRICAL


----------



## miller (Feb 27, 2011)

Assume the diagram (not picture) is true, the plane its 2 engines and 2 landing gear is moving at 300+ mph.  The towers are moving at 0 mph.

Thanks for proving my point.  The steel beams weren't moving until the explosions cut them and blasted thousands of beams out of the way to allow the free fall speed collapse.  You won't grasp these simple facts because you're in a trance.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 27, 2011)

The collapse happened some time after the airplanes exploded .


----------



## KissMy (Feb 27, 2011)

miller said:


> Assume the diagram (not picture) is true, the plane its 2 engines and 2 landing gear is moving at 300+ mph.  The towers are moving at 0 mph.
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.  The steel beams weren't moving until the explosions cut them and blasted thousands of beams out of the way to allow the free fall speed collapse.  You won't grasp these simple facts because you're in a trance.



The airplane parts were not moving at 300 mph after going through the building. But many parts of the building were thrown by the plane in the direction of its travel.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 27, 2011)

whitehall said:


> We saw the planes hit the buildings. The same nut case jihadists tried to blow up the buildings in '93 and may have done the job with explosives if they parked the truck closer to the main beams. We know who did it. We heard the voices of the terrified passingers say they were hijacked. What more do you want? A conspiracy that had to involve two or three administrations and explosive experts depending on crazy jihadists to hit the buildings at the right time? If you believe that the Clinton administration cooperated with the Bush administration to blow up the World Trade Center you need your tin foil hat adjusted.



Hey Bush dupe,you need to look in the mirror when calling someone a tin foil hat person.you just proved it in spades.if you had done any research,you would know that we have technology now where voices can be morphed as in faked.they obviously were.one voice allegedly called in and said -Hi mom,this is your son mark bingham.know average john doe is going to call up and say-Hi mom,this is your son john doe. have you ever? if you say yes,we both know you are lying.

you again prove what an idiot you are,cause if you knew anything about Bush andclinton,you would know they have a long standing friendship that dates back to at least 
the 80's. get with the program and get your head out of your ass.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 27, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > We saw the planes hit the buildings. The same nut case jihadists tried to blow up the buildings in '93 and may have done the job with explosives if they parked the truck closer to the main beams. We know who did it. We heard the voices of the terrified passingers say they were hijacked. What more do you want? A conspiracy that had to involve two or three administrations and explosive experts depending on crazy jihadists to hit the buildings at the right time? If you believe that the Clinton administration cooperated with the Bush administration to blow up the World Trade Center you need your tin foil hat adjusted.
> ...


except his mom said he ALWAYS does that
you calling her a liar?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 27, 2011)

Big Black Dog said:


> The truth seems pretty clear to me...  I watched it all on tv and watched it for several days.  What part about the planes flying into the two WTC building don't you understand?  Seemed pretty obvious to me.



yeah thats because you only know about what the corporate controlled media has brainwashed you with.read the book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING,AN ANSWER TO POULAR MECHANICS AND OTHER DEFENDERS OF THE OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY and THEN come back here.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 27, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > The truth seems pretty clear to me...  I watched it all on tv and watched it for several days.  What part about the planes flying into the two WTC building don't you understand?  Seemed pretty obvious to me.
> ...


why should anyone waste their time and/or money on anything you recommend
you are a proven moron


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 27, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > We saw the planes hit the buildings. The same nut case jihadists tried to blow up the buildings in '93 and may have done the job with explosives if they parked the truck closer to the main beams. We know who did it. We heard the voices of the terrified passingers say they were hijacked. What more do you want? A conspiracy that had to involve two or three administrations and explosive experts depending on crazy jihadists to hit the buildings at the right time? If you believe that the Clinton administration cooperated with the Bush administration to blow up the World Trade Center you need your tin foil hat adjusted.
> ...



Tell the entire story, Mark Binghams Mother says he always said that. Is that all you've got? Calling people names some more?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 27, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > The truth seems pretty clear to me...  I watched it all on tv and watched it for several days.  What part about the planes flying into the two WTC building don't you understand?  Seemed pretty obvious to me.
> ...



Sorry it's already been debunked.


----------



## eots (Feb 27, 2011)

kissmy said:


> miller said:
> 
> 
> > assume the diagram (not picture) is true, the plane its 2 engines and 2 landing gear is moving at 300+ mph.  The towers are moving at 0 mph.
> ...



how does that explain giant beams being hurled outward well below the impact point ?


----------



## eots (Feb 27, 2011)

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

*
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition*:


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


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


----------



## PhysicsExist (Feb 27, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Big Black Dog said:
> ...


www.MilitaryOfficersfor911truth.org

Defying your Oath.  Disgusting SFC ollie.


----------



## miller (Feb 28, 2011)

They are in a trance from the government propaganda.  They are delusional so don't try to explain the facts to them.  I'm just wondering how many of the 18,000 + members on here are not in the trance.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 28, 2011)

eots said:


> how does that explain giant beams being hurled outward well below the impact point ?



Show us some photos or video of this.


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2011)




----------



## Gamolon (Feb 28, 2011)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHnLlwqiu0A
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3lq7nr6098



That a parabolic trajectory. I can see the perimeter facades TOPPLING sideways, NOT being ejected horizontally.

Show the LARGE STEEL FRAMEWORK being ejected horizontally as you claim.


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2011)




----------



## KissMy (Feb 28, 2011)

Since all of you 9/11 truthers claim it is physically impossible for these buildings to pancake, bend steel & pulverize concrete. Can any of you tell me how much force was exerted once the upper section of the building fell one story / 10ft?

Then tell me how any part of the building could withstand that force.


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2011)

KissMy said:


> Since all of you 9/11 truthers claim it is physically impossible for these buildings to pancake, bend steel & pulverize concrete. Can any of you tell me how much force was exerted once the upper section of the building fell one story / 10ft?
> 
> Then tell me how any part of the building could withstand that force.



NIST rejected the pancake theory


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2011)




----------



## DiveCon (Feb 28, 2011)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Since all of you 9/11 truthers claim it is physically impossible for these buildings to pancake, bend steel & pulverize concrete. Can any of you tell me how much force was exerted once the upper section of the building fell one story / 10ft?
> ...


holy shit
that guy is an idiot
he used SOLID blocks
that changes the dynamic


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 28, 2011)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Since all of you 9/11 truthers claim it is physically impossible for these buildings to pancake, bend steel & pulverize concrete. Can any of you tell me how much force was exerted once the upper section of the building fell one story / 10ft?
> ...



Using the "science" in the video between 2:60 and 3:05 the upper floors should have gone up because of the "explosion".


----------



## Ringel05 (Feb 28, 2011)

miller said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > I am a pain in the ass, miller.  I already know, but pretend I dun just to aggravate you.
> ...



Why would they?  For you it's like looking in a mirror.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 28, 2011)

miller said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > It makes people feel important when they "know" something that no one else does.This way they act like they have a different explanation then what obviously happened.
> ...



amen to that.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 28, 2011)

miller said:


> Look:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-jzNfxKSio&feature=related
> 
> 
> 
> ...



great pic there,the OCTA's of course,will ignore the truth though thats its physically impossible for it to explode outwards like that from a mere collapse of a tower and that steel beams weighing thousands of tons dont fly several blocks away and wind up in other buildings several blocks away. the 9/11 apologists that ignore this point are either disinfo agents which a few of them have posted on this thread,or loyal Bush/Obama dupes in denial.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 28, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


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



i love how the trolls like to say that books been  debunked when they are so full of shit,they know the only thing thats been debunked is the 9/11 coverup commission. yeah thats whats so disgusting about this jerk army man is he is a disgrace to his fellow officers.thanks for posting that.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 28, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> miller said:
> 
> 
> > Look:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-jzNfxKSio&feature=related
> ...


you troofer morons dont know logic


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 28, 2011)

miller said:


> They are in a trance from the government propaganda.  They are delusional so don't try to explain the facts to them.  I'm just wondering how many of the 18,000 + members on here are not in the trance.



thay have also been brainwashed not only by the media and governemnt but also  from the disinfo agents that have penetrated this site and been brainwashed by thier posts such as Kiss My,Gamolon,candycorn,and Ollie.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 28, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


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



You wouldn't know an honest oath if it bit you on the ass. Who the fuck do you think you are that you can even pretend to understand the oath I took  5 times or more. What's disgusting is you morons who totally disregard facts when they don't fit your own little worlds.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 28, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> miller said:
> 
> 
> > They are in a trance from the government propaganda.  They are delusional so don't try to explain the facts to them.  I'm just wondering how many of the 18,000 + members on here are not in the trance.
> ...



How about me can I be part of the brainwashing cabal ?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 28, 2011)

miller said:


> Why do people want to fool themselves about anything?
> 
> There is no advantage for being ignorant about anything.  The ope and Cardinals didn't want to know about the priests molesting kids.  Now the Pope tries to deny and is forced to apologize for protecting molesters.
> 
> None of these people will tell the truth about their reasons because those reasons are stupid.  There are 17,000 people on this forum.  Watch how they refuse to reply to the question.



Its the same thing with many government conspiracys for many poster here Miller.No matter how absurd and ludicrous the government and medias explanation is for the events of 9/11,they will swallow their version of events hook,line,and sinker never questioning it because they have been so brainwashed by our corrupt school systems and the media.they dont want to look at the evidence or facts because its too scary a thought for them to comprehend that they were lied to their whole lives about their country.they are comfortable believing the lies because if they knew and accepted the truth,they know they would have to try and do something about it and thats a scary thought for them since they dont want to get involved.Its the same way with people in the kenendy assassination as well.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 28, 2011)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDHN1gBkx0M&feature=related



Holy Mary mother of God!

Are you that stupid? 

Are you actually comparing two vehicles, designed to withstand front and rear impacts with a structure that is designed to withstand vertical loads? A structure which is ALSO not designed to withstand the TOP DOWN impact of a 30 story block?

Or maybe you think that when a building is engineered, the engineers calculate the loads of the floors above all impacting the structure below and design the support structure for each.

Is that what you think?

So for the twin towers, the engineers looked at the first floor and said "Hmmmm....We need to calculate the force of all 109 floors above all of a sudden collapsing down on floor one and what structure we need to design for floor one to resist that."

Then they moved on to floor two and designed it to resist all 108 floors collapsing down on top of it.

Please tell me you aren't that much of an idiot.

So answer me this. Are structures designed to withstand top down impacts or for static loads?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 28, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


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



Naw your just a loyal Bush/Obama dupe thats been brainwashed by the likes of them besides the media and government.you dont get it that divecunt here is a resident troll here either who has such a pathetic life he posts here constantly day and night just look at how quick he replied here.he always does,proof is in the pudding on how pitiful his life is in the fact that he talks to me as though i rewad his posts when i have had him on ignore since day one i got here three years ago.your so stupid you dont see that he is a resident troll the way he lives here in this section day and night all hours.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 28, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...


you are a fucking idiot
that is clear
he didnt like bush or Obama
you just have no logic in you


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 28, 2011)

whitehall said:


> The problem seems to be that libs want to believe that fire doesn't melt steel. Instead of accepting the laws of physics they prefer to imagine a conspiracy that involves both republicans and democrats and supported or ignored by the CIA and the FBI. A gasoline truck cought fire on a bridge in San Francisco in 2000. Even though the fire was on the bridge and not in it and much of the heat radiated into the air the metal bridge supports weakened and buckled. Nobody blew the bridge up and nobody blew the Towers up. It was fire.



actually the problem is that you OCTA'S have is you  want to cover your ears and eyes when evidence is pointed out to you that explosives were used and thats comparing apples and oranges with each in the fact that many of the witnesses that heard explosions and said that explosives were used were  firemen  experienced in explosives who called the investigation a half baked farce.here are the credible people listed who say it was an inside job.
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

oh and contray to what gomer pyle ollie  or resident troll divecunt tell you,they are not wrong and they ARE real people.

go ahead,be an idiot,have that hysterical logic that these credible people are all wrong and the corporate controlled owned media and proven corrupt government institutions from the last several decades are right and that the laws of physics that scientists have gone by for thousands of years no longer applies anymore.Go on,be a stupid idiot and keep that logic.you morons crack me up with that logic you have.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 28, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> miller said:
> 
> 
> > Look:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-jzNfxKSio&feature=related
> ...



Stop for just a moment and think about the power that "explosion" must have had to hurl tons of steel that far. Now think for a moment and tell us all why there is no recording of the sound of not just that one huge explosion but the hundreds that there would of had to been if it were a controlled demo. And then continue to explain how the explosives were planted so that the planes wouldn't screw up the firing sequence. And then we'll ask you a few dozen other questions that you don't have answers for.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 28, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > The problem seems to be that libs want to believe that fire doesn't melt steel. Instead of accepting the laws of physics they prefer to imagine a conspiracy that involves both republicans and democrats and supported or ignored by the CIA and the FBI. A gasoline truck cought fire on a bridge in San Francisco in 2000. Even though the fire was on the bridge and not in it and much of the heat radiated into the air the metal bridge supports weakened and buckled. Nobody blew the bridge up and nobody blew the Towers up. It was fire.
> ...


wow, look in the mirror you fucking moron
you ignore all facts


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 28, 2011)

as usual Gomer, I see your hear to kiss the ass of the resident troll.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 28, 2011)

You wont go where the evidence leads , You all seem to distracted  by what other 'truthers' have said and in a fever to post idiotic videos that fall far short of rational and factual.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 28, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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



Im sure the explosion shows up in seismographic evidence .


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 28, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


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



They did.,if you had ever done any research instead of listening to these trolls here and the corporate controlled media and corrupt government agencys,you would know they did. I will tell YOU the same thing I told that other loyal Bush/Obama dupe earlier,read the book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING,an answer to popular mechanics  and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory-thats an appropriate title of the book  since thats all the government version of events is,is a THEORY.THEN come back here.till then you got nothing.

oh and dont bother reading it if you only see what you want to see like so all the other OCTA'S here do. and contrary to what Gomer Pyle Ollie tell you,he knows he is full of shit that that its been debunked.Only the official conspiracy theory of the governments has been debunked.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 28, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> as usual Gomer, I see your hear to kiss the ass of the resident troll.


he's not kissing YOUR ass, moron
LOL


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 28, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


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



Um, er, well, you see, it  um, doesn't. But not to worry, they faked those reports too... Ask any of these guys they'll tell you.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 28, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


yeah, as if you have ever done research
you spout nothing but troofer nonsense


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 28, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I read the debunking the debunking of the debunking of 911 truth  movement .
Is that right?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 28, 2011)




----------



## DiveCon (Feb 28, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6ZtXt6W90


holy shit
richard gage is a moron
he said the towers were constructed in the 80's


----------



## PhysicsExist (Feb 28, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6ZtXt6W90
> ...



*www.AE911truth.org*

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

1. Rapid onset of collapse

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor &#8211; a second before the building's destruction

3. Symmetrical "structural failure" &#8211; through the path of greatest resistance &#8211; at free-fall acceleration

4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

6. Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional

7. Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY

www.Buildingwhat.org

*1,451 verified architectural and engineering professionals* and 11,360 other supporters have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation. 


_&#8220;First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.&#8221; - Attributed to Mahatma Gandhi 
_


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 28, 2011)

so, the towers were built in the 80's?


really?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 28, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> _First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. - Attributed to Mahatma Gandhi
> _



No always, sometimes you just  get your ass kicked and are forgotten or slink away and hind in your mother basement claiming to be an expert .


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 28, 2011)

> 1,451 verified architectural and engineering professionals



Or maybe 0.01% of the architectural and engineering professionals in the United States.


----------



## KissMy (Feb 28, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Exactly - Solid blocks don't lend themselves to compaction even though they have been broken.  Their debris of solid objects create resistance unlike a hollow structure that just forces the air from between the floors.

Anyhow the video does not mention the force generated. Doing a calculation on a 10-lb sledge hammer dropping 1 story or 10-ft creates a force of 10,000-lbs. That is 1,000 times the force the it took just to hold the hammer static in the air. The same goes for the building.  The tower was built to hold less than 20 times its static downward force load at a given height. Now dropping a portion of the building 10-ft increased the downward force by 1,000 times. On top of that for every crushed floor the moving mass gained weight & mass. This kept on increasing the force as the building fell.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 28, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



you already took the OCTA'S to school with these posts here that I quoted you on from this thread.http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...ives-found-in-world-trade-center-dust-11.html


 the trolls also cant get around the FACT that there were many firemen witnesses  that survived experienced in explosives who called the invesitgation a half baked farce.also nobody has ever been able to debunk this video.

they could only sling shit in defeat on that thread and their slinging shit in defeat on this thread as well like the monkeys they are.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 28, 2011)

rimjob does his cheerleader thing again


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 28, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> rimjob does his cheerleader thing again



Yeah, he likes to cheer on the losers.


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> > 1,451 verified architectural and engineering professionals
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe 0.01% of the architectural and engineering professionals in the United States.



only a complete imbecile would think that anyone not on the  on a petition supports the official story


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2011)

KissMy said:


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



what about the core ? and the floors where turned to dust how could they maintain and even gain weigh t? and how could this resistance not slow the collapse ?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 28, 2011)

eots said:


> what about the core ? and the floors where turned to dust how could they maintain and even gain weigh t? and how could this resistance not slow the collapse ?


It did. What would have been "free fall speed" in  seconds and MPH?


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > what about the core ? and the floors where turned to dust how could they maintain and even gain weigh t? and how could this resistance not slow the collapse ?
> ...



free fall is free fall ,


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2011)

Free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only or dominant force acting upon it, at least initially. These conditions produce an inertial trajectory so long as gravity remains the only force. Since this definition does not specify velocity


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 28, 2011)

eots said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



If you are going to  make  unsubstantiated vague claims and  use them as  proof of deviation from predicted events you are not going to be able to prove  anything.
How can we know there was no slowing if  we dont know the no resistance  speed in seconds and MPH which  you will not state.
Commit to something.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 28, 2011)

eots said:


> Free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only or dominant force acting upon it, at least initially. These conditions produce an inertial trajectory so long as gravity remains the only force. Since this definition does not specify velocity


thats not answering his question


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only or dominant force acting upon it, at least initially. These conditions produce an inertial trajectory so long as gravity remains the only force. Since this definition does not specify velocity
> ...



it is not a real question you moron...


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 28, 2011)

eots said:


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



Yeah it is, If you are going to claim something  fell  at near free fall speed  we need to know  what that speed is specifically so  the veracity of the claim  can  be judged  based on evidence.


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


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



and what difference does it make is it is measured in ft per sec or mph ?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 28, 2011)

eots said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


give it in either


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2011)

"at near free fall speed" and "essentially at free fall" are the terms and official conclusions of NIST


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 28, 2011)

eots said:


> "at near free fall speed" and "essentially at free fall" are the terms and official conclusions of NIST



Does that mean you are going to stop saying there was no resistance?


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2011)

divecon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > mr.fitnah said:
> ...



how about you give it in either ..as it is not in dispute...simlpy google nist report and it will give it to you in feet per sec and you can make a point if you even have one


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > "at near free fall speed" and "essentially at free fall" are the terms and official conclusions of NIST
> ...



Sure if it makes your day I will say essentially no resistances


----------



## Obamerican (Feb 28, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> as usual Gomer, I see your hear to kiss the ass of the resident troll.


Let me show you how your sentence should've been written, you little piece of uneducated shit:

As usual, Gomer, I see you're here to kiss the ass of the resident troll.

Fucking loser.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 1, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only or dominant force acting upon it, at least initially. These conditions produce an inertial trajectory so long as gravity remains the only force. Since this definition does not specify velocity
> ...



Did you really expect him to answer it???


----------



## idb (Mar 1, 2011)

Obamerican said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > as usual Gomer, I see your hear to kiss the ass of the resident troll.
> ...


As usual, Gomer, I see you're here to kiss the arse of the resident troll.

As we say in the Commonwealth


----------



## KissMy (Mar 1, 2011)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



The falling mass gain the weight of every floor it tore loose as it fell minus some concrete & drywall dust that was blown out by the air forced out from between every floor. The collapse had resistance & did not fall at free-fall speed. You will notice that debris are falling at twice the rate of the collapse. The core can be seen standing longer but ultimately bent & collapsed by the shear stress. Those bent coulombs are shown in photos.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 1, 2011)

KissMy said:


> You will notice that debris are falling at twice the rate of the collapse.



This is a great point.

How does the debris fall faster than the so called "freefall collapse" of the towers proper? Did the pieces of debris have jet-packs strapped to them propelling them downwards?


----------



## eots (Mar 1, 2011)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



twice the rate....shut up....why do you debwunkers keep contradicting the  NIST  report


----------



## Sallow (Mar 1, 2011)

Here's the truth.

Some pissed off assholes from other countries rammed planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon killing people that were just doing their jobs.

That's it.

Done.


----------



## eots (Mar 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Here's the truth.
> 
> Some pissed off assholes from other countries rammed planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon killing people that were just doing their jobs.
> 
> ...



and you determined this how ?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 1, 2011)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > > 1,451 verified architectural and engineering professionals
> ...


----------



## Wicked Jester (Mar 1, 2011)

miller said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > It makes people feel important when they "know" something that no one else does.This way they act like they have a different explanation then what obviously happened.
> ...


LMAO!

You fully admitted up here that a judge declared you insane......You threatened, shortly before the Giffords shooting, that you had a plan to come and "Kill you all". (A threat that has been forwarded to those who need to know, BTW).......And you expect clear thinking, non delusional people to believe your insane bullshit?........It ain't happenin', Mr. Laughner.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 1, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Here's the truth.
> 
> Some pissed off assholes from other countries rammed planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon killing people that were just doing their jobs.
> 
> ...



Heres the truth,you have been brainwashed by the media and corrupt government institutions and only see what you WANT to see like the loyal Bush/Obama dupe you are.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 1, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the truth.
> ...


and that has meaning only to those, like you, that have been brainwashed by Alex Jones


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 1, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the truth.
> ...



oh and since he came on immediately "like clockwork." resident troll attention seeker divecunt, loves you for being brainwashed.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 1, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


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


its called email alerts, dipshit
and i love poking you with a stick
LOL


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 1, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the truth.
> ...



Perhaps you would like to explain the 55 inch bow in one of the towers minutes before it started to fall? Or is that too much to ask? And I believe it was 10 inches on the other. But let's just try one building at a time.


----------



## eots (Mar 1, 2011)

DiveCon said:


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



you are far less effective than a stick


----------



## eots (Mar 1, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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




one ...it was hit by a plane...two.. can you provide the source of your 55 inch bow
claim


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 1, 2011)

eots said:


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



I do believe that came from NIST. That is where the photo I posted originated. And yes you could say it was hit by a plane, but that's the same as telling someone who asks where they are that they are in the Northern hemisphere. But of course you knew that.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 1, 2011)

eots said:


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


got YOU to reply so i know dipshit will now see it

LOL


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 1, 2011)

eots said:


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


except it didn't show up till just before the collapse
so it couldn't have been created by the crashing of a plane


----------



## eots (Mar 1, 2011)

DiveCon said:


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



really..what was the cause then garden gnomes ?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 1, 2011)

eots said:


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


FIRES


moron


----------



## eots (Mar 1, 2011)

and the fires were started by.....??


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 1, 2011)

eots said:


> and the fires were started by.....??


ah, so NOW you care about a chain of events


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 1, 2011)

if you actually want to know what caused the bowing, it was the floor trusses, being heated by the fires beyond what they were capable of supporting their own weight
they sagged  and pulled the sides in till the floor truss supports failed
then the collapse began


----------



## miller (Mar 1, 2011)

Mad Scientist said:


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



Look at the pictures.  You can't have a rational conversation or reason with facts.  I will never answer you again.  The whole fucking country is in a trance.  There's no remedy for this.


----------



## eots (Mar 1, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> if you actually want to know what caused the bowing, it was the floor trusses, being heated by the fires beyond what they were capable of supporting their own weight
> they sagged  and pulled the sides in till the floor truss supports failed
> then the collapse began



how hot were those fires ??...and how can this woman stand in the impact zone moments before he collapse ?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 1, 2011)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > if you actually want to know what caused the bowing, it was the floor trusses, being heated by the fires beyond what they were capable of supporting their own weight
> ...


because the wind was blowing TOWARDS her
the heat was being blown away
see, if you had rational thought you would understand that


----------



## KissMy (Mar 1, 2011)

*This is what you thought you saw because NIST brainwashed you.*







*This is what really happened*


----------



## eots (Mar 1, 2011)

DiveCon said:


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



you have a link to wind direction on that day ?...lol....so why are the flames near by not ....blowing inward ?


----------



## eots (Mar 1, 2011)

maybe the reason forensic testing could not verify the temperatures claimed by NIST. is they .never existed..the evidence certainly suggest this.like firefighters reaching the 79 floor and reporting small pockets of fire


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 1, 2011)

eots said:


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


use your eyes, moron
you can see it in the video


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 1, 2011)

eots said:


> maybe the reason forensic testing could not verify the temperatures claimed by NIST. is they .never existed..the evidence certainly suggest this.like firefighters reaching the 79 floor and reporting small pockets of fire


yeah, on the 79th floor
the fires were mostly above that
this is why troofers are known as fucking idiots, because you morons ignore all the facts and substitute fucking delusions


----------



## KissMy (Mar 1, 2011)

Edna is burning before the building collapsed.​
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWTQl42HPKw&feature=related"]Edna Burning[/ame]


----------



## eots (Mar 1, 2011)

Edna burning ..NO...YOU FUCKING MORON...as if she would simply stand there a burn motionless...and why do you think no zoom is every used on your footage...dishonest fuck...zoom in on it further and it is clearly smoke ...also the reason its only secs of footage,,,so not to destroy the illusion


----------



## eots (Mar 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > maybe the reason forensic testing could not verify the temperatures claimed by NIST. is they .never existed..the evidence certainly suggest this.like firefighters reaching the 79 floor and reporting small pockets of fire
> ...



you mean facts like a woman standing in the impact zone and the lack of forensic verification of the temperature claimed by NIST ?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 2, 2011)

eots said:


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


you ignore ALL the facts


----------



## Iowa10000 (Mar 2, 2011)

The only thing I know for sure from what has been reported is that someone didn't do their job.  I can understand that one plane was flown into one building, what I can't accept is that the second plan was allowed to do the same thing some time later.

Someone should have had his balls handed to him on a platter but of course that wouldn't have been a nice thing to do to President MR GWB.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 2, 2011)

Iowa10000 said:


> The only thing I know for sure from what has been reported is that someone didn't do their job.  I can understand that one plane was flown into one building, what I can't accept is that the second plan was allowed to do the same thing some time later.
> 
> Someone should have had his balls handed to him on a platter but of course that wouldn't have been a nice thing to do to President MR GWB.


nor would it have been done under WJC
or BHO


----------



## Wicked Jester (Mar 2, 2011)

Iowa10000 said:


> The only thing I know for sure from what has been reported is that someone didn't do their job.  I can understand that one plane was flown into one building, what I can't accept is that the second plan was allowed to do the same thing some time later.
> 
> Someone should have had his balls handed to him on a platter but of course that wouldn't have been a nice thing to do to President MR GWB.


Well, your credibility on any subject on this board is now completely shot to hell.

Good job!

We've got a new troofer loon in our midst, people!


----------



## eots (Mar 2, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Iowa10000 said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing I know for sure from what has been reported is that someone didn't do their job.  I can understand that one plane was flown into one building, what I can't accept is that the second plan was allowed to do the same thing some time later.
> ...



diclkess fester is dumb as fuck...


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 2, 2011)

eots said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Iowa10000 said:
> ...


ah, projection as well as delusional


----------



## eots (Mar 2, 2011)

miller said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > Big Black Dog said:
> ...



conservative / liberal two sides of the same shit coin...the fact is it is all but impossible to rise to a position of power in either party without being corrupt


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 2, 2011)

The exterior columns on the south wall bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures, pull-in forces from the floors beginning at 80 min, and additional gravity loads redistributed from the core. Figure 56 shows the observed and the estimated inward bowing of the south wall at 97 min after impact (10:23 a.m.). Since no bowing was observed on the south wall at 69 min (9:55 a.m.), as shown in Table 52, it is estimated that the south wall began to bow inward at around 80 min when the floors on the south side began to substantially sag. The inward bowing of the south wall increased with time due to continuing floor sagging and increased temperatures on the south wall as shown in Figs. 442 and 57. At 97 min (10:23 a.m.), the maximum bowing observed was about 55 in. (see Fig. 56).

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-6D.pdf


Notice how none of the truthers care to explain this? Just change the subject....


----------



## eots (Mar 2, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> The exterior columns on the south wall bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures, pull-in forces from the floors beginning at 80 min, and additional gravity loads redistributed from the core. Figure 56 shows the observed and the estimated inward bowing of the south wall at 97 min after impact (10:23 a.m.). Since no bowing was observed on the south wall at 69 min (9:55 a.m.), as shown in Table 52, it is estimated that the south wall began to bow inward at around 80 min when the floors on the south side began to substantially sag. The inward bowing of the south wall increased with time due to continuing floor sagging and increased temperatures on the south wall as shown in Figs. 442 and 57. At 97 min (10:23 a.m.), the maximum bowing observed was about 55 in. (see Fig. 56).
> 
> http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-6D.pdf
> 
> ...




it was hit by a plane so damage to the facade is not a big surprise...this does not explain the collapse witnessed and the NIST observations are very questionable


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 2, 2011)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > The exterior columns on the south wall bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures, pull-in forces from the floors beginning at 80 min, and additional gravity loads redistributed from the core. Figure 56 shows the observed and the estimated inward bowing of the south wall at 97 min after impact (10:23 a.m.). Since no bowing was observed on the south wall at 69 min (9:55 a.m.), as shown in Table 52, it is estimated that the south wall began to bow inward at around 80 min when the floors on the south side began to substantially sag. The inward bowing of the south wall increased with time due to continuing floor sagging and increased temperatures on the south wall as shown in Figs. 442 and 57. At 97 min (10:23 a.m.), the maximum bowing observed was about 55 in. (see Fig. 56).
> ...


except that is NOT at the entry point
so you dont know what the fuck you are talking about

wow, big shocker there
its not like you have ever shown you know what you are talking about, on ANY subject


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 2, 2011)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > The exterior columns on the south wall bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures, pull-in forces from the floors beginning at 80 min, and additional gravity loads redistributed from the core. Figure 56 shows the observed and the estimated inward bowing of the south wall at 97 min after impact (10:23 a.m.). Since no bowing was observed on the south wall at 69 min (9:55 a.m.), as shown in Table 52, *it is estimated that the south wall began to bow inward at around 80 min when the floors on the south side began to substantially sag. *The inward bowing of the south wall increased with time due to continuing floor sagging and increased temperatures on the south wall as shown in Figs. 442 and 57. At 97 min (10:23 a.m.), the maximum bowing observed was about 55 in. (see Fig. 56).
> ...



Wrong answer, see the highlighted area? That's 80 minutes after the plane hit before the buckling began. Care to try again?


----------



## eots (Mar 2, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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



so what ? are you trying to say it would of occurred if the plane had not hit the building ? or it was not caused by damage caused from the impact


----------



## eots (Mar 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


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



slightly below really changes nothing


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 2, 2011)

eots said:


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


its on the OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING, numbnutz


----------



## eots (Mar 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


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



but the plane penetrated through the  building exploding out the other side moron


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 2, 2011)

eots said:


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


no shit idiot
but the damage was MINOR on that side
and, the place it was bending was ABOVE the exit point
not below


----------



## eots (Mar 2, 2011)




----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 2, 2011)

So to sum it up, the truthers have zero explanations for this inward bowing of the buildings.

And since they have nothing the NIST must then be considered the only source for the truth on this matter.

Thanks.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 2, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> So to sum it up, the truthers have zero explanations for this inward bowing of the buildings.
> 
> And since they have nothing the NIST must then be considered the only source for the truth on this matter.
> 
> Thanks.



You have disgraced your country by breaking your Oath.

*As officers in the U.S. military, we took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Regardless of our current status -- active duty, reserves, retired, or civilian -- that oath remains in force. Therefore it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, how much we have to suffer, or where it leads us. We owe this to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and we owe it to those who are following that same oath today in Iraq and Afghanistan. We believe the official account of 9/11 as defined in the 9/11 Commission Report is grossly inaccurate and fatally flawed. It is imperative that we have an accurate understanding of 9/11 so that those responsible can be identified and brought to justice in order that they and similarly-minded people never again commit such heinous crimes. It is also imperative that we have an accurate understanding of 9/11 so that governmental policies resulting from 9/11 are based on truth rather than deception.*

*We join with other organizations of professionals, such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, and Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, and millions of individual citizens in demanding a thorough, impartial, open and transparent reinvestigation of the terrorist acts of 9/11.
*
*www.MilitaryOfficersfor911truth.org*


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 2, 2011)

and again, PE cant answer a question


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> and again, PE cant answer a question



Evasion is his middle name.



p.s. *STOP THE BROWN DWARF...BUY SILVER!!!!!!!*


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 2, 2011)

Hey, will someone please answer the first question in the search tags?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 2, 2011)

Jesse Ventura's audio expert, Kent Gibson, admits that Ventura edited his interview. And that voice morphing can't be done without huge samples from the subjects.



Oh, snap.


----------



## candycorn (Mar 2, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Jesse Ventura's audio expert, Kent Gibson, admits that Ventura edited his interview. And that voice morphing can't be done without huge samples from the subjects.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujumL1d_L5E
> 
> ...



I guess all that remains to be seen is if Ventura is a CIA plant or a Mossaad Plant.  Care to weigh in ID-EOTS?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > So to sum it up, the truthers have zero explanations for this inward bowing of the buildings.
> ...



Bypassing spam


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Bypassing spam


dfipshit, YOU are the spam


----------



## eots (Mar 2, 2011)

IF,,there was bowing.. not in any way prove the nist collapse theory is correct or they cause was properly determined


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 2, 2011)

He's bypassing himself now????

Must be a Santa Barbara thing.


----------



## eots (Mar 2, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Jesse Ventura's audio expert, Kent Gibson, admits that Ventura edited his interview. And that voice morphing can't be done without huge samples from the subjects.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujumL1d_L5E
> 
> ...



this video debunks nothing


----------



## eots (Mar 2, 2011)

clearly the technology exist..if it was used is speculation and opinion.I do not have a strong opinion on phone calls ...the collapse of the towers and wtc 7 ,the failure if NIST to determine the cause and ensuing cover-up is the issue as far as I am concerned


----------



## candycorn (Mar 2, 2011)

eots said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Jesse Ventura's audio expert, Kent Gibson, admits that Ventura edited his interview. And that voice morphing can't be done without huge samples from the subjects.
> ...



If by "nothing" you mean every thing; you may be on to something greaseball.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 2, 2011)

eots said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Jesse Ventura's audio expert, Kent Gibson, admits that Ventura edited his interview. And that voice morphing can't be done without huge samples from the subjects.
> ...



Let's watch e(di)ots debunk this;

Jeffrey Hill: "You don't believe that yourself?"

Kent Gibson: "No way at all."

Jeffrey Hill: "That's good to know."

Kent Gibson: "No fucking way."

Kent Gibson: " That theory is poppycock."


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 2, 2011)

And what is your take on this mini-nuke video, e(di)ots?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


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



http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/graphics/AEstreet_3-beam.pdf


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 2, 2011)

*This message is hidden because PhysicsExist is on your ignore list. *

*Somebody farted.*


----------



## eots (Mar 2, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


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



it is one mans opinion...the case of the collapse is not built on morped phone calls... it means little to me


----------



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

eots said:


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



Jumpin' Jesse V based an entire episode on the creative edit job of this man's interview, and you write it off by saying "it means little to me"?

You're dumber than I thought.


----------



## eots (Mar 3, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


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



it was a small part of one episode and nothing Jesse Ventura does or says changes the the failure of NIST and the 9/11 commission


----------



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

eots said:


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



Maybe you should go cook pizzas with your hero, Jason Bermas.


----------



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

eots said:


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



But he is your new hero since he had to glom onto a conspiracy theory series to try and drag himself out of obscurity.

Failed wrestler, failed governor, failed hack TV host.

Your new hero is just an oozing bag of fail, isn't he?


----------



## eots (Mar 3, 2011)

or these guys

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


----------



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

eots said:


> or these guys
> 
> Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report



You are SO going to regret this tomorrow after I get some sleep.

See you then.

Happy dreams.


----------



## eots (Mar 3, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


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



a lot of high profile people have joined the eots bandwagon in the last ten years...so I should be Jesse's hero... if anything


----------



## eots (Mar 3, 2011)

Iquote=rat in the hat;3382939]





eots said:


> or these guys
> 
> patriots question 9/11 - responsible criticism of the 9/11 commission report





> you are so going to regret this tomorrow after i get some sleep.
> 
> See you then.
> 
> Happy dreams



I highly doubt that...if this is the level of your game


----------



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

eots said:


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



You, a leader?       

You couldn't lead a hungry dog onto a bone truck.


----------



## Iowa10000 (Mar 3, 2011)

WOW SUCH REAL HATE

Fact are hard to deal with. 
fact # 1 was he had been told that terrorist were planning an attack that might include planes.
Fact #2  was told that a plane just hit one of the towers, looked dumb and kept reading a book with a bunch of kids.
Fact #3  did not tell any of our military to react
Fact #4  Couldn't account for all the flights
Fact #5  Didn't do the wise thing and treat it as a terrorist attack and order to evacuate tower two

Fact #6 finished Pet goat even though he was holding it upside down and then ran to safty


----------



## Iowa10000 (Mar 3, 2011)

why don't people on usmb buy silver to know the truth about 9/11, why dont people want to know the truth on 9/11, the truth about 9/11, why you don't want to know the truth, people don't want to know the truth

EASY, they can't handle the TRUTH.


----------



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

eots said:


> Iquote=rat in the hat;3382939]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In the words of a great song, "You ain't seen nothin' yet"

I've put the strife on this board in the last weeks to good use, and found some real truth. 

Get ready to deal with a pissed off, OCD riddled, stubborn, laid-off, Polack with a chip on his shoulder, and nothing but time to kill.


----------



## eots (Mar 3, 2011)

but he saw the first plane hit live on TV...he remembers it well


----------



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

eots said:


> but he saw the first plane hit live on TV...he remembers it well
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCtb9nlV_20



And  "Captain" Bob Balsamo says that AA77 drove through trees.

http://xmarinx.sweb.cz/1666.66.png


----------



## candycorn (Mar 3, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Iquote=rat in the hat;3382939]
> ...



All he wants is attention.  If you acknowledge him, he wins in his own feebile rancid mind. 

I've been here for about 2 years and he hasn't made a single God-damned point.  If it wasn't an insult to other persons suffering from the disability; I'd say that he was mentally retarded and every single post by that dumbass is proof of the fact.  

Just let him sit in the corner and fold paper airplanes and go by occasionally to slap the shit out of him when you feel like it,

1) He's an easy target.
2) He's utterly un armed in any battle of intelligence
3) He ALWAYS deserves whatever mis-fortune comes his way.

In short; he's scum.  The lone redeeming quality he may possess is that he is fully aware of that fact.


----------



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

candycorn said:


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



At this point, I could give a damn what he, FizzlesExpiss, or miller want.

I'm going to use the new tools at my disposal to peel all of these goofballs apart like grapes, so that anyone looking in for the first time don't fall for their line of bullshit. I'm sick of these scum using the deaths of the victims, and the pain, suffering and torment of their survivors to make a fast buck on a chunk of plastic full of YouTube videos.

Let them take their garbage to "capt." Bobby Balsamo's hall of shit. He will welcome them with open arms as conquering heroes, since he only has 5 or 6 regular posters. He would welcome a 33% increase in suckers, since no body is buying his new disc.


----------



## KissMy (Mar 3, 2011)

Let me get this straight.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange with 400,000 secret classified government documents does not believe 9/11 was an inside job.

Obama & all the Democrats in congress despite the rhetoric can't find evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

The Police, Fire, Rescue ATF, FBI, Military & Port Authority had friends, families & co-workers killed in the 9/11 attacks. All of these officials who were involved in the search, rescue & cleanup sifting through debris looking for friends & family. They could not find any *physical evidence* of explosive demolition. But some internet whack-jobs watched loose change a political hate movie say Bush killed their friends & family with demolition explosives.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 3, 2011)

KissMy said:


> Let me get this straight.
> 
> Wikileaks founder Julian Assange with 400,000 secret classified government documents does not believe 9/11 was an inside job.
> 
> ...


they are ALL in on it


----------



## eots (Mar 3, 2011)

KissMy said:


> Let me get this straight.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## KissMy (Mar 3, 2011)

eots said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Jesse Ventura's audio expert, Kent Gibson, admits that Ventura edited his interview. And that voice morphing can't be done without huge samples from the subjects.
> ...



Jesse Ventura aired a segment stating that the black box (CVR) cockpit voice recorder from the hijacked airliner recorded the hijackers in the cockpit before the plane took-off from the airport. What a bald face lie that was. At that time those aircraft had cockpit voice recorders that only record the last 30 minuets of flight. Only after 9/11 were the CVRs upgraded to record the last 2-hours of a flight. Since all of the hijacked aircraft flew well over 30 minutes prior to crashing, there is no way the CVRs had record of anything going on at the air-port on the ground.


----------



## eots (Mar 3, 2011)

rat in the hat said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > rat in the hat said:
> ...



blah,blah, blah ,blah...what ?


----------



## eots (Mar 3, 2011)

kissmy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > rat in the hat said:
> ...



link or stfu


----------



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

KissMy said:


> Let me get this straight.
> 
> Wikileaks founder Julian Assange with 400,000 secret classified government documents does not believe 9/11 was an inside job.
> 
> ...



That's right. The NYPD, NYFD, and the Port Authority all lost friends and colleagues in the events of that day, and aren't screaming for a new investigation trying to find the "real" killers. American Airlines and United lost 2 planes each, paid off numerous claims, and are not trying to blame it on the government to reclaim their losses. The insurance companies that paid out billions for the WTC complex claims are not doing anything to try to recoup their losses.

Yet we are supposed to believe the likes of Dylan "can't find a new radio gig" Avery, Korey "wanna buy some smack" Rowe, Jason "30 minutes or less, or your next inside job is free" Bermas, "captain" Bob "I've never flown a commercial jet, but that flight path was impossible" Balsamo, Judy "energy beam from space" Woods, and Alex "nanothermite/thermate" Jones when they tell us they and only they know the inside-jobbity-job-job-job about 9/11?

If any of those 6 freaks called me and said the sky was blue, I wouldn't believe them until I went outside and checked for myself.


----------



## KissMy (Mar 3, 2011)

eots said:


> they were not looking for any [evidence]...what would you expect to find ? and many family members and first responders have voiced there belife the 9/11 commison was a cover-up and are active in 9/11 truth



Bullshit. These officials are trained to look for evidence. They were also motivated by the death of their loved ones. Now a few weak minded rescue workers have been bamboozled into siding with the truthers without any physical evidence. They have nothing! These whack-jobs are all discredited every-time they say the towers fell at free-fall speed. All the video of the collapse show free-falling debris falling to the ground much faster than the collapsing buildings.


----------



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

Rat in the Hat said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Let me get this straight.
> ...



Damn, I almost forgot Richard "cardboard box" Gage, chief go-to guy for Architects, Engineers and Suckers for 911 Twoof.


----------



## KissMy (Mar 3, 2011)

eots said:


> kissmy said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


*These people make a lot of money suckering people into watching their lies on TV.*​[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WXGy9rxYvc&feature=related"]Conspiracy Theory 911 Jesse Ventura Pt5[/ame]


----------



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

Get a load of this jolly jag-off.


I couldn't stop laughing at this clown.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 3, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Get a load of this jolly jag-off.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBuH8NNIBys
> 
> I couldn't stop laughing at this clown.


 i got 2:09 into it and couldnt watch any more
what a Id-Eots


----------



## eots (Mar 3, 2011)

kissmy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > kissmy said:
> ...



so in other words you can not substantiate any of your bullshit post you spew forth with a link or source ...wonder why that is...


----------



## eots (Mar 3, 2011)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > they were not looking for any [evidence]...what would you expect to find ? and many family members and first responders have voiced there belife the 9/11 commison was a cover-up and are active in 9/11 truth
> ...



FIREFIGHTERS ARE TRAINED TO LOOK FOR EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES IN COLLAPSED SKY SCRAPERS...REALLY...and you got this information where exactly ???


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > So to sum it up, the truthers have zero explanations for this inward bowing of the buildings.
> ...



When you get done, serving in the armed forces of this country for 22 years let me know. Then and only then will I entertain the thought of you telling me about the Oath that I took and live by.

You see here is the problem, you do not want a "thorough, impartial, open and transparent reinvestigation of the terrorist acts of 9/11." What you want is the Government to be wrong. Sometimes you just don't get what you want.

Would you like to attempt to fit the fact of the inward bowing into one of your conspiracy theories?

Didn't think so...


----------



## eots (Mar 3, 2011)

"inward bowing" ????...thats all you have to say for yourself ?


----------



## eots (Mar 3, 2011)

next your going tell us 'a twenty story hole scooped out of wtc 7 and it was leaning "


----------



## miller (Mar 3, 2011)

This jerk is a fraud.

"When you get done, serving in the armed forces of this country for 22 years let me know. Then and only then will I entertain the thought of you telling me about the Oath that I took and live by.

You see here is the problem, you do not want a "thorough, impartial, open and transparent reinvestigation of the terrorist acts of 9/11." What you want is the Government to be wrong. Sometimes you just don't get what you want."

Every legitimate American knows Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld & Co are a pack of liars who lied America into 2 wars after they were warned more than 40 times that there would be an attack.  Spending 22 years in the army or spending 4 years in the Navy like I did have nothing to do with any of it.  

I investigated 911 from every angle possible and here's my conclusion.
Screwed Again: ONLY BUSH WAS CAPABLE
Screwed Again: David Letterman
Screwed Again: SEE THE STEEL BEAMS


----------



## miller (Mar 3, 2011)

Kiss My says, "These people make a lot of money suckering people into watching their lies on TV."

If lot of money is the issue, the creeps -- Bush, Cheney, and their base of whores collected billions of $$ for their wars generated by the 9/11 attack that they ordered.


They didn't just allow the planes to be hi jacked (Moussaui was arrested right before 9/11 and he was convicted for being the hi jacker who missed the mission on 9/11) they ordered the missile that hit the Pentagon and ordered rigging the explosives that collapsed both towers and Building 7,

If this evidence fails to convince you, you are in a trance.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 3, 2011)

miller said:


> Kiss My says, "These people make a lot of money suckering people into watching their lies on TV."
> 
> If lot of money is the issue, the creeps -- Bush, Cheney, and their base of whores collected billions of $$ for their wars generated by the 9/11 attack that they ordered.
> 
> ...


you are insane


----------



## Wicked Jester (Mar 3, 2011)

miller said:


> This jerk is a fraud.
> 
> "When you get done, serving in the armed forces of this country for 22 years let me know. Then and only then will I entertain the thought of you telling me about the Oath that I took and live by.
> 
> ...


You're an insane lil' douchebag, declared so by a judge. You're an insane lil' douchebag who admitted he had a plan to come "kill you all". You're an insane lil' douchebag who won't be up here much longer. You're an insane lil' douchebag whose "conclusions" are downright fuckin' laughable!


----------



## KissMy (Mar 3, 2011)

miller said:


> Kiss My says, "These people make a lot of money suckering people into watching their lies on TV."
> 
> If lot of money is the issue, the creeps --



Those TV shows lie to stupid people who swallow their total BS hook line & sinker. People like miller & eots cant put 2 & 2 together.

*Since all of the hijacked aircraft flew well over the 30 minute limit of the (CVRs) prior to crashing. How in the hell would the (CVRs) have record of anything going on at the air-port on the ground?*

You tell me why they lie on TV if it is not for the money.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Mar 3, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


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


Oh my god, I'm laughing so hard my gut hurts.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 3, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


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



You do know that the physics are THIS basic that Richard's point is ACTUALLY SO basic that proves 9/11 was a controlled demolition.  It is LITERALLY that basic.  that little block cannot destroy the bigger block, ESPECIALLY IN FREE FALL ACCELERATION.  The fact that you LAUGH at NEWTON's 3rd LAW is embarrassing.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 3, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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



*You are a disgrace for abandoning your Oath from protecting your country from FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC THREATS.  Stand up for you Oath, your honor and your country.  NOT QUESTIONING YOUR GOVERNMENT IS UN-AMERICAN.  You are so naive its disgraceful to the USA.  I wish you'd stand up for the Facts and Truth like the REAL Veterans are, like these.  *

*Too bad you're a Coward.*

*www.VeteransForPeace.org
Military Officers for 9/11 Truth*


----------



## Wicked Jester (Mar 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...


First of all, they are NOT BLOCKS. They are empty cardboard BOXES......You could drop the GREAT BIG BOX on top of LITTLE BOX, and GREAT BIG BOX will not destroy LITTLE BOX!.....Those cardboard BOXES regardless of size, have the exact same crush rating.

All this proves, is that you troofer loons are so god damn gullible it's laughable!


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 3, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



*BASED OF NEWTONS 3rd LAW OF EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION:*

With Gravity

A small Box (same object) cannot Crush a BIGGER box (same object) in ACCELERATION, let alone at all.

30 floors of WTC (the SAME object) cannot CRUSH 70 floors of WTC (the SAME object).  LET ALONE AT ACCELERATION.

_it's this basic, and you cannot even understand it........................._


----------



## miller (Mar 3, 2011)

Eots needs to reflect carefully on this statement he made.


"so in other words you can not substantiate any of your bullshit post you spew forth with a link or source ...wonder why that is..."

The reason there is no evidence that substantiates the Mossad had any part in rigging the explosives used to collapse the WTC towers is because Bush received more than 40 PDBs warning of the attack.  Zacarias Moussaoui was arrested and convicted by the FBI.  There is no evidence that Bush farmed out the elaborate plot involving the NSA, FBI, and NORAD to any foreign entity.

Eots might have the strongest hunch that the Mossad was involved but Eots has no proof.  That's one of the big reasons the "Truthers" have botched their mission.  They blow their credibility when they start making up bullshit.

What happened to the Israelis on the GWB?  If they were arrested why were they released?  Were they arrested?  Its all nonsense bullshit Eots.  Its President Bush who is guilty whether Eots likes it or not.


----------



## KissMy (Mar 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> BASED OF NEWTONS 3rd LAW OF EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION:
> 
> With Gravity
> 
> ...



"With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t. "

"The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. "

"a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down."

"To a structural engineer, a skyscraper is modeled as a large cantilever vertical column. Each tower was 64 m square, standing 411 m above street level and 21 m below grade. This produces a height-to-width ratio of 6.8. The total weight of the structure was roughly 500,000 t, but wind load, rather than the gravity load, dominated the design. The building is a huge sail that must resist a 225 km/h hurricane. It was designed to resist a wind load of 2 kPaa total of lateral load of 5,000 t."

"lightweight perimeter tube design consisting of 244 exterior columns of 36 cm square steel box section on 100 cm centers"

"In the upper floors there is as much as 40,000 square feet of office space per floor. The floor construction is of prefabricated trussed steel, only 33 inches in depth, that spans the full 60 feet to the core, and also acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the outside wall against lateral buckling forces from wind-load pressures."


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2011)

KissMy said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > BASED OF NEWTONS 3rd LAW OF EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION:
> ...



where do you get this bullshit ????...and why dont you link to the source ?


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2011)

> Eots might have the strongest hunch that the Mossad was involved but Eots has no proof.  That's one of the big reasons the "Truthers" have botched their mission.  They blow their credibility when they start making up bullshit


.

the fox piece was not about Isreals involvement .. it was about ir prior knowledge of which there is evidence of...and the point is if Isabel knew...American Intel knew;;;Bush knew





> What happened to the Israelis on the GWB?  If they were arrested why were they released


? 


because someone in a position of great power gave the order to release them




> Why Were they arrested?



because honest hard working individuals doing there jobs deemed the to be suspects or guilty of a crime







> Its all nonsense bullshit Eots.  Its President Bush who is guilty whether Eots likes it or not.




*bush is a puppet...but guilty as sin*


----------



## KissMy (Mar 4, 2011)

*Gravitational Collapse*​
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzKBBB_THE"]Gravitational Collapse[/ame]


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> With Gravity
> 
> A small Box (same object) cannot Crush a BIGGER box (same object) in ACCELERATION, let alone at all.
> 
> 30 floors of WTC (the SAME object) cannot CRUSH 70 floors of WTC (the SAME object).  LET ALONE AT ACCELERATION.



Is that what happened in reality? Did the "smaller box" crush the "bigger box"? Like a foot crushing a soda can?

Or did the "smaller box" fall against the floor below and SEVER or BREAK the floor truss connections attached to the perimeter and core columns. Your smaller solid box crushing the larger solid box isn't even CLOSE to reality.

I'll ask this again. How can these supports circled in red that went around the inside of the perimeter columns to support the floor trusses:






Be expected to support the weight of this crashing down on them:


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2011)

so what what happened to the core ?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 4, 2011)

eots said:


> so what what happened to the core ?


it wasnt designed to hold the amount of weight that was then shifted on it
you really are not very bright


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > so what what happened to the core ?
> ...



so it collapsed  straight down in a matter of seconds ???


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 4, 2011)

eots said:


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


did you notice that some of the core was still standing after the rest had collapsed?


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2011)




----------



## DiveCon (Mar 4, 2011)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY7BCXew0UI


and just how does that counter what i said?


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2011)

DiveCon said:


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



a very small piece that then collapsed..so what


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 4, 2011)

eots said:


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


small piece?
it was over WTC7


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2011)

eots said:


> so what what happened to the core ?



What happened to the core...

Do you understand that structures are designed with INDIVIDUAL components to function as one component?

That if one component fails, the work that the failed component was responsible for is then  transfered to the remaining components? 

Did the perimeter columns help support any of the gravity load of the towers?

When the plane smashed through the perimeter columns and removed those columns, the load that those particular columns were responsible for moved to the other columns. 

The fires further weakened the columns which are already under stress. The core eventually came to a point where it couldn't support the load and failed. Once that started, what was supposed to stop the upper structure from coming down?

Again, were those floor truss supports supposed to do that? That "block" coming down, basically ripped connections apart. What do you think would failed first under stress? The column itself or a weaker connection attached to the column?

You can see in any video as the debris fell down the center of the towers, you can see sections of perimeter walls getting pushed outward after the floor connections were severed.

Don't forget the heavy elevator motors and electrical panels in the core.

Why do you think this photo shows a still standing core with no floors around it?






The floors were ripped away.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 4, 2011)

In response to the OP.  Personally, does it really matter?  I don't believe that the U.S. government did it...but if they did, it still wouldn't matter because people already distrust the government and think it's corrupt.

I don't understand why it's so suprising to some that these buildings actually fell down.  Stack up a tower of dominos and throw a baseball at it.  It's gonna fall down.  People claim that the jet fuel burns this much, and steel melts at this much, blah blah blah.  They forget about the THOUSANDS if not MILLIONS of flammable objects inside the WTC.  Desks, paper, carbet, wall paneling, etc...You had jet fuel burning along with all these other propellants, not to mention the seats, paper, clothes, etc... that were on the plane itself.  You have electrical wires, breakers, and junction boxes inside the WTC that, I'm sure, were created an ENORMOUS heat source when they shorted out after the impact.  I do not believe that these fires were burning precisely at the temperature that jet fuel burns.  Conspiracy theorists also show pictures of molten metal to try to prove their points.  There are all kinds of metals that melt and turn orange...that molten metal could have been other metals besides steel.  At the same rate, steel melts at a certain degree, but what if the fire was slightly below that degree, it would still begin to weaken it.  There's just too many factors involved...


----------



## Wicked Jester (Mar 4, 2011)

Something else for the troofer loons to completely ignore:
[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## KissMy (Mar 4, 2011)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY7BCXew0UI



*Your own video states that the core cannot stand on it's own.* Once the floors linking columns are gone you have nothing but individual skinny beams reaching 1,400-ft in the air. A single beam can't even free-stand at 250-ft much less 1,300-ft.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 4, 2011)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY7BCXew0UI
> ...


shhhhh
i doubt he watched the whole thing


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2011)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY7BCXew0UI
> ...



it said it could take multiple strikes and still stand


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2011)




----------



## DiveCon (Mar 4, 2011)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


one guy, said he believed it should have withstood multiple
but the designers only said A hit, niot multiple
and the buildings DID survive the hits
it was the fires after that made the structures collapse


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 4, 2011)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6KRJ4x82L0&feature=related


that guy is a fucking idiot


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2011)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Jesus H ChrisT eots!!!!

The towers DID take the strike! They stood well after the initial strikes, thus withstood the impact.

Do you understand that?

They collapsed because of the resultant fires, the weakening of the steel and components, and damage, NOT from the impact.

They did studies and calculations on the FORCE of the impact of the jet and the resiliency of the building to not topple or collapse at that moment of impact.

What they DIDN'T do studies and calculations on was the resultant fires from that impact and how the structure would perform then.


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



fuel ignited and burned off in the impact...there is zero evidence of the temperatures claimed by NIST


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 4, 2011)

eots said:


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


you are still wrong
and you have been shown why
yet you still keep posting the same debunked bullshit over and over


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 4, 2011)

eots said:


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



It ignited the contents on the floors, which continued to burn.

Are you telling me that office fires cannot reach temperatures high enough to WEAKEN steel. STRESSED STEEL?


----------



## Wicked Jester (Mar 4, 2011)

eots said:


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


They did, REALLY?

Check out 2:02 of this video and tell me those fires weren't still raging just as the building began it's collapse.

Are you going to say the fires were faked?

[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## signelect (Mar 4, 2011)

Miller is in need of serious professional help.  Maybe he can get Dr. Phil to put him on TV and then he can tell millions the truth.  They will lock him away for ever.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Mar 4, 2011)

signelect said:


> Miller is in need of serious professional help.  Maybe he can get Dr. Phil to put him on TV and then he can tell millions the truth.  They will lock him away for ever.


Actually, Miller fully admitted that a judge declared him insane. He also spent a significant amount of time in prison for fraud based crimes.

It's all in his profile....Go check it out.

Oh, and he also said he had a plan to come "kill you all" in another troofer loon thread up here.

The dude obviously had a few Fruit Loops tossed into his Cheerios long ago!


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


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



"raging" is a very relative term...fires were still but it was not jet fuel burning hours after the initial impact


----------



## KissMy (Mar 4, 2011)

- The towers were struck by 25% larger planes than the Boeing 707 it was designed to withstand.
- Lost 20% of its supporting columns from the planes impact.
- Had to support an additional 100,000-lbs of aircraft debris.
- Lost most of the structural fire-proofing insulation from impact explosion.
- Lost its fire suppression & sprinkler system severed by aircraft.
- Remaining steel structure lost over 60% of its strength due to 650°C fires.
- Plane impacted fully charged UPC battery rooms blasting sulfuric acid all over the remaining structure.
- Plane destroyed the extra support beams installed to hold the weight of all those batteries.

DUH! Gee-Wiz Wally, I don't understand why the tower collapsed!


----------



## Wicked Jester (Mar 4, 2011)

KissMy said:


> - The towers were struck by 25% larger planes than the Boeing 707 it was designed to withstand.
> - Lost 20% of its supporting columns from the planes impact.
> - Had to support an additional 100,000-lbs of aircraft debris.
> - Lost most of the structural fire-proofing insulation from impact explosion.
> ...


Not to mention, waves of burning jet fuel was sent down most of the elevator shafts.


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2011)

KissMy said:


> -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > - The towers were struck by 25% larger planes than the Boeing 707 it was designed to withstand.
> ...



the fuel was burned off almost immediately


----------



## BrianH (Mar 4, 2011)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > -
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2011)

BrianH said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...


----------



## BrianH (Mar 4, 2011)

eots said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2011)

well it would appear the odds are 2 planes equal 3 near free-fall collapse


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2011)

BrianH said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2011)

The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was primarily due to fires, the Commerce Department&#8217;s National Institute of Standards and Technology (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 

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf


----------



## BrianH (Mar 4, 2011)

eots said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2011)

No  plane hit the wtc 7.....are you saying it is impossible to determine the cause of a collapse?


----------



## BrianH (Mar 4, 2011)

eots said:


> No  plane hit the wtc 7.....are you saying it is impossible to determine the cause of a collapse?



No, but I'm saying that a BIG ASS building fell right next to it.  It's called collateral damage.  The fires and structure damage was on the lower floors of building 7.  A critical support of the 13th floor failed.  Also, lack of water pressure caused the fire supression system to be ineffective.


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2011)

BrianH said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > No  plane hit the wtc 7.....are you saying it is impossible to determine the cause of a collapse?
> ...



NIST stated damage not  significant in the collapse and fire was the cause


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2011)




----------



## DiveCon (Mar 4, 2011)

eots said:


> well it would appear the odds are 2 planes equal 3 near free-fall collapse


dipshit, 8 buildings were destroyed on 9/11 and several more severely damaged


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > well it would appear the odds are 2 planes equal 3 near free-fall collapse
> ...



how many were hi -rise...how many suffered a complete collapse in seconds
read much... dipshit


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 4, 2011)

eots said:


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


yeah, i've read a lot
and none of it supports your bullshit


----------



## eots (Mar 4, 2011)

your dog-eared copy of popular mechanics doesn't really count


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 4, 2011)

eots said:


> your dog-eared copy of popular mechanics doesn't really count


nor does your devotion to alex jones


----------



## KissMy (Mar 5, 2011)

How did Bush or who-ever planned this, execute this huge coordinated demolition of 4 buildings without anyone getting caught, screwing up or squealing on them. Remember the Pentagon also collapsed along with WTC 1, 2 &7. Explain 4 crashed hijackings complete with phone calls to loved ones, 4 buildings imploding from synchronized thermite shaped charges. Countless people involved in the clean-up & non of them have any evidence.

Now you are saying our government pulled this elaborate hoax off on the American people when they can't properly fight either of the wars going on. Can't get Osama Bin Laden, Can't rescue Katrina survivors, & can't even scramble fighters to intercept hijacked aircraft. But somehow they managed to pull this massive & complex illusion off without a hitch. Even Wikileaks can't find anything suggesting this was a hoax. Obama & the Democrats have not found any evidence. All you truthers have no evidence. There have to be remains of the devices or destroyed steel somewhere.


----------



## eots (Mar 5, 2011)

> *
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 5, 2011)

btw there was destroyed steel of all kinds


----------



## KissMy (Mar 5, 2011)

eots said:


> btw there was destroyed steel of all kinds



Show me melted & destroyed steel!!! Not those BS pics that everyone keeps posting.

Also there would remains of shaped charges & detonators. Shaped charges need some sort of vessel. As many as a job this size would have taken there would have to be a few duds that did not go off.

I guess all of those involved are keeping it secret even though they lost friends in the attacks.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 5, 2011)

A standdown was ordered?  Boy that really puts a kink in those people who think United Flight 93 was shot down.


----------



## eots (Mar 5, 2011)

9/11 Mysteries - Bent Steel - Video


----------



## eots (Mar 5, 2011)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > btw there was destroyed steel of all kinds
> ...



you have no Idea what type of explosive may have been utilized


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 5, 2011)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


sure we do

NONE


----------



## eots (Mar 5, 2011)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > btw there was destroyed steel of all kinds
> ...



why would you make such a irrational guess ?


----------



## eots (Mar 5, 2011)

*


BrianH said:



			A standdown was ordered?  Boy that really puts a kink in those people who think United Flight 93 was shot down.
		
Click to expand...


Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army  Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director.  Decorated with the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal for bravery under fire and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam.  Also served in the Army Air Defense Command as Nike Missile Battery Control Officer for the Chicago-Milwaukee Defense Area.  Founder and former CEO of Turbine Technology Services Corp., a turbine (jet engine) services and maintenance company (15 years).  Former Senior Manager at General Electric Turbine (jet) Engine Division (15 years).  Private pilot.


Statement to this website 3/23/07: "As a former General Electric Turbine engineering specialist and manager and then CEO of a turbine engineering company, I can guarantee that none of the high tech, high temperature alloy engines on any of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 would be completely destroyed, burned, shattered or melted in any crash or fire.  Wrecked, yes, but not destroyed.  Where are all of those engines, particularly at the Pentagon?  If jet powered aircraft crashed on 9/11, those engines, plus wings and tail assembly, would be there. 

Additionally, in my experience as an officer in NORAD as a Tactical Director for the Chicago-Milwaukee Air Defense and as a current private pilot, there is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights are IFR) would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control.  No way!  With very bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but no there's no way all four of them could!* 


*Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a "Conspiracy Theory" does not change the truth.  It seems, "Something is rotten in the State.*


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 5, 2011)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > btw there was destroyed steel of all kinds
> ...



Not to mention several miles worth of Det cord.


----------



## KissMy (Mar 5, 2011)

eots said:


> *
> 
> 
> BrianH said:
> ...



I hate to bust your bubble on another one of your lies, but my family is in the aviation business. Specifically my brother is a lead mechanic at American Airlines overhaul plant at Alliance, TX. He holds EE, AF, AP & a pilots license. He & his crew worked on those very aircraft that crashed on 9/11.

My cousin is ex-US Navy & also a overhaul mechanic at American Airlines overhaul plant at Tulsa, OK. He holds EE, AF & AP. He has also worked on those very aircraft that crashed on 9/11.

Another cousin is also a mechanic at Delta Airlines plant in Atlanta, GA. He holds EE, AF & AP.

Also my uncle & 2 of my other cousins work at Boeing military & commercial aircraft manufacturing plants. They are engineers.

These guys have all discussed the evidence & my brother & cousin have looked at the service logs for both AA 77 & 11. They know exactly which engines, wheels, CVR & FDR were on the aircraft tail numbers that crashed that day. My family all say those were the flights that hit on 9/11.

Every plane has serial numbers on all parts. These numbers have never been found on any other aircraft. Aircraft parts always get rebuilt & recycled. None of these parts ever came back into the system. These aircraft were indeed destroyed on 9/11. They have access to everything in the American Airlines computer systems & it all matches up.

They all 100% agree that those aircraft crashed on 9/11 & every piece of wreckage in the photos is consistent with those aircraft.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 5, 2011)

still trolling the boards as ever i see disinfo agent Kissmy.dont you ever get tired of getting your ass handed to you on a platter here everday from evidence like this?


Active Thermitics Made Simple

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 5, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> still trolling the boards as ever i see disinfo agent Kissmy.dont you ever get tired of getting your ass handed to you on a platter here everday from evidence like this?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw



Still can't handle the truth?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 5, 2011)

what I just said to him Gomer applies to you as well.You agents sure get paid well,you sure wouldnt keep coming back for the ass beatings you get here everyday if they didnt.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 5, 2011)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



 your government agent cousins and you  really tell great fairy tales when you get together for some brewskis. I love how you agents love to say -My cousin experienced in so and so and they agree with me on this  when we give you high ranking credible sources that burst YOUR bubble. great funny stuff there.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 5, 2011)

KissMy said:


> - The towers were struck by 25% larger planes than the Boeing 707 it was designed to withstand.
> - Lost 20% of its supporting columns from the planes impact.
> - Had to support an additional 100,000-lbs of aircraft debris.
> - Lost most of the structural fire-proofing insulation from impact explosion.
> ...



-like he said,was designed to take MULTIPLE hits from airliners.
-scattered pieces of aluminum from the impact 100,000 pounds of aircraft debris? great fairy tale.
-liar.after the 93 bombing,they reinforced it with additional fireproofing to take impacts of airliners
-liar.pics show sprinker system working and water going down the floors.
-liar as usual-that fire wasnt even hot enough to melt a marshmellow,let alone weaken the steel.the firefighters are recorded putting out the fires saying-we should have these fires put out soon,its nothing serious.black smoke was emitting which proves it was oxygen starved and not a serious fire.
-plane struck at high above,architects ane engineers will tell you that the lower you go,the more thicker and stronger the steel is to support everything above.
I omit that many firefighters experienced in explosives heard explosions and called the 9/11 coverup commission a half baked farce.I also omit NIST lied saying nobody said they saw molten metal.many firefighters spoke of molten metal.
I omit witnesses reported hearing explosions in the basement BEFORE the plane struck above and the government is trying to discredit them with lies.
Duh Im a disinfo agent who loves having my ass handed to me on a platter.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 5, 2011)

eots said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



exactly and thats because just as the photos prove,the majority of the explosion took place OUTSIDE the towers from the planes impact.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 5, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Something else for the troofer loons to completely ignore:
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4&feature=related



hate to break your heart but all you got to do is time it and you can see that freefall occurs.here this is for you dummy style.go to the top of a 110 story roof,drop a rock,it will het the ground in around 11 seconds which is free fall speed.the towers collapsed around 11 seconds which =freefall speed.it occured,demolitions were used,deal with it and stop being afraid of the truth.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 5, 2011)

BrianH said:


> In response to the OP.  Personally, does it really matter?  I don't believe that the U.S. government did it...but if they did, it still wouldn't matter because people already distrust the government and think it's corrupt.
> 
> I don't understand why it's so suprising to some that these buildings actually fell down.  Stack up a tower of dominos and throw a baseball at it.  It's gonna fall down.  People claim that the jet fuel burns this much, and steel melts at this much, blah blah blah.  They forget about the THOUSANDS if not MILLIONS of flammable objects inside the WTC.  Desks, paper, carbet, wall paneling, etc...You had jet fuel burning along with all these other propellants, not to mention the seats, paper, clothes, etc... that were on the plane itself.  You have electrical wires, breakers, and junction boxes inside the WTC that, I'm sure, were created an ENORMOUS heat source when they shorted out after the impact.  I do not believe that these fires were burning precisely at the temperature that jet fuel burns.  Conspiracy theorists also show pictures of molten metal to try to prove their points.  There are all kinds of metals that melt and turn orange...that molten metal could have been other metals besides steel.  At the same rate, steel melts at a certain degree, but what if the fire was slightly below that degree, it would still begin to weaken it.  There's just too many factors involved...



you are in serious denial,what a pathetic comparision. your really grasping at straws and obviously slept through juniour high science class. YOU are clueless,you obviously dont know that the temps recorded by NASA were FAR to extreme to be that of office fires or jet fuel and that office fires dont burn for MONTHS on end and or that you have to spray it and it becomes lake like the firefighters said. sorry to break your heart but AGAIN,the towers were designed to take a hit from multiple airliners and the fires were not hot enough to melt a marshmellow,yet alone weaken them.they were put out within and hour.there have been fires in high rise towers that have burned for HOURS on end lit up like a torch,not axygen starved with black smoke emitting without collapsing.hate to break the news to you,planes are ALUMINUM,those were STEEL towers.they were designed to take MULTIPLE hits and the fires were not that hot as the black smoke proves,deal with it,your in denial. man that domino crads thing is REALLY grasping at straws and reaching.how pathetic.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 5, 2011)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



havet you figured it out yet? he is another agent that has penetrated this site.they make up the biggest bullshit ever just like their handlers pay them to.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 5, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



He sure cant.these OCTA'S like Brian and wicked,dont get it that to accept the governments version of events,you got to ignore the laws of physics that scientists have gone by for thousands of years.they obviously slept through juniour high science classes.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 5, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> what I just said to him Gomer applies to you as well.You agents sure get paid well,you sure wouldnt keep coming back for the ass beatings you get here everyday if they didnt.


you are fucking delusional
LOL
but funny


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 5, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...


except its YOU morons ignoring the laws of physics


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 5, 2011)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > they were not looking for any [evidence]...what would you expect to find ? and many family members and first responders have voiced there belife the 9/11 commison was a cover-up and are active in 9/11 truth
> ...



Lies as always,you just blatantly ignore the evidence like the paid troll you are.you alos as always OMIT the facts that the firefighters HEARD explosions and when they found out the offical explanation of the governments,they called the investigation a half baked farce because they knew explosives were planted.jet fuel fires dont cause molten metal,neither do office fires and they reported seeing molten metal.you also fail to mention that NIST was caught lying  saying NOBODY reported seeing molten metal.YOU are the one that has been discredited and have NOTHING!! and yes they do have physical evidence,you just blatantly ignore it like the paid troll you are.you always run off with your tail between your legs when asked to debunk this video or link,you just post a bunch of crap that proves nothing when this video and these links are shown to you.

nobody has ever been able to debunk this at any message board,hundreds have tried but never have been able to despite what you OCTA'S come on here and say.or the two links below either.

Explosive Residues: Energetic Materials and the World Trade Center Destruction

Active Thermitics Made Simple


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 5, 2011)

It's got to be the drugs. There can be no logical explanation other than that.


----------



## eots (Mar 5, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> It's got to be the drugs. There can be no logical explanation other than that.



you mean the ones the gave you in the ..armmmy


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 5, 2011)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > It's got to be the drugs. There can be no logical explanation other than that.
> ...



You know exactly what I mean. And I'm not the one taking them.


----------



## eots (Mar 5, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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



righhhht....ok then


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 5, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Let's look at the video again....

Starts with some firemen hearing a secondary explosion. Where was the explosion? What exploded? A battery? A car fuel tank? We haven't a clue from the video presented. Except that they didn't appear overly concerned about it. Why? Because there are normally secondary explosions in a high rise office fire.

Now we move to newscasters talking about what? Secondary explosions, doing what? Going off every 15 or 20 minutes. That is not the way to bring down a building.

OMG someone reported a suspicious device........

Some police (notice no names) said there "may have been" a van parked in the building? Really? I bet there were a few dozen vans parked in the parking area of the building, or more.

Federal agencies believe what? (again no name to go with the claim)

Finally a name Chief Albert Turry, He received word of a secondary device. Really? From who? Why didn't the reporter follow up on it? He thinks, he speculates...

Are we getting the picture here? No one knew what was happening that morning.

And now we have the firemen telling people there's a bomb in the building. Says who? Where did this come from? Why didn't it explode? Why weren't all these reports followed up on?

Now the last 2 minutes have been snippets of people talking about secondary explosions. Could be different ones could be the same one. there really is no telling. The video was not put together to inform but to confuse.

And more of the same for the rest of the video.

No proof of anything all guess work as to what the people were actually describing.


----------



## eots (Mar 5, 2011)

there were several reports of huge secondary explosions on the upper floors a likely cause of any....bowing


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 5, 2011)

eots said:


> there were several reports of huge secondary explosions on the upper floors a likely cause of any....bowing


LOL yeah
an explosion will cause things to bow in towards the explosion


----------



## eots (Mar 5, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > there were several reports of huge secondary explosions on the upper floors a likely cause of any....bowing
> ...



if fire can weaken a structure then an explosion certainly can and depending on what piece of the structure was damaged it could very well cause bowing...dumb-ass


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 5, 2011)

eots said:


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


ROLFMAO

you are such a moron


----------



## eots (Mar 5, 2011)

oh my have I been....DEBWUNKED


----------



## Wicked Jester (Mar 5, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...


That douchebag dropped a lil' BOX on top of a big BOX from a height of 1 inch....Lil' BOX didn't crush big BOX.............Well, NO SHIT!

Christ, you people are fuckin' stupid.......And obviously, gullible as all get out.


----------



## eots (Mar 5, 2011)

so would you of preferred he drop a little steel and concrete box on a big concrete and steel box ?...and if he did...what would you expect to happen ?


----------



## Wicked Jester (Mar 5, 2011)

eots said:


> so would you of preferred he drop a little steel and concrete box on a big concrete and steel box ?...and if he did...what would you expect to happen ?


Yep!

Or, at least fly a scale model 757 full speed, fully loaded with fuel and lil' pasengers, light it on fire until BIG BOXES structure is fully weakened, and then drop LIL' BOX on BIG BOX.

C'mon eots, you have to know that video and demonstration if fuckin' laughable, and proves absolutely nothing.

Anybody who thinks otherwise is a gullible fool.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 5, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



I'm not accepting the government's version.  I think they knew more than they let on.  Do I think they did it? lol. No.  This conspiracy has been debunked over and over again by top engineers.  (You'll say they are government hired engineers--typical)


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 5, 2011)

BrianH said:


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


to him, anyone that actually thinks and requires actual facts is a bush dupe


----------



## eots (Mar 5, 2011)

BrianH said:


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



can you name any of these top engineers


----------



## eots (Mar 5, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > so would you of preferred he drop a little steel and concrete box on a big concrete and steel box ?...and if he did...what would you expect to happen ?
> ...



do you really think if you a cup of kerosene on a concrete and steel box that it would weaken considerable ?...I dont


----------



## Wicked Jester (Mar 5, 2011)

eots said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


Yes, after a fully loaded, fully fueled 757 rams into it full speed, and the fires continue to burn red hot for an hour and a half.

Again, that video and demonstration are friggin' ridiculous.

And the fact that someone who claims to know about physics posted it, makes it beyond laughable, to friggin' hysterical.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 5, 2011)

eots said:


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



Just off the top of my head :Keith Steffen from Cambridge University in the UK.


----------



## eots (Mar 5, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



WELL IF IT WAS SCALE IT WOULD MORE LIKE A FLAMING DART....Whats really funny is how these hacks pretend like the NIST  explanation is "common sense" when it took them years and state of the art super computers to come up with these highly improbable collapse sequences as an "explanation"


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 5, 2011)

*www.MilitaryOfficersfor911TRUTH.org
Scientists for 9/11 Truth
Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth » FF 911 Truth
Scholars For 9/11 Truth
Pilots For 9/11 Truth
AE911Truth.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
Lawyers for 9/11 Truth*


----------



## eots (Mar 5, 2011)

BrianH said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



I am pretty sure he is not an engineer..he is that global warming fraud guy isn't he ?


----------



## BrianH (Mar 5, 2011)

eots said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



??? He's a (or was) a Senior lecturer in Structural Engineering at Cambridge...haven't heard of the global warming thing...


----------



## eots (Mar 5, 2011)

maybe it is similar names or he wrote papers on both...I will try and find out if it is the same fellow


----------



## eots (Mar 5, 2011)

no this guy was William not Kieth same last name...but I cold not find your guys paper or statement do you have a link ?


----------



## BrianH (Mar 5, 2011)

eots said:


> no this guy was William not Kieth same last name...but I cold not find your guys paper or statement do you have a link ?



9/11 - Dr Keith Seffen's paper - "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis"

I think it has a link to his actual paper on here.


----------



## eots (Mar 6, 2011)

BrianH said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > no this guy was William not Kieth same last name...but I cold not find your guys paper or statement do you have a link ?
> ...



well one important point is his theory is in contradiction with the NIST and and hardly seems conclusive furthermore considering his proposed experiments it seems ironic that Cages boxes are considered laughable


it would be interesting to see a computer simulation of the collapse described for the towers by this model - I am sure it would look most unlike what was actually seen.

"I did wonder what real situation this model would in fact model. Two ideas have come to mind. *A vertical stack of empty Coke-cans crushed by dropping a brick - provided those lateral instabilities were dealt with somehow*. You can then calculate the downward speed of the brick crushing the tins.
*Another is the Kung Fu exhibition stunt* where somebody punches down through a stack of roof tiles. You can probably estimate the maximum number broken for various amounts of available* continuous punch-force. *Maybe not the most useful idea&#8230;"

Dr Seffen's acknowledgements -

"The author is extremely grateful to* two anonymous referees* for insightful and supporting comments."


Sorry not impressed....are you ?


----------



## BrianH (Mar 6, 2011)

eots said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I didn't expect you to be.  He makes sense to me.  It's going to be impossible to convince you otherwise.  Nothing against you personally, but I've noticed that 9/11 conspiracy theorists have a tendency to refute credible experts and/or discredit most engineers who disagree with them.  We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.  

The 9/11 conspiracy believers act similar to the AGW theorist.  They like to throw out scholarly journals to "prove" their point, but then discredit other scholarly journals that refute their point...as if for some reason their scholarly journals are more correct than anyone else.

Once again, not a personal attack on you.  You seem to provide plenty of "evidence" that supports the opinion you have.  Certainly better than blindly believing.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 6, 2011)

BrianH said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



*OVER 1,450+ CERTIFIED ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS AND COUNTING AGREE 9/11 WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.  THIS ISNT DEBATABLE.  BASIC PHYSICS PROVE IT.
AE911Truth.org*


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 6, 2011)

physicsexist said:


> brianh said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...





*ssdd*​


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 6, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


which is about 0.01% of all of them
let me know when you get to 1% 
not that it will change the facts, but it will be more significant


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 6, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



Actually it will simply be a bit less insignificant.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 6, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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


true


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 6, 2011)




----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 6, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1WurLaoImE



This guy simply passes on all the misinformation that none of you have yet to prove as fact. It's all conjecture. And much of it has been disproved. However at least it hasn't been posted 10 times, earlier this week.


----------



## eots (Mar 6, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



so how many people signed off on the NIST report...what % of engineers do you think they represent...lol


----------



## BrianH (Mar 6, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



And how many architects and engineers are their in the world?  In the U.S.?  You're acting like 1500 architects and engineers are the majority of architects and engineers in the U.S.  My sister and brother in-law are architects .  There are over 1 million employed engineers in the U.S alone.   If you count people with science and engineering degrees, there are over 10 million.  What the hell makes you believe that 1500 engineers out of millions makes their opinion override the other 1 million?
How Large is the U.S. S&E Workforce?


----------



## eots (Mar 6, 2011)

BrianH said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



because only a a really naive or foolish person would believe that any person that has not put there name on a  petition is in support of the NIST theory

how many former tac directors of norad do you think there are ?...how many presidential honored advanced space program directors do you think there are ?..how many former presidents of the U.S air crash investigation board do you think there are ?... because all of these people signed the petition

http://patriotsquestion911.com/


----------



## BrianH (Mar 6, 2011)

eots said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



really?  ALL?


----------



## eots (Mar 6, 2011)

BrianH said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


 
yes all...no less than two former presidents and several former u.s air-crash investigators have signed the petitions....so how many former presidents of the u.s air crash investigation board are alive today in America ?..how many directors of advanced space program directors do you think  there are in thr U.S ??...and why are these facts never mentioned in any debwunker video or news cast ???


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 6, 2011)

I see eots is still relying upon opinion instead of fact.

I guess you got to go with what ya got.

And that's all he's got.

The facts still say that the 911 CR and the NIST were mostly correct. And that they have all the main points dead on.

No matter your 1500 or so opinions.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 6, 2011)

eots said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I'm not familiar with these positions or the petition they signed so I can't respond to this.


----------



## eots (Mar 6, 2011)

*Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter.  U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech).   Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology.  22-year Air Force career.  Also taught Mathematics and English at the University of Southern California, the University of Maryland, and Phillips University.
Member: Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: 

"Scholars and professionals with various kinds of expertise---including architects, engineers, firefighters, intelligence officers, lawyers, medical professionals, military officers, philosophers, religious leaders, physical scientists, and pilots---have spoken out about radical discrepancies between the official account of the 9/11 attacks and what they, as independent researchers, have learned. 

They have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that, therefore, the official &#8220;investigations&#8221; have really been cover-up operations.* 

Thus far, however, there has been no response from political leaders in Washington or, for that matter, in other capitals around the world. Our organization, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, has been formed to help bring about such a response. 

We believe that the truth about 9/11 needs to be exposed now---not in 50 years as a footnote in the history books---so the policies that have been based on the Bush-Cheney administration&#8217;s interpretation of the 9/11 attacks can be changed. 

*We are, therefore, calling for a new, independent investigation of 9/11 that takes account of evidence that has been documented by independent researchers but thus far ignored by governments and the mainstream media*."


Video 9/11/04: "A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash.  It&#8217;s impossible. &#8230; There&#8217;s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up. &#8230; Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don&#8217;t want us to know what happened and who&#8217;s responsible.&#8230; 

Who gained from 9/11?  Who covered up crucial information about 9/11?  And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place?  When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it&#8217;s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney. 

I think the very kindest thing that we can say about George W. Bush and all the people in the U.S. Government that have been involved in this massive cover-up, the very kindest thing we can say is that they were aware of impending attacks and let them happen.  Now some people will say that&#8217;s much too kind, however even that is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder."  http://video.go


Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11:     
"We want truthful answers to question. &#8230;  As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:
An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry." http://www.911truth.org/article


----------



## eots (Mar 6, 2011)

*Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority.  Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College.  34-year Air Force career.

Licensed commercial pilot.  Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic.
Essay: "In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. ... 

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. 

With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged

Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice   Association Statement: "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization consisting of independent researchers and activists engaged in uncovering the true nature of the September 11, 2001 attacks."


Member: Pilots for 9/11 Truth  Association Statement: "Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe that have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day since the United States Government doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers."


Member: Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven  Association Statement: "We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations."
\

Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army &#8211; Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director.  Decorated with the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal for bravery under fire and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam.  Also served in the Army Air Defense Command as Nike Missile Battery Control Officer for the Chicago-Milwaukee Defense Area.  Founder and former CEO of Turbine Technology Services Corp., a turbine (jet engine) services and maintenance company (15 years).  Former Senior Manager at General Electric Turbine (jet) Engine Division (15 years).  Private pilot.
Statement to this website 3/23/07: "As a former General Electric Turbine engineering specialist and manager and then CEO of a turbine engineering company, I can guarantee that none of the high tech, high temperature alloy engines on any of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 would be completely destroyed, burned, shattered or melted in any crash or fire.  Wrecked, yes, but not destroyed.  Where are all of those engines, particularly at the Pentagon?  If jet powered aircraft crashed on 9/11, those engines, plus wings and tail assembly, would be there. 

Additionally, in my experience as an officer in NORAD as a Tactical Director for the Chicago-Milwaukee Air Defense and as a current private pilot, there is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights are IFR) would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control.  No way!  With very bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but no there's no way all four of them could! 

Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled "terrorists". 

Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a "Conspiracy Theory" does not change the truth.  It seems, "Something is rotten in the State

Lt. Col. David Gapp, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Retired Pilot and Qualified Aircraft Accident Investigator.  Served as President, Aircraft Accident Board. Military aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom, Cessna T-37 Dragonfly "Tweet", Northrup T-38 Talon.  3,000+ total hours flown.  31 years of U.S. Air Force service.  One year as commercial pilot for Continental Airlines. Commercial aircraft flown: ATR-42.
Member: Pilots for 9/11 Truth  Association Statement: "Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe that have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day since the United States Government doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers




Lt. Cdr. Bernard J. Smith, U.S. Nay (ret) &#8211; Retired carrier Naval Aviator and former aircraft accident investigator.
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition: 

"From my several years experience as an aircraft accident investigator for the U.S.Navy, I am appalled at the basic principles of investigation being ignored; ie, premature destruction of evidence, reliable eye witness accounts ignored, etc. To allow the official version to be the final word in this planned event, as is evident from the AE9/11 investigation, would be a major disservice to the victims and the nation."  *AE911Truth.org


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 6, 2011)

and Id-Eots goes into copy & paste mode again


----------



## eots (Mar 6, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> and Id-Eots goes into copy & paste mode again



 He cant address the information rationally,.so he goes into his 5 word pointless post of of nothing mode ,in a flailing attempt to avoid facts


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 6, 2011)

eots said:


> *Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret)  Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority.  Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College.  34-year Air Force career.
> 
> Licensed commercial pilot.  Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic.
> Essay: "In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. ...
> ...



Ah yes Colonel Nelson. He also believes that Oklahoma city bombing had pre planted explosives.  "Oklahoma City Murrah building, where 168 men, women and babies were killed. A Pentagon study eventually concluded that five support columns were destroyed by pre-planted explosives, and coincidentally, no BATF employees had showed up
for work that morning. "

I thank the Good Col for his service but.........  I would like to see this pentagon study.....


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 6, 2011)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > and Id-Eots goes into copy & paste mode again
> ...


you posted other peoples opinions, dipshit
learn the difference


----------



## eots (Mar 6, 2011)

DiveCon said:


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



the information was requested ....dipshit


----------



## eots (Mar 6, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority.  Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College.  34-year Air Force career.
> ...



The evidence suggest he  is correct ,but regardless notice how li lOllie ignores the rest and tries to fling shit at the one he feels he can on some other issue and then tries to invoke some emotional response  by suggesting that questioning the event is some how being uncaring about babies that died...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 6, 2011)

eots said:


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



Do you really want me to talk about the rest? Really? And please provide a link to his Pentagon report that says this....


----------



## eots (Mar 6, 2011)

yes I really ,really do...


----------



## eots (Mar 6, 2011)




----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 6, 2011)

Capt. Daniel Davis
"I can guarantee that none of the high tech, high temperature alloy engines on any of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 would be completely destroyed, burned, shattered or melted in any crash or fire. *Wrecked, yes, but not destroyed.* Where are all of those engines, particularly at the Pentagon? If jet powered aircraft crashed on 9/11, those engines, plus wings and tail assembly, would be there. "











http://debris.0catch.com/_webimages/trw.JPG[/IMG

[IMG]http://911review.org/_webimages/wtc/pp0.JPG
















And we won't even talk about how the wings (where i believe the fuel tanks are located) and the tail were supposed to survive slamming into a reinforced building like the pentagon.


----------



## eots (Mar 6, 2011)

Not one of these item as been positivity identified as coming from the the planes in question or even the same models


----------



## eots (Mar 6, 2011)




----------



## BrianH (Mar 6, 2011)

Eots you've alwasy been cordule with me on these boards and I appreciate that.  I'm not intending to insult you as a person, but rather state an observation in your debating strategy.

It seems to me that you're primary focus in proving that 9/11 was an inside job is providing the names of higher profile officials and individuals rather than actually acknowledging reasonable and possible explanations by the majority of engineers.  It seems to matter more to you that there are higher profile people that question it more so than the actual evidence at hand.  I've also noticed that you question the "absence" of individual evidence more so than ackwnowledging the identified evidence.  You were just shown actual pictures from the events that clearly shows plane engines.  Google the diagrams of a jet engine and see what kind of pictures and diagrams you find.  The engines in those pictures are most certainly parts of plane engines.  But rather than acknowledge the fact that those are plane engines, you're questioning that they were never identified as actually coming from said aircraft.  

Like I said, I'm not trying to attack you personally, but am trying to give you some incite into your debating technique.  Is this an accurate observation of your logic?

My question is, do you think these parts of jet engines were planted to make them look like they came off the plane?


----------



## KissMy (Mar 6, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1WurLaoImE



I don't care how many credentials someone is professed to have, when they stand there and tell lies then they are talking politics & not facts.

None of the 4 buildings that collapsed on 9/11 fell at or near free-fall speeds!!! 

In the collapse videos lighter debris is clearly falling twice as fast as the massively heavy buildings.


----------



## eots (Mar 6, 2011)

KissMy said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1WurLaoImE
> ...



 Then you also believe the NIST report is incorrect...AND BTW WHILE SEVERAL BUILDINGS  WERE DANGED ONLY 3 EXPERIENCED COMPLETELY COLLAPSE IN A MATTER OF SECS AND ONLY  3 BUILDINGS ARE CITED BY AS FALLING AT ESSENTIALLY FREE-FALL


----------



## eots (Mar 6, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Eots you've alwasy been cordule with me on these boards and I appreciate that.  I'm not intending to insult you as a person, but rather state an observation in your debating strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## BrianH (Mar 6, 2011)

eots said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Eots you've alwasy been cordule with me on these boards and I appreciate that.  I'm not intending to insult you as a person, but rather state an observation in your debating strategy.
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 6, 2011)

> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 6, 2011)

*NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, &#8220;This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds]*


----------



## BrianH (Mar 7, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBUQ4zqo4ZA
> *NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds]*



So it free fell for 8 out of 47 stories? Hardly persuading.  Also, building 7 has since been replaced.  The two towers have not.  Why would the government destroy building 7 only for it to be replaced?


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

BrianH said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBUQ4zqo4ZA
> ...


----------



## BrianH (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

BrianH said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


----------



## BrianH (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## BrianH (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

BrianH said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)




----------



## BrianH (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 7, 2011)

whats really interesting is, if the government wanted evidence in it's possession destroyed, it wouldnt have to destroy a building to do so

thats just another stupidity of the troofer morons


----------



## BrianH (Mar 7, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> whats really interesting is, if the government wanted evidence in it's possession destroyed, it wouldnt have to destroy a building to do so
> 
> thats just another stupidity of the troofer morons



Agreed...and that's only assuming the government had mounds of evidence to destroy.  It just doesn't add up to me.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 7, 2011)

BrianH said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > whats really interesting is, if the government wanted evidence in it's possession destroyed, it wouldnt have to destroy a building to do so
> ...


and if i have a building wired to destroy, no fucking way am i going to fly planes into it and risk damaging the well laid out plans
also, i would just claim the terrorists broke building security to plant the explosives
and since i wanted to attack a certain country, i would have the terrorists actually be FROM that country and not some pissant place like Afghanistan


----------



## BrianH (Mar 7, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Agreed.


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## BrianH (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


> > BrianH said:
> >
> >
> > > eots said:
> > ...


----------



## britgyll (Mar 7, 2011)

If you read the wikipedia article about the truth about 9/11 article, it's pretty clear that the theories have been debunked. Even Bill Clinton and Noam Chomsky said the theories are not scientific.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 7, 2011)




----------



## KissMy (Mar 7, 2011)

*No Controlled Demolition*
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I"]9/11 Conspiracy Theories[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 7, 2011)

Why did I know that eots would deny the engines?  I guess a bunch of people in pickup trucks planted those engine parts without anyone seeing them.

And Eots, the engine parts at the pentagon have been positively identified as coming from a Boeing 757-223.

Now since you have never been able to give a good answer to the inward bowing of the WTC towers, let us try another question.

Why is it in all the truther videos that they start the time of collapse of building 7 when the main roof begins to fall instead of 9 seconds earlier when the first penthouse fell into the interior of the building? Must not fit into the free fall BS.


----------



## miller (Mar 7, 2011)

BrianH said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 7, 2011)

miller said:


> Now it has to make sense.  Nothing you conservative assholes write ever makes sense.  Bush wanted 2 wars and he got 2 wars, both from 9/11.  Does that make sense?
> 
> There are only the same 7 conservatives who keep writing nothing on here.  Where are the other 18,000 members?


they dont give a shit
thats where they are

for us, you are an easy target for ridicule


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 7, 2011)

BrianH said:


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



as usual,your full of shit because it has NOT been debunked.you are too ignorant to know that these engineers that say so, have government contracts who wont get future work if they go along with their version of events. again you slept through science class because the ONLY thing thats been debunked is the version of the governments.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 7, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



you have still yet to debunk that video of mine and oh,that professor at that university will lose his job if he doesnt go along with the governments version the same way Steven Jones and others have.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2011)

miller said:


> Why do people want to fool themselves about anything?



They already know the truth, Abdulha. People just aren't interested in your pathetic lies.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 7, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


the reason they lose their jobs is NO ONE want an insane troofer fucktard teaching their children


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 7, 2011)

BrianH said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



yeah just like your not familiar with  junior high school science.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


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



thats the gomer for you and how he operates.


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



or or building their buildings ? or getting government contracts ? it makes free speech or signing a petitions risky business doesn't it


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 7, 2011)

KissMy said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1WurLaoImE
> ...



funny thats all the NIST and the media did is tell lies just like you are now.again this is for you dummy style.go to the top of a 110 story building,drop an object from that roof,it will fall at around 11 to 12 seconds,those towers collapsed in 11 seconds which=freefall speed.it really gets old calling you out on your outright lies you tell.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


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


i wouldnt hire any of those designers to build a dog house
if they actually believe the bullshit you ascribe to them


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DuSeuxjiJQ



this is another video the OCTA'S can only sling shit in defeat on that explosives brought down bld 7 is Barry Jennings testimony.He is the smoking gun of bld 7 thats why the government got rid of him.


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

divecunt hates us for our freedoms...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 7, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> miller said:
> 
> 
> > Why do people want to fool themselves about anything?
> ...



hate to break your heart but the media and the government are the ones making up pathetic lies.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


> divecunt hates us for our freedoms...


i dont "hate" anyone
especially not idiots like you
LOL
i just laugh at you


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 7, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > miller said:
> ...


yes, and a brown dwarf is heading on a collision course for earth in 8 days
LOL


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


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


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

divecon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > divecunt hates us for our freedoms...
> ...



i would call supporting the firing of professes and blacklisting architectural engineers as kinda hateful


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


> divecunt hates us for our freedoms...



yeah thats why the resident trolls here spends  all hours of the day spewing his crap night and day and has the highest post count earning him the title resident troll.Annie used to have the highest post count but SHE had quality posts though and did not spend her life in this section unlike him.


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



and that has what to do with the collapse of building 7 ?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 7, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> *Military Officers for 9/11 Truth
> Scientists for 9/11 Truth
> Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth » FF 911 Truth
> Scholars For 9/11 Truth
> ...





Like clockwork,everytime you post this it goes ignored,they know they can only sling shit in defeat like the monkeys they are everytime you post this. The truth obviously hurts them. they cant debunk this video below either,nobody ever has.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


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


nothing
just like all the bullshit you post has nothing to do with the actual collapse


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 7, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > *Military Officers for 9/11 Truth
> ...



Didn't I just cover this BS video and all it's little snippets of non information earlier in this thread? Or was that another thread. I forget.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


> or or building their buildings ? or getting government contracts ? it makes free speech or signing a petitions risky business doesn't it



You are free from government restraint of your speech (unless you want to pray to Jesus, have a nativity scene or protest abortion!)

No one guaranteed that you are free from the consequences of your speech.

Twofers are going to be recognized as deranged lunatics, because that's what they are.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


> i would call supporting the firing of professes and blacklisting architectural engineers as kinda hateful



Yes, but then you're clearly deranged so what you call isn't of much value, is it?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8



Are you telling me that you think no matter what the design of the building is, office fires will have the same effect on all of them?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



So there was no other office contents that would have caught fire from the jet fuel?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 7, 2011)

Can anyone tell me why all the truther videos of the collapse of building 7 start 9 seconds after the beginning of the collapse?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 7, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Can anyone tell me why all the truther videos of the collapse of building 7 start 9 seconds after the beginning of the collapse?


because they are dishonest PoS


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Can anyone tell me why all the truther videos of the collapse of building 7 start 9 seconds after the beginning of the collapse?



Allah wants them to start later. Twofers live to serve Allah.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8



Was this building struck by a jet?

Was this building built with the same "tube in tube" design as the towers?


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > or or building their buildings ? or getting government contracts ? it makes free speech or signing a petitions risky business doesn't it
> ...



so you are the sane one and these gentlemen are deranged...lol

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


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8
> ...



was wtc 7 ?


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8
> ...



no I am saying it will not cause a complete collapse in secs


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


> so you are the sane one and these gentlemen are deranged...lol



Whether I'm sane or not is always debatable. 

Twofers are deranged, regardless.

See, if you believe in space aliens, anthropogenic global warming or that George Bush snuck into the WTC and planted shape charges on orders from DA JOOOOOZZZZ, you simply don't have a grasp on reality. 

The event was televised, we saw it go down in real time.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Based on what?

You keep posting buildings that were of fire that did not collapse as a comparison. These buildings were not designed the same nor were they hit by jets.

SO what are you basing this claim on?


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > so you are the sane one and these gentlemen are deranged...lol
> ...



who said I believe in any of the above...except perhaps space aliens, logic would dictate they are out there somewhere and if you count little wee beasties, it appears as if NASA may of have indeed identified the first space aliens..


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



wtc 7 was not hit by a jet....


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



so what building codes were changed as a result of the NIST investigations of the collapse ?....NONE


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



thats always been his logic.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




the kid is now putting words in your mouth you never said.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 7, 2011)

miller said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## BrianH (Mar 7, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Do you realize how stupid you sound?  Your basing your opinion 1450 some-odd engineers and architects.  Now your claiming that the other 10 million people in the U.S. with Architect and Engineer degrees are agents of the government?  THE NUMBERS ARE NOT IN YOUR FAVOR.  THE VAST MAJORITY OF ENGINEERS IN THIS COUNTRY DO NOT BELIEVE THIS CONSPIRACY OR THEY WOULD HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED IT.  Less than 1% of engineers believe this shit....Most likely engineers that were nuttier than squirrel turds before they got their degree.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


> who said I believe in any of the above...



Uh, Twofers kinda to the last one claim Bush did it...



> except perhaps space aliens, logic would dictate they are out there somewhere and if you count little wee beasties, it appears as if NASA may of have indeed identified the first space aliens..



Of course they have, sparky. Peter Pan led the research team.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 7, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Those stupid youtube videos are ridiculous.  Anything can be edited...What we saw happening live on television was not edited.  What MILLIONS saw happen in person cannot be edited.  You're willing to believe the testaments of a "Things" a couple of people may or may not have seen vs. MILLIONS who did not see it?  THE ODDS ARE NOT THERE...  It's the law of probability...if you'd paid attention in math class you'd understand that.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 7, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Whatever dude.  You're only making yourself look like an idiot.  How does it feel to be naive nutsack?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 7, 2011)

BrianH said:


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


that has long been established a fact
LOL


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 7, 2011)

Notice how not one of the truthers has made any attempt to answer my simple questions?


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Notice how not one of the truthers has made any attempt to answer my simple questions?



notice how Ollie makes vague statements without saying wtf he is rambling about?


----------



## BrianH (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


> > Uncensored2008 said:
> >
> >
> > > Uh, Twofers kinda to the last one claim Bush did it...
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

BrianH said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > > seeing as it happened on his watch and because of the 8/11 cover-up report most believe bush was complicit with the crimes of 8/11
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

Several top level NASA researchers have come forward with strong statements about the failures of NIST


http://patriotsquestion911.com/


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 7, 2011)

Scientists for 9/11 Truth
Scholars For 9/11 Truth


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 7, 2011)

Now eots pretends he didn't see the question.

Gotta love this subject.

As I have asked several times now; Why is it that the truther videos always start the collapse of building 7 nine seconds after the penthouse falls into the building. Which by the way sort of proves that the interior had already collapsed before most truthers start their countdown of the "freefall".


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 7, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Now eots pretends he didn't see the question.
> 
> Gotta love this subject.
> 
> As I have asked several times now; Why is it that the truther videos always start the collapse of building 7 nine seconds after the penthouse falls into the building. Which by the way sort of proves that the interior had already collapsed before most truthers start their countdown of the "freefall".




Sir, you have disgraced your country by disobeying your Oath.  You are disgusting. 

Military Officers for 9/11 Truth

As officers in the U.S. military, we took an oath to *"support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Regardless of our current status -- active duty, reserves, retired, or civilian *-- that oath remains in force. Therefore it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, how much we have to suffer, or where it leads us. We owe this to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and we owe it to those who are following that same oath today in Iraq and Afghanistan. We believe the official account of 9/11 as defined in the 9/11 Commission Report is grossly inaccurate and fatally flawed. It is imperative that we have an accurate understanding of 9/11 so that those responsible can be identified and brought to justice in order that they and similarly-minded people never again commit such heinous crimes. It is also imperative that we have an accurate understanding of 9/11 so that governmental policies resulting from 9/11 are based on truth rather than deception.

*We join with other organizations of professionals, such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, and Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, and millions of individual citizens in demanding a thorough, impartial, open and transparent reinvestigation of the terrorist acts of 9/11.*


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 7, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Now eots pretends he didn't see the question.
> ...





thats the understatement of the year.especially about the part  of disgracing his country and his fellow officers.disgusting is putting it mildly and too polite.He is a disgrace to those 3000 plus people in new york and the ones in the pentagon who lost their lives besides the american people and his fellow officers.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 7, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Now eots pretends he didn't see the question.
> ...



And I shall say again. (as I just did a moment ago in the place I can't talk about in public;  Fuck you asshole.

Now have you got an answer or do you just want to play stupid?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 7, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Same goes to you asshole, Answer the question.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 7, 2011)

Why are some posters farting???


*PhysicsExist
This message is hidden because PhysicsExist is on your ignore list.

9/11 inside job
This message is hidden because 9/11 inside job is on your ignore list. *


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 7, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


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



*Exactly, and he should be confronted about it.  Disobeying your Oath is disgusting, and not only that, it is BETRAYAL.  Talk about a coward.  This is one.  Ollie, you're Disgraceful to the 3,000 dead victims and disgraceful to the constitution.   *


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 7, 2011)

So you ask these truthers a question and you get personal attacks.

That's OK I have some broad shoulders. 

If they expect me to get angry and forget the questions for them it won't work.

Show me some Det cord.

Time the fall of Building 7 starting with the collapse of the penthouse.

Explain how the WTC towers had that inward bowing.

You see none of this fits into what they want to be true. So they have to attack.

Bring it assholes, bring it all day long....


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Now eots pretends he didn't see the question.
> 
> Gotta love this subject.
> 
> As I have asked several times now; Why is it that the truther videos always start the collapse of building 7 nine seconds after the penthouse falls into the building. Which by the way sort of proves that the interior had already collapsed before most truthers start their countdown of the "freefall".



so your saying you saw a video and it did not start until after the penthouse collapsed...I see....are you saying it took 9 secs for the penthouse to collapse ?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Now eots pretends he didn't see the question.
> ...


no, dipshit
the penthouse collapsed 9 seconds before the rest


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

> Show me some Det cord.



in the miles of wires and cables in wtc covered in dust do really think first responders would recognize a wire for explosives





> Explain how the WTC towers had that inward bowing


.

secondary explosions


is that all you got ?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Now eots pretends he didn't see the question.
> ...



Actually, reviewing some real videos it was about 6 seconds from the time the penthouse started before the facade showed any signs of movement.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


> > Show me some Det cord.
> 
> 
> in the miles of wires and cables in wtc covered in dust do really think first responders would recognize a wire for explosives
> ...


det cord has a very distinct look
no way it would be confused with anything else

and explosions would cause an OUTWARD bowing, not inward


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

sfc ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



well... I would say 4


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 7, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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



Free Fall can only occur if each support beam is simultaneously removed from WTC 7.  This is only possible in controlled demolitions.  Fact.  And over 1,454 architects and engineers agree with me.  

www.AE911Truth.org
www.BuildingWhat.org
www.NYCCAN.org


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

divecon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > > show me some det cord.
> ...



bullshit...COMPLETE BULLSHIT


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


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


yes, you are full of bullshit


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 7, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


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



and the Officail conspiracy theory apologists can only sling shit in defeat like the monkeys they are.


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

I have used det cord you.... clearly have not


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 7, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


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



None are so blind as those who refuse to see.


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

QUICK... 'DIVE" the con tell a real diver what is distnctive about det-cord


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


> QUICK... 'DIVE" the con tell a real diver what is distnctive about det-cord


its yellow and plastic and doesnt have WIRE in it


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > QUICK... 'DIVE" the con tell a real diver what is distnctive about det-cord
> ...



it comes in a wide variety of colors and looks like telephone wire or internet cable just admit you have no first hand knowledge


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


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


yes, i do
enough to know it woluld be clearly distinguishable from a phone line or Ethernet line


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

DiveCon said:


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



maybe if you cut it open but in a pile of debris and other wires...it would not stand out in any way...


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


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


yes, it would
as would the remained of the detonators


----------



## eots (Mar 7, 2011)

DiveCon said:


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



nonsense...they didn't even find the black boxes


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


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



Owned.

PS. Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth » FF 911 Truth Military Officers for 9/11 Truth Scientists for 9/11 Truth


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 7, 2011)

eots said:


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


the sheer number that would be needed would preclude they wouldnt find ANY


----------



## BrianH (Mar 7, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


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



AND THE OTHER 9.9 MILLION PEOPLE IN THE U.S. WITH ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE DEGREES DON'T....and I've already posted a link.  

You act like 1500 is a big number.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 7, 2011)

BrianH said:


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



What do you expect? He's an imbecile!


----------



## BrianH (Mar 7, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



I've been learning not to expect much...


----------



## candycorn (Mar 7, 2011)

BrianH said:


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



And most of the signatories are no more of an architect or engineer than I am.  One guy built birdhouses from what I remember.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 7, 2011)

candycorn said:


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



And their main architect, Richard "tricky dicky" Gage plays with cardboard boxes.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Mar 7, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


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


Hey Sarge, notice how both of the above douchbags called you "officer".

Christ, troofers are so fuckin' stupid it's laughable.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 7, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



You do know posting this proves 9/11 was a controlled demolition right?

This analogy in this video is perfect.  A Small block of the Same object cannot crush a Bigger block of the same object purely off Gravity.  

You can't even grasp it, and you laugh at it.

LOL

AE911Truth.org 

Great example Mr. Gage.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 7, 2011)

Take it from my personal experience, if you post this on a twoofer site, your account *WILL* be banned within the hour.


And the money quote @ 9:05 in the video:

Dylan Avery: *I DON'T CARE WHAT KIND OF FUCKING EXPERIENCE HE HAS, MAN. I DON'T CARE.*


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 7, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


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



Newton's 3rd Law: Equal and Opposite reaction.

30 stories crushing 70 stories is not equal and opposite, especially with the Free fall acceleration.

This video easily proves this.  But Anti-Truth people cannot accept that.

9/11 Was a controlled demolition.  www.FireFightersfor911Truth.org


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 7, 2011)

*PhysicsExist 	This user is on your Ignore List. *

*Somebody farted.*


----------



## BrianH (Mar 7, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


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



Are you kidding?  This analogy is bogus.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Mar 7, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


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


BULLSHIT!

Weaken that big box like the towers, and then drop lil' box on top of it.

Go ahead. Tell that douchbag in the video to simulate the actual events.

That video is beyond comical. It proves nothing, except for the fact that you loons are so gullible you'll fall for anything

You troofer loons are so bizzare it's disturbing


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 7, 2011)

BrianH said:


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



You must excuse him. He lives in Santa Barbara CA, down the street from Christophera's boycave.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 7, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


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


idiot


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 7, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



Oh, and dropping an 8 ounce corrugated cardboard box on top of a 30 ounce corrugated cardboard box performs exactly the same as a real world structure of steel columns weighing thousands of tons.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 7, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



I can't believe they're passing this off as evidence.  These boxes have reinforced sides and are ONE COMPLETE STRUCTURE.  They are one piece of cardboard folded into a box shape.  The towers were not reinforced but were made of GLASS.  The only thing holding them up were support beams.  Make a tower full of tooth picks, put a bunch of weight on them, and then throw a softball at it and see if you have the same result.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 7, 2011)

BrianH said:


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



You must excuse FizzlesExists. He's Californian.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Mar 7, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


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


Wonder why Gage doesn't let it be known that those are basic shipping boxes. They all have the same strength/crush rating regardless of size.

The whole thing is friggin' comical. It proves Jack Shit.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 7, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


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



If he did, he would have to admit he was dumber than THIS clown.

http://www.youtube.com/user/chriswgood71#p/a/u/0/lBuH8NNIBys


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 7, 2011)

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


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 7, 2011)

more spam


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 7, 2011)

Life is good.

*This message is hidden because PhysicsExist is on your ignore list. *


----------



## BrianH (Mar 8, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


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



I've spent a little time this evening trying to look up some of these "Scientists and Engineers" that are the signatories of the so called petitions that your posting links to.  Several of these guys can't even be googled.  Alot of them have facebook pages only, and at least one is an olympic bronze medalist....MANY DON'T EVEN WORK IN THE FIELD THIS RELATES TO.  THESE ARE NOBODIES who have signed this crap.  There may be one or two distinguished personnel on this list, but the vast majority are not well known and thus, uncredible....especially since these 1500 "architects and engineers" you refer to are certainly not the majority of the 10 million in the U.S.


----------



## eots (Mar 8, 2011)

brianh said:


> physicsexist said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



its not anyones fault but your own you cant follow links .and why do you keep repeating the same nonsense ...you can not possible claim any engineer that has not risked his career signing a petion  supports the nist theory...are you really that simple ?


----------



## eots (Mar 8, 2011)

brianh said:


> physicsexist said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



when are you going to post some engineers outside of popular mechanics or  nist that have voiced support for the nist theory ?...try posting 10


----------



## BrianH (Mar 8, 2011)

eots said:


> brianh said:
> 
> 
> > physicsexist said:
> ...



"The American Society of Civil Engineers and FEMA conducted an in-depth investigation of the World Trade Center. The team members included the director of the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the senior fire investigator for the National Fire Protection Association, professors of fire safety, and leaders of some of the top building design and engineering firms, including Skidmore Owings & Merrill in Chicago, Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire in Seattle, and Greenhorne & O&#65533;Mara in Maryland."

"I made a few calls myself, including to Gene Corley, who conducted the American Society of Civil Engineers/FEMA study, and to Mete Sozen, structural engineering professor at Purdue, who was one of the principal authors of &#65533;The Pentagon Building Performance Report&#65533; of January 2003, which was done under the auspices of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineering Institute. I also contacted engineering professors at MIT and other leading universities in the country, and none of them puts any stock in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. In fact, they view them as a huge waste of time. They are busy trying to figure out how to prevent buildings from falling in the future."



Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already

The American Society of Civil Engineers are full of engineers.  Certainly more than 10.  And I didn't get this from NIST or Popular Mechanics...


----------



## eots (Mar 8, 2011)

brianh said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > brianh said:
> ...



 You did not even post one....I do not want to read some debwunkers editorial rants of denial or fema...Can you provide.independent engineers that have endorsed the nist report


----------



## BrianH (Mar 8, 2011)

eots said:


> brianh said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Here's two that agree with the report.  One is a team leader for the American Society of Civil Engineers, and one is the President of the Structural Engineer Institute.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 8, 2011)

Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

128,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers do not question the NIST report.

80,000 Members of the American Institute of Architects do not question the NIST report.

120,000 members of the American Society of Mechanical Enineers do not question the NIST report.

370,000 members of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers do not question the NIST report.

40,000 members of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers do not question the NIST report.

35,000 members of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics do not question the NIST report.

This site is a blogsite for ENGINEERS


----------



## BrianH (Mar 8, 2011)

Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse: Small list of Engineers

Here's a list of a few engineers for you


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 8, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Why didn't you answer the question eots?

Why do you use buildings of dissimilar design and damage type when comparing how the towers and WTC7 SHOULD have not collapsed?

I'll ask you yet again.

Do any of the buildings you compare to the towers and WTC7 have the same structural design AND were they hit by a jet? The jet caused damage to the structural components. The fire further weakened them.

Why won't you answer?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 8, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Truthers do not answer questions.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 8, 2011)

eots said:


> apples and oranges



Yup, apples and oranges. You're quite famous for making these types of comparison to try and further your views, but never answer the tough questions.

For example, comparing this building collapse from fire alone...


eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8



To this...





And this...





Can you please tell all of us here what structural and damage characteristics were similar between building in video YOU posted above and the Twin Towers/WTC7 that you think were similar in order to make that comparison. That the towers and WTC7 should have reacted exactly like the building in your video and remained standing.

Let's see if your intelligent enough to do that.

Otherwise, you're full of shit.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 8, 2011)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Now eots pretends he didn't see the question.
> ...



Here's the video eots.

The penthouse starts it's collapse into the building at :12. The global collapse doesn't start until :19. The top of the outer facade doesn't disappear from sight until :23. 

Ollie's question is why do all the videos posted by truthers all start at :19 when the facade starts? Why do they always say the collapse happened at free fall when it didn't? Only a portion of it did. Why is the penthouse collapse not shown in the truther videos?

Answer me this. If the facade collapsed at freefall because the columns were cut with thermite or explosives, why didn't the free fall start until .8 seconds AFTER the start of the descent? According to you "physics experts" the columns were removed thus creating free fall right? If that were the case, free fall would have started from the moment the facade started to fall.

No truther has ever been able to answer this.

How about it PhysicsExist? Care to answer this one? Eots? Anyone?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 8, 2011)

We all know they can't answer it. The answer proves they are wrong.


----------



## eots (Mar 8, 2011)

Gamolon said:


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



because the center columns were blown .8 secs before the rest...


----------



## eots (Mar 8, 2011)

why didn't the entire internal structure collapsing within not create massive amounts of noise and dust as this mas of destruction occurred behind the facade...did it all fall silently ? ?


----------



## eots (Mar 8, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > apples and oranges
> ...



there were several buildings in the video I posted...are you saying the design of wtc 7 was faulted in the collapse...what changes to building code were made as a result of these design flaws ??


----------



## Wicked Jester (Mar 8, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


And how were they blown?

No evidence has ever been found. No explosions relating to a controlled demolition were ever heard......No witness to the placement of explosives has ever been found.

What was used to blow it up.


----------



## eots (Mar 8, 2011)

damage did not play  signification role in the collapse of wtc 7 according to NIST


----------



## eots (Mar 8, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



No investigation for explosive residues was ever done there are many reports of explosions


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 8, 2011)

eots said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Get your fucking head straight, secondary explosions are normal in a high rise fire. Secondary explosions do not take out support columns. There were no explosions that could be called controlled demolition reported. There were no explosions that could be called controlled demolition recorded. Because there were none. Zero. Zip. Nada.


----------



## eots (Mar 8, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 8, 2011)

eots said:


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


----------



## Wicked Jester (Mar 8, 2011)

eots said:


> damage did not play  signification role in the collapse of wtc 7 according to NIST


LMAO!
[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8&NR=1[/ame]
At 1:25 Shyam Sunder clearly explains the severity of the damage. What he says is backed up in the video footage and pictures of the building.

Firefighters on scene well before the collapse said the building was going to collapse. that sections of it were leaning. That collapse was inevitable.

Christ man, how can you people be so friggin' gullible to be led around by a bunch of morons making a quick buck off of you people?


----------



## eots (Mar 8, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > damage did not play  signification role in the collapse of wtc 7 according to NIST
> ...



according to NIST there was no leaning and damage played no significantl role in the collapse...So once again the debwunkers reject the NIST  theory they claim to support...if damage and leaning is a factor the entire NIST collapse scenario and computer simulation will not create the desired results..you support a theories that you do not even comprehend


----------



## BrianH (Mar 8, 2011)

EOTS...is there any particular reason you have ignored my post!?


----------



## Wicked Jester (Mar 8, 2011)

eots said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


Fire was the main cause of the collapse, aided by damage to the structure.

Do you even understand how that building was constructed?


----------



## eots (Mar 8, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



not according to NIST...deal with it


----------



## Wicked Jester (Mar 8, 2011)

eots said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


LMAO!

We all know what Sumder said about the damage.

But hey, at least you're acknowledging that the fires did contribute to the collapse. Because well, THEY DID!......I mean, fire weakens steel, eh?


----------



## Wicked Jester (Mar 8, 2011)

BrianH said:


> EOTS...is there any particular reason you have ignored my post!?


----------



## eots (Mar 8, 2011)

wicked jester said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > wicked jester said:
> ...



none of your drivel changes the findings of NIST and the fact you are in contradiction with those findins


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 8, 2011)

Eots has this problem with comprehension.

He has been told probably 100 times or more that most people believe that the 911 CR and NIST got all the main points correct.

That some of us believe that the damage to WTC 7 played a role in it's collapse makes eots think we are saying that NIST is completely wrong.

Eots can't understand how we can disagree with any one point yet still not believe him and his cronies with their wild theories.

Hey eots, all you have to understand is that there was no controlled demolition. That easy enough for you?


----------



## eots (Mar 8, 2011)

BrianH said:


> EOTS...is there any particular reason you have ignored my post!?



BECAUSE ALL YOU HAVE DONE IS POST OFFICIAl STATEMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS THEN CLAIM ALL MEMBERS OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS ALL AGREE WITH NISTs FINDINGS...YOU HAVE POSTED NO INDEPENDENT ENGINEERS THAT SUPPORT THE NIST FINDINGS....AND MOST CERTAINLY NOT 1400


----------



## eots (Mar 8, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Eots has this problem with comprehension.
> 
> He has been told probably 100 times or more that most people believe that the 911 CR and NIST got all the main points correct.
> 
> ...



FUCK ARE YOU DUMB...YOU CAN NOT REJECT THIS PART OF NISTs FINDINGS BECAUSE IF YOU DO THE COMMUTER MODEL  THEY USE THE PROVE THEIR THEORY WILL NOT WORK AND IT IS BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD...TALK ABOUT COMPREHENSION PROBLEMS


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 8, 2011)

retreaders suck donkey dicks


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 9, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



What a fucking moron!!!!

You are here arguing this bullshit and you don't even understand what your truther brethren are claiming!! You look REAL intelligent now.

WAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! This takes the cake.

Let me explain it for you. The claim is that the out perimeter fell at free fall. The moment the top edge of the facade began to fall is when you dumbasses claim the columns were all cut. This is the reason you guys post the video of WTC7 collapsing WITHOUT the penthouse or center columns shown to have collapsed. Which is what Ollie has asked you a number of times and you balk at it like a weasel.

The .8 seconds is AFTER the outer facade begins to descend. After .8 seconds has gone by, that's when the 2 seconds of free fall occurred. Next is a screen capture from David Chandler's video. The one you truthers used to prove the supposed free fall and demolition.





You see that area circled in red? That's the .8 seconds of no free fall. Then the free starts and continues for 2.25 seconds. The very left of the graph is the start of the facade descent.

So no, the .8 is not when the center columns were cut dipshit. It's when the perimeter facade starts to fall.




What a moron!


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 9, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Answer my question numbnuts.

Which of those buildings in the videos you posted have the same structural and damage characteristics as the towers and WTC7? I want to know how you are making a comparison that the three buildings that colapsed should have reacted the same as all the buildings in your video that you compare.

Example. Is a semi truck's structure going to react the same way as a Mini Cooper's structure being struck from behind by an SUV? They're both vehicles right. Is a Mini Cooper's structure going to react the same way and a VW Bug's structrure when struck from behind by an SUV?

So answer the question. What similar characteristics in your video do the buildings share in structrural design and damage that you can make a comparison? 

Apples to apples, right eots?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 9, 2011)

eots said:


> wicked jester said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Kind of like you using certain points from Dr. Quintiere to try prove your crap, but then not believing other parts of what he says.

Nice.


----------



## eots (Mar 9, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > wicked jester said:
> ...




all I say is you are a raving lunatic...I am simple saying if the failure of column 79 due to fire could  initiate collapse ..then logical so could removing that column with other means...ie;explosives

and as far as the rest of your drivel goes I think you are the one that looks like a fool


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

&#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


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 9, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



That's what I thought dipshit. I hand you your ass and you can't say a damn thing about it.

How does it feel to look as stupid as you do?

Learn what you are arguing about before opening your piehole and making moronic claims and comments.





			
				eots said:
			
		

> because the center columns were blown .8 secs before the rest...



Not to bright are you? Try putting the weed down once in a while.


----------



## eots (Mar 9, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 9, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 9, 2011)

And yet the good Doctor does not believe there was any controlled demolition.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 9, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> And yet the good Doctor does not believe there was any controlled demolition.



Exactly.


----------



## eots (Mar 9, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> And yet the good Doctor does not believe there was any controlled demolition.



 His actual quote was he thinks he has a _more likely hypothesis_ and thats fine and does nothing to change the fact that he feels the investigation is seriously flawed and fact finding was deterred and blocked by the government...does it


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 9, 2011)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > And yet the good Doctor does not believe there was any controlled demolition.
> ...


but he thinks troofers are "nutters"


----------



## eots (Mar 9, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 9, 2011)

divecon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



do you have a link...of course not because you are a liar


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 9, 2011)

eots said:


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


i told you, dipshit, it was in an email
so no link
LOL
you are fucking insane
and 90% of the public knows it


----------



## eots (Mar 9, 2011)

divecon said:


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



really 90 % of the public ..so do you have a link to that one ?

No of course you dont because it all takes place in divecunts delusional imaginings


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 9, 2011)

eots said:


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


LOL you are such a fucking Id-Eots


----------



## eots (Mar 9, 2011)




----------



## DiveCon (Mar 9, 2011)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyazU4FJPK4


watched the first 40 seconds and there were so many lies its funny


----------



## eots (Mar 9, 2011)

divecon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyazu4fjpk4
> ...



you are mental  and  a compulsive liar and all those seeking a new investigation... Feel sorry for you and hope you get help


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 9, 2011)

eots said:


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


LOL yeah, i'm mental
project much?


----------



## eots (Mar 9, 2011)

divecon said:


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



yes..clearly some kind of psychological disorder drives you and furthermore.... _everyone knows_


----------



## Obamerican (Mar 9, 2011)

eots said:


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


that you're a worthless piece of shit?


----------



## eots (Mar 10, 2011)

obamerican said:


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



dwivys little retarded friend obama comes to his little buddys defense to the best of his limited ability...how cute


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 10, 2011)

eots said:


> obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


what a waste of skin you are
go smoke another joint
LOL


----------



## Obamerican (Mar 10, 2011)

eots said:


> obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


And you're still a sock of 9/11 Inside Job which everyone knows is a total fucking idiot.

Fuck off, bitch.


----------



## eots (Mar 10, 2011)

Seriously dwivy get a life ,,move on...,get some therapy...find some propose in life


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 10, 2011)

eots said:


> Seriously dwivy get a life ,,move on...,get some therapy...find some propose in life


LOL
you should be the one seeking theraphy dude
you are fucking INSANE


----------



## eots (Mar 10, 2011)

No way, you are....and... Everybody knows


----------



## eots (Mar 10, 2011)




----------



## DiveCon (Mar 10, 2011)

eots said:


> No way, you are....and... Everybody knows


everyone????
LOL
you and your little clique of dipshits?
LOL


----------



## elvis (Mar 10, 2011)

hey eots, when it comes to van halen, do like roth or hagar?   

I can't decide.


----------



## eots (Mar 10, 2011)

Roth doing the kinks was  as good  as van halen gets it was all a slow downward spiral from there


----------



## eots (Mar 10, 2011)




----------



## elvis (Mar 10, 2011)

and the other one.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 10, 2011)

eots said:


> THE NIST QUOTE IS THERE HAVE BEEN SIMILAR FIRES IN BUILDINGS OF SIMILAR CONSTRUCTION ..SO AGAIN GO ARGUE WITH NIST..NOWHERE WAS THE DESIGN OF WTC 7 CALLED INTO QUESTIONS...NO BUILDING CODES WHERE CHANGED AS A RESULT ...YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT AND FLINGING LIKE  THEW MONKEY YOU ARE



Really? Link that quote please. I want to see where NIST says that. I'm having a hard time finding 110 story buildings with a tube in tube design that caught fire.

I'll wait right here for your link.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 10, 2011)

Eots.

Still waiting for you to explain the .8 seconds of non free fall. You and your cohorts claim that the outer perimeter facade came down because of thermite/explosives. And the proof that it was a controlled demolition was that the facade came down at free fall for 2.25 seconds.

Your little bitch, PhysicsExist, says that NO RESISTANCE EQUALS FREE FALL. 

So if the outer facade had all its columns at the same time, why was there .8 seconds of non free fall per Chandler's study BEFORE the actual free fall occurred?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 10, 2011)

eots said:


> and as far as the rest of your drivel goes I think you are the one that looks like a fool
> 
> 
> *Dr. Quintiere, one of the worlds leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists'
> ...



Interesting.

Why did you leave out part of his quote eots? Here is the FULL quote. I highlighted the part you left out. Anything to try and make you d-bags look good huh?



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



Looks like he thinks you guys need to pull your heads out of your collective asses and look at the correct issues, not some made up thermite/explosive theories.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 10, 2011)

eots said:


> NO BUILDING CODES WHERE CHANGED AS A RESULT ...YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT AND FLINGING LIKE  THEW MONKEY YOU ARE



Read it and weep jackass. Here is a link to NISTs recommendations for code changes.

NIST and the World Trade Center


----------



## eots (Mar 10, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > THE NIST QUOTE IS THERE HAVE BEEN SIMILAR FIRES IN BUILDINGS OF SIMILAR CONSTRUCTION ..SO AGAIN GO ARGUE WITH NIST..NOWHERE WAS THE DESIGN OF* WTC 7 *CALLED IN  TO QUESTION...NO BUILDING CODES WHERE CHANGED AS A RESULT ...YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT AND FLINGING LIKE  THEW MONKEY YOU ARE
> ...



that was in reference to the the wtc 7...but then you already knew that


----------



## eots (Mar 10, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > NO BUILDING CODES WHERE CHANGED AS A RESULT ...YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT AND FLINGING LIKE  THEW MONKEY YOU ARE
> ...



AND THE WORD RECOMMENDATIONS...JUST PASSED YOU BY ?

they made very vague recommendations nothing else....but then you already knew that... strike two


----------



## eots (Mar 10, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > and as far as the rest of your drivel goes I think you are the one that looks like a fool
> ...



So what is a *conspiracy theorist*... in the proper way ?...

strike 3...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 10, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



He certainly wasn't talking about you 911 or PE..... or anyone who thinks like you fools.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 10, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Funny, I tried putting...

http://that was in reference to the the wtc 7...but then you already knew that

...into my browser, but it gave me an error.

Can you please repost that link to where NIST is quoted as saying that?

Thanks.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 10, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Why'd you leave that part out eots?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 10, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



And the third column to the right with the heading "Outcomes" just passed YOU by?

You're a dumbass.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 10, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



The kind that doesn't think thermite and explosives were used to bring the towers and WTC7 down you moron.


----------



## eots (Mar 10, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



so you believe arbitrarily ruling out  explosions playing a role in the collapse is a Good investigative practice in the event of 3 buildings collapsing in secs through terrorism...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 10, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




There is no evidence that calls for any further testing for controlled demolition. Waste of time and money.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 11, 2011)

eots said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > EOTS...is there any particular reason you have ignored my post!?
> ...



LOL. This is all you can come up with?  There is a list of more than 10 engineers on the site that I posted.  THIS WAS YOUR CHALLENGE...

The site I posted ALSO proves that more engineers do not question the NIST report while only 1400 do.  Your entire THEORY is mathematically outnumbered by certified and credited engineers. I figured you would discredit my link...typical of you.  This site is made by engineers for engineers.......


----------



## BrianH (Mar 11, 2011)

EOTS why don't you go back to the link I posted and read a little more into, rather than spending five minutes looking at it.  The dates to the right side of the page list NUMEROUS engineers and their findings about the falling of the towers and building seven.  There are studies done by organizations and individuals....  And let's keep in mind that the hundreds of thousdans, if not millinos, of othe architects and engineers do not question the NIST, then it's more than likely they don't think it's a conspiracy.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 11, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Are you going to answer this or not?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 11, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



If you see someone get shot in the head with a bullet do you look for a knife as the murder weapon?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 11, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Arbitrarily ruling out? Do you even know what "arbitrarily" means?

So the K9 units that went over the debris piles and never ONCE alerted anyone to explosives or incendiaries doesn't tell you anything?


----------



## eots (Mar 11, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



NO...but  you still forensically determine if it is indeed the cause of death...sherlock


----------



## eots (Mar 11, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



NIST did no investigation and cited no explosion were heard as the reason..


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 11, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



No K9 staged at the debris piles alerted anyone to any explosives or incendiaries...sherlock.

Are you going to answer any of the other questions?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 11, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



If the dogs didn't find anything, why would there be reason to believe there were explosives/thermite present?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 11, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


its that lack of evidence that needs to be investigated


----------



## eots (Mar 11, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



to rope you in...So I could watch you ignore everything else he said and try and pretend conspiracy theory does not mean he believes NIST is involved in intentional cover-up


----------



## eots (Mar 11, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Now you are trying to pretend there were bomb sniffing dogs...lol... I guess that means the planes had no black boxes as well...because the dogs didn't find them...lol


----------



## eots (Mar 11, 2011)

BrianH said:


> EOTS why don't you go back to the link I posted and read a little more into, rather than spending five minutes looking at it.  The dates to the right side of the page list NUMEROUS engineers and their findings about the falling of the towers and building seven.  There are studies done by organizations and individuals....  And let's keep in mind that the hundreds of thousdans, if not millinos, of othe architects and engineers do not question the NIST, then it's more than likely they don't think it's a conspiracy.



nonsense


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 11, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



No investigation? You're a fucking liar...



			
				NIST said:
			
		

> NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NISTs dedicated Web site, NIST and the World Trade Center. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.
> 
> Some 200 technical expertsincluding about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academiareviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 11, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Why'd you leave that bolded part above out of your quote?


----------



## eots (Mar 11, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



where in there does it say they tested for explosives you fucking moron


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 11, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


they didnt find any evidence there were explosives, so why test for it


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 11, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Why don't you educate yourself a little more instead of smoking all that weed.

Go look up what K9 rescue dogs are cross trained in. Maybe you won't look so stupid in the future.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 11, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You said they did NO INVESTIGATION.

As I showed you, they DID do an investigation and nothing lead them to believe that there were explosives or thermite involved you jackass.



What a damn moron.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 11, 2011)

eots said:


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



So you admit to leaving out pertinent parts of a quote???

Glad you finally admitted to dishonest fuckstick.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 11, 2011)

Still waiting for that quote from NIST that you say exists.

You know. The one where they said buildings of similar structural design caught fire and did not collapse?

I'll wait here for it.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 11, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



No comment eots?

Or are you busy pulling your foot out of your mouth?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 11, 2011)

I'm still waiting to find out why the truthers don't count the collapse of the penthouse as part of the collapse of building 7......

Also still waiting to hear how they can explain away the indents of the towers before they began to fall.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 11, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> I'm still waiting to find out why the truthers don't count the collapse of the penthouse as part of the collapse of building 7......
> 
> Also still waiting to hear how they can explain away the indents of the towers before they began to fall.


because it doesnt fit with their stupid meme


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 11, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still waiting to find out why the truthers don't count the collapse of the penthouse as part of the collapse of building 7......
> ...





Same reason eots left out part of the Quintiere quote. 

Same reason eots or anyone else won't address the .8 seconds of NON FREE FALL that preceded the 2.25 seconds of free fall.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 11, 2011)

Gamolon said:


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


yup
same reason he doesnt like it when i tell him that Dr Q called troofers "nutters" in an email reply to me


----------



## eots (Mar 11, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



how about you post a link saying bomb sniffing dogs searched for explosives in the debris you lying fuck


----------



## eots (Mar 11, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



yet another lie...


----------



## eots (Mar 11, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Still waiting for that quote from NIST that you say exists.
> 
> You know. The one where they said buildings of similar structural design caught fire and did not collapse?
> 
> I'll wait here for it.



it is in the opening statements of the wtc 7 final report


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 11, 2011)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


nope, 100% true


----------



## eots (Mar 11, 2011)

DiveCon said:


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



you are totally delusional....


----------



## eots (Mar 11, 2011)

what kind of freak would tell you they have secret e-mails they cant post and expect to be believed...you are a  clown


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 11, 2011)

eots said:


> what kind of freak would tell you they have secret e-mails they cant post and expect to be believed...you are a  clown


who said anything about secret or cant publish?
LOL
you are the delusional one
i said i WOULDNT post it, dipshit


----------



## eots (Mar 11, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > what kind of freak would tell you they have secret e-mails they cant post and expect to be believed...you are a  clown
> ...



because you couldn't...dipshit clown


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 12, 2011)

eots said:


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


of course i could have, dipshit
i CHOOSE not to
because i know you would have only claimed it was fake anyway
ASSHOLE


----------



## eots (Mar 12, 2011)

you are a fake...and a liar


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 12, 2011)

eots said:


> you are a fake...and a liar


find his address, dipshit
and ask him yourself


----------



## eots (Mar 12, 2011)

*I  CAN SEE IT NOW*



DEAR DR DR Q..
My name is divecon
what do you think about TWOOFERS

DEAR DIVECON...I think they are nutters
sincerely DR Q


----------



## eots (Mar 12, 2011)

This is funnier than when agent fizz claimed he met atta in a strip bar..


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 12, 2011)

eots said:


> *I  CAN SEE IT NOW*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


no, thats about what you would do
but why dont you try emailing him
his address is available


----------



## x_anima (Mar 12, 2011)

miller said:


> At the top left corner there is 1 photo.  1+1=2
> 
> CAN YOU SEE THE PHOTO?  CAN YOU COUNT TO TWO?



It has nothing to do with 1+1=2 pal, it has to do with you inserting only ONE PHOTO. Everyone else sees this but you?

Also, outlawing "conservatives" is the same as trying to outlaw "liberals" or "democrats" or "libertarians".. works both ways, and both ways are ignorant and stupid.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 12, 2011)

eots said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > EOTS why don't you go back to the link I posted and read a little more into, rather than spending five minutes looking at it.  The dates to the right side of the page list NUMEROUS engineers and their findings about the falling of the towers and building seven.  There are studies done by organizations and individuals....  And let's keep in mind that the hundreds of thousdans, if not millinos, of othe architects and engineers do not question the NIST, then it's more than likely they don't think it's a conspiracy.
> ...



Says the guy that can't refute this....

Yo challenged me to find 10 because you assumed it couldn't be done.  Now you up the number to 1400...typical.  I think you refuse to believe otherwise...simple as that.


----------



## eots (Mar 12, 2011)

brianh said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > brianh said:
> ...



no you might find ten...but you cant just post a statement from a large and somewhat generic groups and pretend all of its members sign off on it...it is nothing like individual engineers going on record with their individual opinion and the reasons for their conclusions


----------



## BrianH (Mar 12, 2011)

eots said:


> brianh said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



There's no reason for them to.  That's the nature of what you are talking about.  The only reason conspiracist are known is because they disagree with the NORM.  

You're not going to see individual statements from each and every civil and structural engineer in the field because most of them agree as to why the towers fell.   All of the sane engineers in the field aren't going to start their own individual websites explaining why the NIST report was accurate.  The NIST report said what needed to be said.  There's no sense explaining it two, three, or 10 million times over.  I'm not claiming that they did a "bang-up" job on it or weren't 100% accurate, but obviously more engineers than not feel that it is possilbe that the towers and building 7 fell from the conditions present... OTHERWISE, you would have a national movement of the majority of engineers wanting truth...which is not the case.  You have 1400 out of 10 million that are questioning it.  And let's not also forget to mention that some of those 1400 are not even from the U.S.  You're comparing apples to oranges in this respect.  The only reason you can find 1400 9/11 "truth" sites is because every moron who wants to disagree feels he or she has to make a statement about it and stack boxes up and explain why it's not possible to have happened...  You have the burden of proof because you're trying to disagree with the majority of engineers.  For some odd reason, you believe that because 1400 engineers from around the world have signed some petition, and that the other 10 million haven't signed a petition of support of the NIST, then that makes you right...


----------



## BrianH (Mar 12, 2011)

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Read this whole page....
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

They use the turm "Pull" to describe actually pulling the building away from other buildings so that it doesn't fall a certian direction.  This is also illustrated with actual pictures of the cables being used to pull building 6.  

Also, it talks about Silverstein's comments to the fire commander about "pulling" building seven.  Neither of the two men in the conversation are in the demolition business.  The term "pull" in the firefighting community is to literally PULL men from the building.  Read the entire page on the site above and notice the HOLES in the conspiracy movement.  These modern conspiracist strategically leave out bits and pieces of video and evidence because it will prove them wrong.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 12, 2011)

eots said:


> brianh said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


why not? you do


----------



## BrianH (Mar 12, 2011)

Here's a tenative re-enactment of the particular manner in which EOTS debates.

EOTS:  9/11 was a government conspiracy.

Poster:  Why do you think that?

EOTS:  Here's the evidence.  (Youtube video)(Individual website)(etc...)

Poster:  Well here's some evidence that refutes your evidence (credible website)

EOTS:  No it doesn't.  Nonsense

Poster:  Did you even look at the site?

EOTS:  The guy that posted that doesn't even work there anymore so he's not credible.

Poster:  Well how about these guys?  (Other credible websites)

EOTS:  That's not a credible source. 

And it goes on and on.

It seems to me EOTS that you are willing to discredit any person, place, or thing that has any type of character flaw whatsover.  You constantly discredit other people's "evidence" while ensuring that the chopped up and edited videos you post from youtube are the "say-all, end-all" of the discussion.  You post evidence first, then it gets refuted by evidence from someone else, then you don't respond with more evidence, but discredit where they got the evidence.   You challenge people to go on goose chases to find things that you believe don't exist, and then ignore the challenge when those very same people actually succeed.  

You have yet to prove this is a conspiracy Eots, and the only one who is posting discredible information is you.  These conspiracy videos leave out ALOT of video that would, otherwise, go against what the conspirator was trying to accomplish in the first place.  I think you really need to research your own movement before assuming that this was an inside job...which is obviously not the common implication among the majority of engineers and architects. (Shown by the site I posted as well as common sense)


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 12, 2011)

The OCTA trolls like Brian can only sling shit in defeat like the monkeys they are.

He knows he cant refute the evidence here so he can only fling shit in defeat.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 12, 2011)

BrianH said:


> http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
> 
> Read this whole page....
> Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7
> ...



hate to break your heart but those firemen were long gone out of there of bld 7 by the time silverstein made that statement.funny how you also ignore that silverstein refers to the firemen-people as It. yeah right. also you still keep flinging shit because you cant debunk Barry Jennings testimony of bld 7 or this video.

you Bush/Obama dupes have to make shit up to try and save face in your posts everytime this video is shown that is when you DONT ignore it which is usually almost the case 99 out of a 100 times. that lady at the end of that video hit the nail on the head,she is talking about you OCTA'S. You also always have to fling shit in defeat making up crap to try and save face in your posts when these links are shown to you.
Active Thermitics Made Simple

Explosive Residues: Energetic Materials and the World Trade Center Destruction


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 12, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
> ...



Damn, same video I picked apart less than 2 weeks ago. You really need some new material....


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 12, 2011)

back for your usual ass beatings to be the monkey you are and fling shit in defeat I see Gomer.


----------



## eots (Mar 12, 2011)

BrianH said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > brianh said:
> ...


----------



## BrianH (Mar 12, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> The OCTA trolls like Brian can only sling shit in defeat like the monkeys they are.
> 
> He knows he cant refute the evidence here so he can only fling shit in defeat.
> 
> ...



Have you read my past 10 posts?  If so you would be eating your own shit....  There's nothing false about what I have posted....just because doofers like you tend to post videos that edit out parts of building collapses that discredit their claim doesn't mean you have to spread you lies around to everyone.   Once again...why don't the other 9.9 million engineers and architects come forward and sign your stupid petition?  Oh yeah, because they're not tards like you.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 12, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
> ...



The only dipshit here is you numbnuts.  The fire chief already acknowledges that Silverstein and he talked about pulling firefighters from the building and surrounding area because of fearing it would collapse.  Silverstein ALSO has acknowledged that he WASN'T speaking in demolition terms when he said to pull the building.     I think the bad part is that you know you're an idiot.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 12, 2011)

eots said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 12, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> back for your usual ass beatings to be the monkey you are and fling shit in defeat I see Gomer.



The only ass you've ever beat was your own. I thoroughly debunked your video less than 2 weeks ago, might have even been in this thread. But damned if i'll waste my time looking back for you. You simply aren't worth the trouble.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 12, 2011)

Go to the debunking site I posted and look at the 5th and 6th picutre down that actually shows crews PULLING the buildings with cables...  But of course you'll deny this also...or be too lazy to actually look at the link I post.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 12, 2011)

http://www.debunking911.com/civil.htm

Letter to the Editor 
Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory 

April 09, 2006 
Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report.* In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.*
The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/04/09/443801bdadd6e 

[Dr. Firmage uses unfortunate language in his letter.

"To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing."

I give that quote about one month before it's taken out of context...]



"*I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering*
BYU Civil and Environmental Engineering 

*"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department *BYU - Page Not Found 

"But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F."

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Professor Williams received his BSE from Princeton University in 1955 and his PhD from California Institute of Technology in 1958. He then taught at Harvard University until 1964, at which time he joined the UCSD faculty. In January 1981, Professor Williams accepted the Robert H. Goddard Chair in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University, where he remained until 1988, when he returned to UCSD to assume his present position. His field of specialization is combustion, and he is author of Combustion Theory (Addison, Wesley, 2nd ed., 1985) and co-author of Fundamental Aspects of Combustion (Oxford, 1993). He is a deputy editor of Combustion and Flame and a member of the editorial advisory boards of Combustion Science and Technology, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science and Archivium Combustionis.

Redirection 

"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin"

Page Not Found 

"Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years." - Van D. Romero, Ph.D. in Physics 

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~red/van.html 

PopularMechanics.com Science - RSS Feed


The conspiracy sites are quick to point out these civil engineers haven't taken their valuable time away from their students, families and jobs to critique Professor Jones' 42 page unpublished report line by line. The inference drawn from this is they are just dismissing it out of hand without really looking at it. Or if they are looking at it, they're stumped by the incredibly flawless nature of this 42 page report. It's easier to just say it's wrong than have to address this masterpiece of forensic science. But why doesn't any civil engineer want to win the Nobel prize, write books, get on Oprah and become a national hero by exposing the greatest mass murder in US history? This is a little harder to explain.



You see?  Even Jones' own collegeus think he is wrong and that his HYPOTHESIS is inconsistent with the evidence...


----------



## eots (Mar 12, 2011)

interesting not one mention of building 7


----------



## eots (Mar 12, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and controlled demolition - Structural and Civil Engineers against Controlled Demolition
> 
> Letter to the Editor
> Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
> ...



btw none of none the links work and anything connected to the popular mechanics is highly suspect and the editorial blurb at the end is anything but science



*David L. Griscom, PhD &#8211; Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service.  Fellow of the American Physical Societ*y.  Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997).  Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and* Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003).  Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, U*niversity of Arizona (2004 - 2005).  Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996* Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers.  Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.*


Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True:  This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives.  [Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories.  It would have been the tallest building in 33 states.  Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers.  However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."  Watch the collapse video here.  And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.]

... I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics. 

The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the "official" assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs (1) does not match the available facts and (2) has led directly to the deplorable Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions, and the repeal of habeas corpus (a fundamental point of law that has been with us since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215). 

Surely these Orwellian consequences of public ignorance constitute more than sufficient motivation for any patriotic American physicist or engineer to join the search for 9/11 Truth!" http://impactglassman


Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice   Association Statement: "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization consisting of independent researchers and activists engaged in uncovering the true nature of the September 11, 2001 attacks."


Bio: David L Griscom PhD Physicist bio






Dwain Deets, MS Eng


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

*Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:*



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


Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 1,400 Architects and Engineers:


----------



## eots (Mar 12, 2011)

*Paul Stevenson Oles, M.Arch, FAIA &#8211; Fellow, American Institute of Architects. For his work in architectural illustration, Paul Stevenson Oles received an AIA Institute Honor in 1983, and was elevated to Fellowship in the Institute in 1989, when it described him as &#8220;the dean of architectural illustrators in America.*&#8221; In 1984 he co-founded the American Society of Architectural Perspectivists (now ASAI). Loeb Fellow Harvard University. Author of Architectural Illustration (1978 ) and Drawing the Future (1988).
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition: 

"There appear too many unexplained events and unverified circumstances to be satisfied with the official version of the New York building collapses. As unthinkable as it is to suspect the United States government or military of willful complicity in these horrendous acts, it is even more heinous to allow such complicity--if indeed it exists--to remain undiscovered and unpunished. Therefore, a thorough and impartial investigation by an independent, well-funded commission is fully merited."  AE911Truth.org


----------



## eots (Mar 12, 2011)

*Scott C. Grainger, BS CE, PE &#8211; Licensed Professional Civil Engineer and/or Fire Protection Engineer in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.  Owner of Grainger Consulting, Inc., a fire protection engineering firm (23 years).  Former Chairman, Arizona State Fire Code Committee.  Former President of the Arizona Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers.  Current Member of the Forensic Sciences Committee and the Fire Standards Committee of ASTM International (formerly American Society for Testing and Materials ).  Senior Member, National Academy of Forensic Engineers*.
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition: 

*"Approximately 50% of my work is forensic. I am licensed in 9 States. In addition to my forensic work, a good portion of my work is in the design of structural fireproofing systems. 

All three [WTC] collapses were very uniform in nature. Natural collapses due to unplanned events are not uniform." * AE911Truth.org


----------



## BrianH (Mar 13, 2011)

eots said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and controlled demolition - Structural and Civil Engineers against Controlled Demolition
> ...




One little quote I posted was linked to popular mechanics....one.  The other two sites are not linked to popular mechanics but are complete and individual sites on their own accord.  I'll check to see what's wrong with the sites...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 13, 2011)

I'm sorry but I've been hearing this BS for years. Someone please explain what is so wrong with Popular Mechanics?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 13, 2011)

BrianH said:


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



great rebuttals there. "rolls on floor laughing." as usual,you trolls can only fling shit in defeat like the monkeys you are. Like clockwork,the troll knows he is defeated,so he can only fling shit in defeat as always.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 13, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


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



This post illustrates your hypocracy.  You're contradicting yourself...
You're stupidity is shining through as bright as ever.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 13, 2011)

BrianH said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > The OCTA trolls like Brian can only sling shit in defeat like the monkeys they are.
> ...



yeah you keep flinging shit in defeat in all your ramblings. you cant debunk those two videos so you just keep flinging shit in defeat in your desperate and pathetic attempts. i already answered that for you wayyyyyyy back there,but like the troll you ignore it like you will again,that they wont come forward and sign the petition because they are afraid they will lose their jobs and lose future contract work dumbfuck.there have been many people in their professions that have lost their jobs after coming forward and saying the 9/11 commission is bullshit. they dont want to have the same fate happen to them.keep flinging shit in defeat and run away from those videos you can debunk like the scardy cat monkey you are.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 13, 2011)

BrianH said:


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



yep your stupidity is shining alright no doubt about that as you keep flinging shit in defeat running away from those two videos. have fun trolling.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 13, 2011)

Oh lastly Brian troll.Yeah I have read all your ramblings in your past ten posts or so,all you do is keep posting Debwunker links that have been debunked by the book DEBUNINKG THE 9/11 DEBUNKING,an answer to popular mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory which is all the governments version is.anytime i ask you trolls to read it,you always run off with your tail between your legs since you know you cant refute it.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 13, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> Oh lastly Brian troll.Yeah I have read all your ramblings in your past ten posts or so,all you do is keep posting Debwunker links that have been debunked by the book DEBUNINKG THE 9/11 DEBUNKING,an answer to popular mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory which is all the governments version is.anytime i ask you trolls to read it,you always run off with your tail between your legs since you know you cant refute it.



Once again, a ramble that has proven nothing regarding your supposed "conspiracy."  Just because you're too lazy to go back and read the links I posted doesn't make me wrong and you right.

You obviously haven't read shit.  I posted a link that shows how many engineers and architects there are in the U.S. (10 million).  This mathematically shows that your 1450 engineers and architects worldwide are severely outnumbered by the majority of those who have not question the NIST report.  If they had, they'd be like the rest of you dildos and post something regarding their disagreement.

Second, I also posted a blogsite made by engineers.  There are lists of engineers who support the NIST report.  

As far a popular mechanics.  I haven't posted one link from popluar mechanics.  I DID post a link that had numerous quotes on it...and one small quote happened to have been linked from popular mechanics.  So once again you are about 99% wrong.

And what would it matter if I post something from a debunking site?  All you post on here is frickin youtube videos and 9/11Truth websites....

As far as you're idiot BFF Dr. Steven Jones-  He was relieved from his duties as a professor at BYU.  I also posted a link where there were quotes from his own colleagues saying that his work was not viable.....His own co-workers who were just as qualified as he was, saw the evidence at hand, and disagreed with him.  And I've already posted links for all this, so don't respond with an evidence request.  GO back and do, what I like to call, reading.  When you do you'll see how retarded you sound right now.

As far as your "videos,"  Ollie already picked it apart...once again- You failing to read and ignoring posts.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 13, 2011)

you never get enough of these ass beatings,you LOVE to fling shit in defeat like the monkey you are.still no rebutalls to those 2 videos or those two links,just a monkey slinging shit in defeat. have fun with your trolling.sorry but im tired of playing your game,you just keep posting debwunker links that the book i listed has debunked all of.see ya monkey. hate to break your heart but disinfo agent gomer Ollie has NEVER picked apart anything and has NEVER debunked those videos,thats why i put that fellow troll of yours on ignore a long time ago cause just like you,he just keeps repeating outright lies and crap that those videos and that book has been debunked when NONE of you have ever been able to debunk them as we both know.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 13, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> you never get enough of these ass beatings,you LOVE to fling shit in defeat like the monkey you are.still no rebutalls to those videos or those two links,just a monkey slinging shit in defeat.



Look here dipshit.  YOu still haven't rebutted all of the proof that I posted.  I don't have to refute an edited video on youtube.  I guess everything on the internet is true right? lol.  It's funny how you idiots that don't trust the media or government sure trust the media when it comes to this.  And you do so by posting mass media news all over this thread....


watch this video idjit.  There's a video half-way through of ONE plane on fire in a field.  THERE ARE LOUD EXPLOSIONS WELL AFTER THE PLANE HAS CRASHED AND INGITED.  There's your explosions dick licker.

There is also mention from firefighters about a secondary device in the area.  Of course, the jack-ass truther edited the part of the video in which a firefighter clearly states that there have been reports of a secondary device at a HIGH SCHOOL...not in the WTC.  You dumb-asses sit here and believe every youtube video you watch without doing any research to find out if it was edited.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 13, 2011)

oh i forgot to mention that of course in YOUR mind,you think gomer debunked them because as we both know,you OCTA'S only see what you WANT to see and hear what you want to hear.your such a moron you  not only let the media-a TOOL for the government and the corrupt government institutions brainwash you with their lies and propaganda,but disinfo agents like Gomer as well.

you OCTA'S have the moronic logic that it doesnt matter how many distinguished credible people in their professions say,only what THOSE two say. you obviously slept through junior high science class because you dont know anything about the laws of physics. you are so afraid of the truth,that you want to believe in the government and ignore the laws of physics that scientists have gone by for thousands of years. oh and gomer pylle ollie has only gotten  his ass handed to him on a platter by myself,eots and all the other truthers all the time,so you lose your crediblity when you said he debunked anything cause he NEVER Has. you really need to go back to junior high science class.come back and post then when you do.

so AGAIN,have fun slinging shit in defeat like the monkey you are.get in the same cage with Gomer,Im sure you two will REALLY have some fun as monkeys doing that together.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 13, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> oh i forgot to mention that of course in YOUR mind,you think gomer debunked them because as we both know,you OCTA'S only see what you WANT to see and hear what you want to hear.your such a moron you  not only let the media-a TOOL for the government and the corrupt government institutions brainwash you with their lies and propaganda,but disinfo agents like Gomer as well.
> 
> you OCTA'S have the moronic logic that it doesnt matter how many distinguished credible people in their professions say,only what THOSE two say. you obviously slept through junior high science class because you dont know anything about the laws of physics. you are so afraid of the truth,that you want to believe in the government and ignore the laws of physics that scientists have gone by for thousands of years. oh and gomer pylle ollie has only gotten  his ass handed to him on a platter by myself,eots and all the other truthers all the time,so you lose your crediblity when you said he debunked anything cause he NEVER Has. you really need to go back to junior high science class.come back and post then when you do.
> 
> so AGAIN,have fun slinging shit in defeat like the monkey you are.get in the same cage with Gomer,Im sure you two will REALLY have some fun as monkeys doing that together.





So again...you haven't proved anything.  Still waiting for you to stop "claiming" that I'm flinging shit and getting my ass beat...especially considering that you have not disproven or even intelligently responded to my posts.

And let me hit you with some more knowledge. (Not that you know what "knowledge means.)  As far as "explosions" that were heard at the WTC.  Do you have any idea what kind of electrical power grid it takes to supply electricity to these huge skyscrapers.  Any electrician will tell you that electricity and fire do not mix.  Have you ever heard a transformer blow?  (Not the robotic aliens from outerspace, but real transformers?)  THEY ARE LOUD.  What about all of the electrical switchgears and breakers that experienced arc-flash during this event? (Try youtubing arc-flash videos and maybe you'll learn what an arc-flash is) What about all of the transformers and lines that shorted?  These are also very POSSIBLE reasons for explosions being heard at the scene.  Aside from the obvious multiple explosions that are proven to come from an aircraft itself....

Still waiting for you to refute anything I have said...All you've done is create a fantasy wonderland in which you believe you have proven something and ,thus, beat my ass with your wisdom.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 13, 2011)

ahh I see you decided to   get in that cage with Gomer and sling shit in defeat with that other monkey.you did not listen to my advise though,i said dont come back until you went back and studied junior high school science that you slept through.Oh well,i guess frady cat monkeys cant understand EVERYTHING.they do know how to come on constantly and fling shit in defeat all the time though.

oh lastly,just so you know,i have seen gomers pathetic attempts to debunk that video of explosives SEVERAL times in the past.He failed EVERY single time.so I know you are full of shit that he debunked it because he NEVER did in the past and just because YOU say he does,that doesnt make it fact since you yourself have failed to debunk it troll not even trying.lol. just because thats what you WANT to think and believe in,doesnt make it fact.


----------



## eots (Mar 13, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> I'm sorry but I've been hearing this BS for years. Someone please explain what is so wrong with Popular Mechanics?



The term "yellow journalism" is no longer restricted to newspapers alone, it includes all other forms of media television and radio. *Some of the local newspapers are classic examples of yellow journalism. The expression was popularised in the late 19th Century in the U.S. Two newspapers, "New York World", owned by Joseph Pulitzer, and "New York Journal", owned by William Randolph Hearst, were trying to become very popular among the public by printing sensational stories. Both newspapers specialised in muckraking. The "World" had a popular comic strip called "Hogan's Alley" in which the character "Yellow Kid" appeared. Hearst ...


----------



## eots (Mar 13, 2011)




----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 13, 2011)

So you are making the claim that Popular Mechanics is Yellow Journalism? That they print misleading headlines and made up stories to sell magazines?

I think you are a bit far off on that one.



> "To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.
> 
> In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history"



9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Pentagon - Flight 93 - Popular Mechanics

Looks like an investigation to me. Just because you and your comrades don't like it doesn't mean its not right.


----------



## eots (Mar 13, 2011)

why is a Hearst owned publication given unprecedented access to to government information


----------



## eots (Mar 13, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> So you are making the claim that Popular Mechanics is Yellow Journalism? That they print misleading headlines and made up stories to sell magazines?
> 
> I think you are a bit far off on that one.
> 
> ...




that is because you are a monkey and cant tell an editorial blurb from facts


----------



## eots (Mar 13, 2011)

*they list him as  on they consulted but yet he says this*



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


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


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 13, 2011)

eots said:


> why is a Hearst owned publication given unprecedented access to to government information



And what information is that?

And are you saying that they lied about consulting with more than 70 experts?

Or are you just saying if they don't believe in truther BS then they can't be taken serious?

Because if that's the case you really should consider seeking professional help.


----------



## eots (Mar 13, 2011)

sfc ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > why is a hearst owned publication given unprecedented access to to government information
> ...



they  may not of lied in consulting him ..by they lie by implying he supports the nist report or popular mechanics when he so clearly does not


----------



## eots (Mar 13, 2011)

At least half of the rest of the list of experts is public relations people and magazine editors...lol


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 13, 2011)

Well at least I know where you get this "yellow Journalism" BS from.


Loose change gets spanked by Popular mechanics.  All loose change can say is "that's a lie" Sounds like our very own 911 nut job.......


----------



## eots (Mar 13, 2011)

sfc ollie said:


> well at least i know where you get this "yellow journalism" bs from.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stvmemj666m
> 
> loose change gets spanked by popular mechanics.  All loose change can say is "that's a lie" sounds like our very own 911 nut job.......



it is in the dictionary and cites hearst publications... Moron

you also total avoid the fact that experts they cite may feel the NIST investigation to be a failure that was blocked and fact finding deterred


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 14, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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



Really 9/11?

The firemen were out by the time Silverstein made that statement? What time did Silverstein make that statement and what time was the last firefighter out of WTC7?

I bet you can't answer that. Let's see your proof.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 14, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for that quote from NIST that you say exists.
> ...



It is?

I just looked through it and I don't see that quote.

Which page?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 14, 2011)

eots said:


> THE NIST QUOTE IS THERE HAVE BEEN SIMILAR FIRES IN BUILDINGS OF SIMILAR CONSTRUCTION ..SO AGAIN GO ARGUE WITH NIST..NOWHERE WAS THE DESIGN OF WTC 7 CALLED INTO QUESTIONS...NO BUILDING CODES WHERE CHANGED AS A RESULT ...YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT AND FLINGING LIKE  THEW MONKEY YOU ARE



Similar fires in buildings of similar construction huh? That's the quote you say exists in the WTC7 final report? Below is the actual quote and proves your a fucking liar as usual.



			
				NIST said:
			
		

> Instead, the fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinkles did not function or were not present. These buildings did not collapse, while WTC 7 succumbed to its fires.



No where in that quote do they say ANYTHING about the structural design of the buildings being similar. Only that they were "tall buildings" with "non-functioning/non-existent sprinkler systems".

Jackass.

What you fail to understand is that different building designs will react differently to similar fires. 

So this building design:






Is the same as this building design?:





and it's your thinking that they should both react the same exact way in a fire?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 14, 2011)

eots said:


> you are totally delusional....



That has to be in the "ten most ironic statements of all time" list.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 14, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Damn, same video I picked apart less than 2 weeks ago. You really need some new material....
> 
> Really 9/11?
> 
> ...



Can I try?
"No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." 
An alternative interpretation of Silverstein's statement is that "pull it" refers to withdrawing firefighters from the building. However, according to FEMA's report there were no manual firefighting operations in Building 7, so there would not have been any firefighters to "pull" -- at least not from inside the building. 

Page 21, Third Full Paragraph
"In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities."

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

"fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says.." 
9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics

"By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from [WTC 7] for safety reasons." --NY TIMES
Killtown's:* Was the WTC 7 pulled? - Reports & Articles:* New York Times (11/29/01)...


What was Mr. Silverstein "pulling" from the building? 

Page 23, Second Full Paragraph
"With the limited information currently available, fire development in this building needs additional study. Fires were observed to be located on some of the lower levels about the 10th floor for the majority of the time from the collapse of WTC 1 to the collapse of WTC 7. It appears that the sprinklers may not have been but may have been effective due to the limited water on site, and that the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day."

And here we have a Fox news report from some asshole who claims to have been told by several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers "that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building &#8211; since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall."
He insinuates that a controlled demolition of WTC 7 was a noble gesture that would potentially save lives. "There was no secret. There was no conspiracy." 
I wonder how this claim could be made if the building wasn't already wired to be demolished by CD?

Shame On Jesse Ventura! - FoxNews.com


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 14, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Damn, same video I picked apart less than 2 weeks ago. You really need some new material....
> ...



Hmmmm.

All pertaining to FIREFIGHTING. What about the ongoing search and rescue operations that firefighters are responsible for?

Here is a quote from Cheif Nigro:


			
				Nigro said:
			
		

> Steve Mosiello and Chief Turi told me they had
> been looking for Chief Ganci. They thought they knew where
> he was, unsuccessfully, and they were going back to - I
> walked back down to the area where he was and sometime
> ...



So. 1 1/2 hours AFTER the order to halt rescue operations in the building, it collapsed. That was at 5:30, making the order about 4:00? How long did it take to get everyone out of the building after the actual order was given?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 14, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



I believe what you quoted might not be pertaining to WTC7 and instead refers to the other 2 towers, perhaps you could provide a link and I'll do a little reading just to clarify things. But from what I read and posted for you, it seems that all FDNY personnel were already out of the building, as early as 11:30 AM, and WTC 7 sat there without FDNY and rescue personnel. 
The Fox news report and what the individual said strike you as strange?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 14, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> I believe what you quoted might not be pertaining to WTC7 and instead refers to the other 2 towers, perhaps you could provide a link and I'll do a little reading just to clarify things. But from what I read and posted for you, it seems that all FDNY personnel were already out of the building, as early as 11:30 AM, and WTC 7 sat there without FDNY and rescue personnel.
> The Fox news report and what the individual said strike you as strange?



Sorry. I forgot to add the link.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt


----------



## BrianH (Mar 15, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> ahh I see you decided to   get in that cage with Gomer and sling shit in defeat with that other monkey.you did not listen to my advise though,i said dont come back until you went back and studied junior high school science that you slept through.Oh well,i guess frady cat monkeys cant understand EVERYTHING.they do know how to come on constantly and fling shit in defeat all the time though.
> 
> oh lastly,just so you know,i have seen gomers pathetic attempts to debunk that video of explosives SEVERAL times in the past.He failed EVERY single time.so I know you are full of shit that he debunked it because he NEVER did in the past and just because YOU say he does,that doesnt make it fact since you yourself have failed to debunk it troll not even trying.lol. just because thats what you WANT to think and believe in,doesnt make it fact.



I'm starting to think your a recorded message that is saying the same thing over and over again.  Big suprise that you don't have anything else to offer.

Obviously your definition of "fail" is conviniently different from Webster's dictionary.  Considering it is YOU who is accusing the government, then it is YOU who must convince everyone else that you are right.  It's called "Burden of Proof."  I don't have to "debunk" your conspiracy.  That's precisely why it's called a "conspiracy" and not "fact"...you have to prove it.  This is something you've obviously and literally "failed" at doing.  

As far as my "shit" I have "flung."  

1.  I've shown you that more engineers don't disagree with the NIST report than do disagree with it...WAY more than your 1450 that you're so proud of.  

2.  I've also debunked your videos.  People heard explosions at 9/11.  Big suprise.  IT doesn't take an idiot to know that anything that can combust will combust when the conditions are present.  I also showed you that a plane that crashed in a field by itself will continue to create explosions after the fact.  

3.  I've also shown you that the term "pull" is used by firefighters to pull people away from the buildings.  And I've also shown you that the term "pull" is a term used by engineers to actually and litterally "PULL" a building away from other buildings.  You can look up pictures of 9/11 and see cables being used to pull buildings.  I've also shown you that Silverstein ackwnowledged that he was NOT talking about  demolition when he used the term.  And if all the firefighters were supposedly out by the time Silverstein made these remarks, did he know?  Maybe he thought they were all still in there and then made the statement.  Some even say that there are reports that no firefighting was taking place in building 7.  So what?  Who do you think goes inside of these buildings to look for people?  Is it possible that these firefighters were not fighting the fire, but were on search and rescue missions...most certainly.  MOREOVER:  Even if this building was brought down by demolition...it doesn't prove any kind of government conspiracy.  You nuts are convinced (WITH NO PROOF) that there were sensative and incriminating documents in the building.  If the building was unsafe to stay were it standed, then I don't fault the order to bring it down with explosives--if it were proven to be so.  Buildings are brought down with explosives all of the time because they've been abandoned or dubbed as unsafe.  But this is aside from the fact that you haven't proven that it was. 

4.  I've also shown you that when people were talking about secondary explosives in the area, that a firefighter ON CAMERA said there was reports of a device at the high school...

You have shown nothing but the repetetive nonsense that you keep posting.

Lastly...you're an idiot and everyone here knows it.  The only one giving inside "jobs" are you.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 15, 2011)

Let me ask you this inside jack-ass.  If our government is capable of secretly orchestrating and carrying out the largest terrorist attack in the history of the world, why would they not be able to get rid of all you conspiracy nuts that are trying to prove them wrong?  Why would the government allow websites that advocate this stuff to be on the internet?  You truthers are completely contradictory based on the event of your choosing.  You believe our government has the power to monitor every inch of the earth via satellites and spy cameras, monitor every megabyte of information through any kind of communication apparatus, but suddenly become incompetent when it comes to keeping everything a secret?  If there was any truth to what you guys are saying, the government would certainly have every asset to get rid of you.  Truthers would be disappearing left and right.  

To orchestrate an event would require THOUSANDS of people.  It would have taken THOUSANDS of people to plan and actually follow through with this event.  Have you ever seen THOUSANDS of people keep one secret?  NO.    Where are all these demolition experts who planted said "bombs" in the buildings?  There are so many holes in your argument.  Plain and simple: You haven't proven it because you can't.


----------



## eots (Mar 15, 2011)

> > BrianH said:
> >
> >
> > > Let me ask you this inside jack-ass.  If our government is capable of secretly orchestrating and carrying out the largest terrorist attack in the history of the world, why would they not be able to get rid of all you conspiracy nuts that are trying to prove them wrong?  Why would the government allow websites that advocate this stuff to be on the internet?
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 15, 2011)

He's right eots, and you know it.

Not one of you has been able to disprove the 911 CR.

You haven't produced one piece of evidence that would stand up in court.

And the Bush administration proved several times that they couldn't even keep a wire tap secret. Yet not one of the thousands who would have had to been involved in carrying out and covering up your conspiracy have leaked even a whisper.

You have nothing and you know it.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 15, 2011)

eots said:


> > > what a simpleton...a government round up  and death squads would go unnoticed...lol
> > >
> > >
> > > You truthers are completely contradictory based on the event of your choosing.  You believe our government has the power to monitor every inch of the earth via satellites and spy cameras, monitor every megabyte of information through any kind of communication apparatus, but suddenly become incompetent when it comes to keeping everything a secret?  If there was any truth to what you guys are saying, the government would certainly have every asset to get rid of you.  Truthers would be disappearing left and right
> ...


----------



## BrianH (Mar 15, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> He's right eots, and you know it.
> 
> Not one of you has been able to disprove the 911 CR.
> 
> ...



Exactly.  Congressman after Congressman have met their demise over someone not keeping a secret.  CIA and FBI agents have had to hide because their identities were blown by not being able to keep a secret.  These are miniscule things compared to this event, and lo' and behold everyone's keeping it a secret.... Common Sense is against this conspiracy.


----------



## eots (Mar 15, 2011)

BrianH said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > ahh I see you decided to   get in that cage with Gomer and sling shit in defeat with that other monkey.you did not listen to my advise though,i said dont come back until you went back and studied junior high school science that you slept through.Oh well,i guess frady cat monkeys cant understand EVERYTHING.they do know how to come on constantly and fling shit in defeat all the time though.
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 15, 2011)




----------



## BrianH (Mar 15, 2011)

eots said:


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


----------



## eots (Mar 16, 2011)

BrianH said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 16, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Damn, same video I picked apart less than 2 weeks ago. You really need some new material....
> ...



One simple question Mr. Jones.

What time did Silverstein make the statement to "pull"?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 16, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > THE NIST QUOTE IS THERE HAVE BEEN SIMILAR FIRES IN BUILDINGS OF SIMILAR CONSTRUCTION ..SO AGAIN GO ARGUE WITH NIST..NOWHERE WAS THE DESIGN OF WTC 7 CALLED INTO QUESTIONS...NO BUILDING CODES WHERE CHANGED AS A RESULT ...YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT AND FLINGING LIKE  THEW MONKEY YOU ARE
> ...



I see you "missed" this post eots, you chickenshit.

So you are now a proven liar. They never said that the buildings were of similar construction did they?

Also, are those two buildings in the quote supposed to act exactly the same way in a fire? Yes or no?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 16, 2011)

Hey eots.

What about the .8 seconds on NON-FREEFALL right before the 2.25 seconds of free fall that the out facade went through?

I thought that all the columns of the outer WTC7 facade were cut at the same time in order to create that 2.25 seconds of free fall you idiots so devotedly claim? If that's the case, why .8 seconds of NON-FREEFALL?

Come on. One of you jokers MUST have an explanation. It's physics right?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 16, 2011)

eots said:


> *they list him as  on they consulted but yet he says this*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, well, well.

In the same article, it is made quite clear that Quintiere doesn't believe ANY of your conspiracy theory bullshit.


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



Eots, you're a loser through and through. I even bolded the important part for you so you couldn't miss it.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 16, 2011)

eots said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 16, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 16, 2011)




----------



## BrianH (Mar 16, 2011)

eots said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 17, 2011)

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

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

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

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

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

&#8220;In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure.  None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building.  The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.&#8221;

*Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7&#8217;s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:*

&#8220;What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall.  Acceleration doesn&#8217;t build up gradually.  The graph [measuring the building&#8217;s descent] simply turns a corner.  The building went from full support to zero support instantly.&#8221;

*Secondly:*

&#8220;The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building&#8230; The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.&#8221;

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

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

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

REFERENCES

 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), &#8220;Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 &#8211; Draft for Public Comment,&#8221; Washington, DC. August 2008. Chapter 3 p.41. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

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

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Quoted by David Ray Griffin, &#8220;The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NIST&#8217;s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False,&#8221; GlobalResearch.ca, September 14, 2009.  The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven

[v] NIST NCSTAR 1A, &#8220;Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7,&#8221; Washington, DC. November 2008. p.45 NIST and the World Trade Center

[vi] _


----------



## eots (Mar 17, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *they list him as  on they consulted but yet he says this*
> ...



no actual the important part is this all else is theory



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.


 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.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 17, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> *In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration.*_
> 
> *Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall?  NISTs lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object has no structural components below it.[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives.  If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.*
> 
> ...


_

Hypothetically, suppose that building 7 was demolished by explosives.  What does it prove? That the building was structually jeapordized, therefore, they wanted to bring it to the ground?  Would YOU go back to work in that building in the following weeks?  So far there has been absolutely ZERO proof that there was something in building 7 that the government wanted to get rid of.  This is PURE speculation on the truther movement.  I have stated that even though it hasn't been proven it was brought down by explosives, it wouldn't bother me if it was.  

As far as Mr. Chandler.  It's funny that he can assume to know what the only possible scenario would be for something that has NEVER happened before in the history of Earth._


----------



## eots (Mar 17, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *they list him as  on they consulted but yet he says this*
> ...



and this...


----------



## AmericanMade76 (Mar 17, 2011)

God Bless Those Who Fight For The Truth


----------



## BrianH (Mar 17, 2011)

AmericanMade76 said:


> God Bless Those Who Fight For The Truth



No one is fighting for anything.  Conspiracy theorists have been refuted time and time again.  They come up with some looney conspiracies because of some stupid picture someone took, or an edited video on youtube that leaves out bits and pieces of people's statements to make it look like they are advocating a bigger issue than what they're actually making.  99% of these conspiracies have been proven to be false by engineers or others.  IS there likely information that is not being made public?  Sure.  There's still information that's not made public from 100 years ago.  Does this mean that the government orchestrated an event that killed thousands of it's own citizens.  NO.  And if the government is so ruthless in regards to the lives of it's own citizens, it would use its assets to systematically get rid of all the truthers....provided that what they were spewing was true.   

Most of the truther followers just take a few loony engineers' word for something without actually doing any research themselves.  They sit there and claim that the NIST report doesn't talk about what caused the collapses when they SPECIFICALLY state that the cause of collapse were from the intial impact of the planes and the ensuing fires.  The MAIN cause of collapse was because the planes took out the center supports.  Sit down and read the NIST report and you'll see that they provide a LONG explanation of the events tha took place.  Have they been wrong a time or two...sure.  What idiot expects an investigation of such a horrid and massive event to just breeze through and be 100% correct on the first time.  Smaller investigations are subject to such inaccuracy.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 17, 2011)

It's funny how the truthers will sit there and say that the people heard explosions, therefore, that means there were explosives used to bring the towers down.  
They, however, never seem to want to explain where exactly the explosions were coming from in or on the building.  It's already been proven that a commercial airliner will explode and continue to explode for a long time after an initial crash.  The NIST report contests that the explosions were coming from the impact area of the towers and were not coming from lower floors.  Have any of you ever heard an explosion in the inner-city near skyscrapers?  It sounds like it's coming from everywhere at once.  It sounds like it comes from one direction when it's actually a block behind you.


----------



## eots (Mar 17, 2011)

BrianH said:


> It's funny how the truthers will sit there and say that the people heard explosions, therefore, that means there were explosives used to bring the towers down.
> They, however, never seem to want to explain where exactly the explosions were coming from in or on the building.  It's already been proven that a commercial airliner will explode and continue to explode for a long time after an initial crash.  The NIST report contests that the explosions were coming from the impact area of the towers and were not coming from lower floors.  Have any of you ever heard an explosion in the inner-city near skyscrapers?  It sounds like it's coming from everywhere at once.  It sounds like it comes from one direction when it's actually a block behind you.



funny how nothing you say is ever accurate...


----------



## eots (Mar 17, 2011)




----------



## eots (Mar 17, 2011)




----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 17, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> *In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration.*_
> 
> *Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall?  NISTs lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object has no structural components below it.[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives.  If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.*
> 
> ...


_

Since you can't seem to get away from posting the same stuff over and over and over, I'll just pick out this one statement for today.

The problem with it is obvious. Once again the truthers ignore the fact that the penthouse fell into the building at least 6 seconds before the rest of the roofline moved..._


----------



## eots (Mar 17, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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


_

6 secs...more like.06 secs....and so what ?   how does this rule out explosives Einstein ?_


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 17, 2011)

eots said:


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


_

You should maybe look at a real video of the collapse again. You know, one that doesn't come from a truther site? You can easily count to 6 between the penthouse falling and the first movement of the main roof line. Dumbass. 

It proves that the inside of the building collapsed 6 seconds before the facade that you guys want to fall at free fall. Well it may have if there was nothing behind it...._


----------



## eots (Mar 17, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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



it proves nothing of the sort


----------



## eots (Mar 17, 2011)

so wouldn't the entire inner structure of a sky scraper collapsing behind a facade create a lot of noise and dust before the facade collapsed ?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 17, 2011)

Watch the video.


----------



## eots (Mar 17, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Watch the video.



so you have no answer ...I see...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 17, 2011)

So boring.




As anyone with an ounce of common sense can see the penthouse fell into the building a full 6 (SIX) seconds before the main roof line moved an inch. 

And no there were no reports of anything that could be construed or misconstrued as controlled demolition explosions.

How much noise did It make? I don't know most of the videos that are close enough to hear it are truther videos and they edit out the penthouse falling. Something about it not fitting into what they want us to believe I guess....


----------



## eots (Mar 17, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> So boring.
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus
> ...



anyone with any common sense would realize the entire inner structure of a skyscraper can not fall silently and unnoticed behind a facade...pinhead


----------



## BrianH (Mar 17, 2011)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > So boring.
> ...



So you're saying that in the few hours between the evacuation of building seven and it's collapse, the government completely gutted the entire building and planted explosives?  If this was not the case, there would have been no way for them to have done so before 9.11 as there would have been witnesses of this.  Also, here's a truther video...watch the top left side of the building BEFORE the actual building starts to fall.  You see the penthouse collapsing.  ALSO, have you ever listened to building being demolished.  There are HUNDREDS of explosions as the builind is falling down, not one or two before.  This is what causes a building to fall straight down, the explosions continue to take out supports as the building falls.  I've heard no such demolition explosions as the building is falling, just the sound of the builiding falling.


Also, watch the video of any type of building demolition.  There are BRIGHT flashes and the explosions are not mistakeable.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 17, 2011)

BrianH said:


> > So you're saying that in the few hours between the evacuation of building seven and it's collapse, the government completely gutted the entire building and planted explosives?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## BrianH (Mar 17, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > > So you're saying that in the few hours between the evacuation of building seven and it's collapse, the government completely gutted the entire building and planted explosives?
> ...


----------



## psikeyhackr (Mar 17, 2011)

whitehall said:


> The problem seems to be that libs want to believe that fire doesn't melt steel. Instead of accepting the laws of physics they prefer to imagine a conspiracy that involves both republicans and democrats and supported or ignored by the CIA and the FBI. A gasoline truck cought fire on a bridge in San Francisco in 2000. Even though the fire was on the bridge and not in it and much of the heat radiated into the air the metal bridge supports weakened and buckled. Nobody blew the bridge up and nobody blew the Towers up. It was fire.



Here is the picture:





California Interchange Collapses After Tanker Fire - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

The highway collapsed.  It is like a rook collapse similar to what happened in the roof collapse of McCormick Place in Chicago back in the 60s.  Notice that the vertical supports are still standing.  People using that as an example to explain 9/11 is only a demonstration of complete lack of comprehension of what could happen to a huge self supporting vertical structure.

Whether or not a couple of measly airliners could totally obliterate a couple of the largest buildings ever made in less than TWO HOURS is a simple physics problem.  Not expecting to be given accurate data on the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of the buildings is totally ridiculous.  It is totally absurd that neither Steven Jones nor Richard Gage make a big deal of the vertical distribution of mass in the skyscrapers.

The nation that put men on the men on the Moon should be laughed at for the next 1000 years for letting this nonsense drag on for NINE YEARS.  But it is far too late to cover up the absurdity.  


psik


----------



## BrianH (Mar 18, 2011)

psikeyhackr said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > The problem seems to be that libs want to believe that fire doesn't melt steel. Instead of accepting the laws of physics they prefer to imagine a conspiracy that involves both republicans and democrats and supported or ignored by the CIA and the FBI. A gasoline truck cought fire on a bridge in San Francisco in 2000. Even though the fire was on the bridge and not in it and much of the heat radiated into the air the metal bridge supports weakened and buckled. Nobody blew the bridge up and nobody blew the Towers up. It was fire.
> ...



There are two main problems with this demonstration.  

1.  There was not giant dowel rod (or something similar) in he middle of the world trade center.  Had there been, it would have acted similar as shown in the demonstration becuse the giant dowel stabelized the entire structure as well as keeps pieces of the structure intact.  Had he removed the dowel rod and then done his demonstration, the entire stack would have fallen down.  IMO this is the MAIN reason for this demonstration to be invalidated.


2.  There was no side impact.  These demonstrations are simply trying to explain the fall without taking into account that the impact had an effect on the fall itself.  These support beams are not infinite in length.  They are riveted and welded together to form an overall support.  This does not make it resistant to impact.  Anyone who has ever welded something knows that, eventually, something with enough force could break the weld.  Imagine toothpicks being super-glued end-to-end.  When the planes impacted the building, can you imagine the bending and breaking of welds and rivets throughout the entire building from the impact zone to the bottom?  

Let's not all forget that we can speculate all we want about it being a conspiracy, or relying on "physics."  It seems to me that everyone's definition and understanding of the laws of physics differ--based on the numerous demonstrations and explanations.  You could re-created the exact situations and it may not end with the same result.  Maybe one rivet wouldn't break, maybe one weld would hold.   Everything has a breaking point, and the WTC was no different.  It stood until ONE thing happened that overwhelmed the support...


----------



## eots (Mar 18, 2011)

brianh said:


> psikeyhackr said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



yet three out three times they collapsed in secs, essentially straight down...


----------



## eots (Mar 18, 2011)

And btw ..the wtc 1-2 had a central core


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 18, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


----------



## KissMy (Mar 18, 2011)

Why would the government complicate their false flag attack & risk being exposed by demolishing WTC Building 7??? It served no part in inciting Americans to go to war & give up more constitutional freedoms.

They would not have risked all to make Silverstein rich or destroy documents. There are much safer ways to funnel money & destroy documents.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 18, 2011)

eots said:


> And btw ..the wtc 1-2 had a central core



The same size (in relation) to that big-ass dowel rod?  The "CORE" was concreate with steel supports and also filled with stairways and elevators.  It was basically hollow.  Also, parts of the core stood as the building around it collapsed...


----------



## eots (Mar 18, 2011)

KissMy said:


> Why would the government complicate their false flag attack & risk being exposed by demolishing WTC Building 7??? It served no part in inciting Americans to go to war & give up more constitutional freedoms.
> 
> They would not have risked all to make Silverstein rich or destroy documents. There are much safer ways to funnel money & destroy documents.



I dont know why dont we waterboard them and find out...


----------



## KissMy (Mar 18, 2011)

BrianH said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > And btw ..the wtc 1-2 had a central core
> ...



The only concrete in the core was on the floors. The column's & trusses were not protected by concrete.


----------



## eots (Mar 18, 2011)

KissMy said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



ya so...tell me something I dont know ...you think that explains the nature of collapse ?


----------



## BrianH (Mar 18, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## BrianH (Mar 18, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 18, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


----------



## candycorn (Mar 18, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


----------



## KissMy (Mar 18, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> I don't have to prove anything to you, if you can't see that you been lied to about this and other things and that your elected officials are blowing smoke up your ass and want to continue believing the criminals in the US government are all caring benevolent beings then by all means have 'fun" continuing to be a naive fool.
> Where's the proof that the official story is true?
> Where is YOUR proof that PNAC&#8217;s call for a &#8216;catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor&#8217; was only an unbelievably astounding and timely coincidence rather than a statement that should have raised reasonable suspicion?
> Where is YOUR proof that Al Qaeda actually planned and carried out the attacks of 9/11?
> ...



You are an idiot. All this crap has been proven time & time again.

Here is the answer to your first question & that is all I am giving you. Go back & read these conspiracy threads & you will find all your answers.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0xgGSmfVek"]bin laden admits 911 ? judge for yourself.[/ame]


----------



## eots (Mar 18, 2011)

KissMy said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have to prove anything to you, if you can't see that you been lied to about this and other things and that your elected officials are blowing smoke up your ass and want to continue believing the criminals in the US government are all caring benevolent beings then by all means have 'fun" continuing to be a naive fool.
> ...



lol....


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 18, 2011)

KissMy said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have to prove anything to you, if you can't see that you been lied to about this and other things and that your elected officials are blowing smoke up your ass and want to continue believing the criminals in the US government are all caring benevolent beings then by all means have 'fun" continuing to be a naive fool.
> ...


 You people ask for proof, where's your proof that what they told about 9-11 is accurate? You people spout the same old propaganda that the government tells you, this even after the 9-11 commission that was handpicked by the administration at the time has come out and said they reject their own report.  Fucking morons


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 18, 2011)

eots said:


> lol....



Have you ever considered switching cults? The warmists are really on the ropes these days and desperately need drones who won't hesitate in downing the koolaide. 

I mean, you can still be a completely irrational loon, unaffected by facts - BUT you'll be cool with all the Hollywood half-wits AND you can worship Algore!

Something to think about...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 18, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Once again, exactly what part of the 911CR do the reject? You are afraid to say it. They do not reject any of the main points do they? Come on you can admit it.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 18, 2011)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



And your stupid enough to actually believe that is OBL? you people are a joke. He has been dead for years and all the tapes and videos are obviously faked to keep you idiots duped.
But you need to believe it to keep your heads from exploding


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 18, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



SO you are saying that UBL died before 9 Nov 2001? OK..... What ever floats your boat......


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 18, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...


 How many fucking times must a person link you to the articles that quotes the 9-11 commissioners reason for rejection of the report? It's obvious you don't read a damned thing, and instead seem to enjoy going around in some weird circle jerk like some delusioned Alzheimer sufferer  They are totally dissatisfied with the way the government and its investigating agencies, FBI/CIA, and Norad weren't forthcoming about information they needed.
The 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements,
The co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations. 
Chairman Thomas Kean says that the CIA intentionally impeded the 9/11 Commission's investigation and says Im upset that [the government] didnt tell us the truth.
"Did they obstruct our inquiry? The answer is clearly yes," says Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission, in the wake of reports the CIA destroyed videotapes of interrogations of two al-Qaida suspects. "Whether that amounts to a crime, others will have to judge," adds Hamilton.
Hamilton also says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.
9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"
Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "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".

Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who is a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the White House on Tuesday of covering up evidence . . .

The accusation stems from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.

In his book "Intelligence Matters," Mr. Graham, the co-chairman of the Congressional inquiry with Representative Porter J. Goss, Republican of Florida, said an F.B.I. official wrote them in November 2002 and said "the administration would not sanction a staff interview with the source.'' On Tuesday, Mr. Graham called the letter "a smoking gun" and said, "The reason for this cover-up goes right to the White House."
What the 9/11 Commission calls lies by the military are places where officers have contradicted the Commissions own new story about why the flights were not intercepted.
What don't you understand about those statements? Look it up you lazy fucks. Oh but the report is accurate about the "major" points like what, getting the date correct? How many planes were involved?
STFU and use what little sense you have left and check this out yourself, no one is going to write you ignorant fucks a narrative.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 18, 2011)

candycorn said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 18, 2011)

KissMy said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have to prove anything to you, if you can't see that you been lied to about this and other things and that your elected officials are blowing smoke up your ass and want to continue believing the criminals in the US government are all caring benevolent beings then by all means have 'fun" continuing to be a naive fool.
> ...




I see your finding out this troll Kissmy is as big an idiot as Briantroll and Gomer Pyle Ollie as well.He is another one you shouldnt waste your time with either.This troll like all OCTA'S, ignores evidence and facts and mixes in some truths with disinformation. It is pretty hysterical that he actually believes that is really Osama Bin Laden and that he is still alive isnt it? these Bush dupes sure are entertaining as hell arent they?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 18, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



exactly.well said,could not have said it better myself.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 18, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



This dude and these other Bush dupes needs to get off the crack their smoking. we sure think alike cause once AGAIN,I could not have said it better myself.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 18, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



aren't they though?


----------



## KissMy (Mar 18, 2011)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=179hmjX2OGM&feature=related"]BBC: Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive (5/6)[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ-YP0YD8BM&feature=related"]BBC: Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive (6/6)[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBMZw-RChmQ"]Osama bin Laden - Interview 11. Sept. Al-Jazeera 2/6[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSq7ocU_-FY"]Osama bin Laden Al-Jazeera[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJhau40A2m4&feature=related"]New Osama Bin Laden Tape ABC[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6reQUwjt4M&feature=related"]New Osama Bin Laden Tape CNN[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV_BpoqmLzs&feature=fvwrel"]Osama Blasts Obama CBS[/ame]


----------



## eots (Mar 18, 2011)

KissMy said:


> BBC: Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive (5/6)
> BBC: Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive (6/6)
> Osama bin Laden - Interview 11. Sept. Al-Jazeera 2/6
> Osama bin Laden Al-Jazeera
> ...



so where is bin laden ?...is it kept a secret by thousands ???...no one willing to give him up ...no intel ?...whats up with that ?...one would almost think they do not want to find  him or he is dead and the tapes are fake


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 18, 2011)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > BBC: Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive (5/6)
> ...



So you didn't watch the vids.

Look up Pashuns and learn a little bit about their culture. 

Personally I like to believe that he died at Tora Bora. But I also know that chances are he is still alive. The videos that I just watched are pretty convincing....


----------



## KissMy (Mar 18, 2011)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > BBC: Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive (5/6)
> ...



Alex Jones is hiding Osama to keep his conspiracy theories alive so you nut-bars will continue to tune in for your regularly scheduled mind programming.


----------



## eots (Mar 18, 2011)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...





So you have no logical explanation....I see.


----------



## eots (Mar 18, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



how can he be dead and putting out messages to Obama at the same time you double-think weirdo...and dont give me this culture bullshit ..you are trying to tell me Muslims can not be bribed  do not have ..have in  fighting...do not revel secrets ?... because if thats your angle you are completely full of shit


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 18, 2011)

eots said:


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



Now it's double think? But if I'm disagreeing with you it's a closed mind.
 I want the bastard to be dead. I still hope he did die from one of our bunker busters ramming up his ass in Tora Bora.

But the actual evidence suggests that he is alive.

How the fuck is that double think? I don't know if he is alive or dead. You see I can admit that I don't fucking know. I can say what i wish to be true and I can actually look at evidence that says That what I want may very well not be true.

And if you are to stupid to learn that's ok. You don't have to look the Pashuns up. We understand that it's hard to learn anything while hitting a bong. You go sit down and light up another one. Really, it's OK.


----------



## KissMy (Mar 18, 2011)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > BBC: Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive (5/6)
> ...



It does not take thousands of people to hide one man. A few highly loyal, well paid & well trained people will do just fine. Those tapes are not fake. Your 9/11 truth is fake.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 18, 2011)

KissMy said:


> It does not take thousands of people to hide one man. A few highly loyal, well paid & well trained people will do just fine. Those tapes are not fake. Your 9/11 truth is fake.


 The tapes are faked, it is not the same individual, all you have to do is look at them at see the vastly different features. A few highly loyal, well paid and well trained people will do just fine to pull off an attack like 9-11 also.


----------



## KissMy (Mar 18, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > It does not take thousands of people to hide one man. A few highly loyal, well paid & well trained people will do just fine. Those tapes are not fake. Your 9/11 truth is fake.
> ...



Yes 19 terrorist & a stupid FAA rule to comply with the hijackers' demands will do just fine to pull off an attack like 9-11. Once loved ones told people on flight 93 what was happening & they knew their fate, complying with the hijackers' demands was over.

There will never be another airliner hijacking again.


----------



## eots (Mar 18, 2011)

KissMy said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



nonsense....at the first sign of a hijacking people will crash the plane...ya right


----------



## KissMy (Mar 18, 2011)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Wrong nut-job! - Terrorist will never get beyond attempting to hijack or accessing the cockpit. The passengers will subdue or kill them A.S.A.P damn the risk to themselves because they know they will die if they ever get control of the plane.


----------



## Obamerican (Mar 18, 2011)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


What the hell do YOU know about "logical"?


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2011)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



it would not be illogical to assume all hijackings are suicide missions


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 19, 2011)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Since 9-11-01, yes it is.


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



that is the equivalent of having a hostage incident where hostages are killed and saying from these day forth we must assume all kidnappers or hostage takers will kill the hostage...total stupid... totally illogical


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > lol....
> ...



 but then you are an uniformed dipshit...something to think about

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


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 19, 2011)

eots said:


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



Well, you go on a flight that is hijacked and cooperate with the hijackers.

Me? I'll do my best to send them to meet with Allah.


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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



what if thee hijackers are not Muslim ?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 19, 2011)

eots said:


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



I'm not going to cooperate with hijackers. Just as I will protect my home.

 You break into my place you will have to kill me if you want to leave. 

You hijack a plane I'm flying on, you will have to kill me to take control. 

And that is not a threat, it is a promise, and thankfully I am not alone. There are more Americans everyday that believe the same way.


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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



then you are a reactionary buffoon and a threat to the safety of others most likely not the terrorist... that is why we have airline captains and hostage negotiators


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2011)




----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 19, 2011)

eots said:


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



Yeah, that did a lot of good on 9-11-01. How many attempts have been foiled by passengers since then?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 19, 2011)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg&feature=player_embedded



Notice how none of the clips show the collapse of the east penthouse? Why is that?


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg&feature=player_embedded
> ...



these are previously unreleased tapes acquired by NIST under freedom of information so you would have to ask them...and the penthouse is in the videos  but it does not appear to take as long to fall as in the earlier released videos


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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



hijackings...none... apparent mad bombers that appear staged... 2 and noticing a freak trying to light his foot on fire and stopping him is a reasonable reaction and  can not be compared to a reactionary suicidal no negotiation with hijackers nonsense


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 20, 2011)

eots said:


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



OK, you've made it. You are officially a lunatic......


----------



## BullsOnParade (Mar 20, 2011)

It's pretty sad!!! People don't want to leave their little comfort bubble which is filled with reality tv and trans fat. Figuring out that our country is basically owned by a few fat, rich, and greedy criminals and that our votes reallllllly don't count....is hard to digest.


----------



## eots (Mar 20, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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



dont shoot the messenger...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 20, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> I'm not going to cooperate with hijackers. Just as I will protect my home.
> 
> You break into my place you will have to kill me if you want to leave.
> 
> ...


 But you don't say a peep against a domestic enemy that has clearly infiltrated the government, and taken control of your home country, its economy and your constitutional rights, consistently lied to you, and swindled you, and instead you fully defend and excuse their criminal actions on a daily basis on here, while you put down the protests of others who see this valid threat?  Like saying you'll fight a campfire but leave the forest to burn.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 20, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not going to cooperate with hijackers. Just as I will protect my home.
> ...



You have so far failed to prove that there was any government conspiracy conducted on 9-11-01. I do not see where my constitutional rights have been taken away, other than by maybe Obamacare. I don't know what criminal actions you may be referring to. I put down ignorance and stupidity. If the shoe fits, wear it.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 20, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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


*Judge Napolitano: Why The Patriot Act is Unconstitutional.*

*Are you really this ignorant Ollie?? I hope this is an act....  

You are so disgraceful I wish they would rip the patches and badges right off your uniform, you disturbing excuse for a soldier.  Not only do you spread fallacies, you refuse to stand up for your Oath.  Pathetic American.*

Military Officers for 9/11 Truth
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 20, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


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



You know, it's a great country that allows for its citizens to have an opinion and to openly express that opinion. And that is all you've got; other peoples opinions.

But let me tell you something. If you were to diss my service to this great country to my face you would go to the hospital and I would go to jail. You understand that maggot? Now run along and report me for making a threat. It;s not, it's a promise.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 20, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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



*You are a disgraceful soldier who should be publicly humiliated infront of actual soldiers and heroes who stand up for their Oath's.  Stop being so ignorant.
Threaten me with promises or whatever you want to do, it does not change the fact that 9/11 was an inside job, you coward. *

Military Officers for 9/11 Truth

*I cannot believe you said the Patriot Act hasn't effected your constitutional rights....it's like you like playing dumb.  What a disturbing human.  I wish you had never served for the citizens, because you are betraying them now.  Traitor.*

www.PatriotsQuestion911.com

www.Scientistsfor911Truth.org
www.Pilotsfor911Truth.org
www.Scholarsfor911Truth.org
www.FireFightersfor911Truth.org


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 20, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


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



Go on coward attack my service some more. It doesn't mean a damn thing. Your opinion is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog. 

The patriot Act has saved American lives. It has not harmed any Americans. We do not even know how many plots it has been used to break up because they are classified. 

The attacks on 9-11-01 were not an inside job. You have no proof that they were. What you have is 2.25 seconds and a lot of BS Opinion that isn't even your own.

Traitor? That's some strong words, why don't we have coffee sometime????????


----------



## eots (Mar 20, 2011)

hey Ollie tells us the story about how it would take thousands of people and miles of detcord or how there would be blasting  caps everywhere...oh ya and the one about how thermite cant be utilized in a cutting charge...


----------



## BrianH (Mar 21, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## BrianH (Mar 21, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## BrianH (Mar 21, 2011)

eots said:


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




This is why we have air-marshals now.  Problem solved


----------



## BrianH (Mar 21, 2011)

BullsOnParade said:


> It's pretty sad!!! People don't want to leave their little comfort bubble which is filled with reality tv and trans fat. Figuring out that our country is basically owned by a few fat, rich, and greedy criminals and that our votes reallllllly don't count....is hard to digest.



That's not hard to digest.  It's obvious who controls the country...  The rich idiots have controlled nations since the beginning of civilization.  What is hard to digest, is the bull-shit 
"evidence" truthers post online.  As if an edited youtube video posted by "9/11hardon" is supposed to be the say all-end all of the discussion.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 21, 2011)

eots said:


> hey Ollie tells us the story about how it would take thousands of people and miles of detcord or how there would be blasting  caps everywhere...oh ya and the one about how thermite cant be utilized in a cutting charge...



Don't have the link, but it said it would take 75 men at least three months to rig explosives.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 21, 2011)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg&feature=player_embedded



Two questions for you chickenshit.

1. Why do most of those clips NOT show the penthouse collapse the precedes the out perimeter collapse? Trying to be deceitful?

2. Why is there .8 seconds of no free fall at the START of the outer perimeter collapse? According to PhysicsExist, free fall means NO resistance. So when the perimeter columns were supposedly blown, why was there .8 seconds of resistance before the actual free fall commenced?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 21, 2011)

eots said:


> hey Ollie tells us the story about how it would take thousands of people and miles of detcord or how there would be blasting  caps everywhere...oh ya and the one about how thermite cant be utilized in a cutting charge...



I don't have to tell you. People with any measurable level of intelligence already know.


----------



## KissMy (Mar 21, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg&feature=player_embedded
> ...



eots is just a disingenuous douche bag. It has been pointed out to him many times that the left side interior floors & penthouse collapse the precedes the out perimeter collapse by more than 8 - 10 full seconds before the remaining penthouse collapse begins & then the parameter.

All of the videos he post start 10 seconds into the collapse when the parameter starts to move so he can peddle his stupid myth.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 21, 2011)

KissMy said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Yup.

This is why he never gets into the specifics in his posts and just spews garbage. He wants SO bad to believe there was a conspiracy. He doesn't understand the details of what he claims so he just regurgitates other's videos and quotes. 

Come on eots. Let's discuss the WTC7 free fall. Why was there .8 seconds of no free fall when the perimeter collapsed. I noticed PhysicsExist won't touch this subject because it makes his claims look like a bunch of shit.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 21, 2011)

eots said:


> kissmy said:
> 
> 
> > miller said:
> ...



You got a picture or video of these beams being "hurled" outward?

Just curious.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 21, 2011)

BrianH said:


> > ?????  You're an idiot.  YOU'RE ACCUSING.  Innocent until proven guilty.  Enough said.
> 
> 
> That's right, and the official fairy tale has not proven anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 21, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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



I think the doubt is in your loyalty to the oath that one takes to the constitution and to protect the nation from enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. Why is it so many who served, and I know some who still do, realize they have been lied to, but not you? Will you shoot into a crowd of patriots protesting the  Wall street swindle, 9-11,  the illegal wars, the Fed Reserve etc, gov forced health care?? If so you are an enemy of the American people.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 21, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


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



When you have raised your hand and sworn the oath as many times as I have then and only then can we discuss it. Until then just kick back and enjoy the freedoms that so many like myself have fought to make sure you have.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 21, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > > ?????  You're an idiot.  YOU'RE ACCUSING.  Innocent until proven guilty.  Enough said.
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 21, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg&feature=player_embedded
> ...


 I would like to look into this, if you don't mind, what in your opinion is the significance of the .8 tenths of a second when discussing the decent? I mean doesn't that compare to a blink, or half blink or something just as fast? 
 This is just amazing...For most people simply watching it collapse is all it takes. Most people are not stupid. Most people can recognize the difference between a demolition and a natural building collapse with nothing more being said. Using an artificially early start time several seconds prior to the beginning of the obvious, sudden onset of freefall is disingenuous and is obviously a deception. They started their clock at a time between the collapses of the east and west penthouses when the building was not moving. 
After the east penthouse collapsed, several seconds goes by, then the west penthouse began to collapse, at almost the same time the roofline of the building developed a kink near the center, then all support across the entire width of the building was suddenly removed, a vertical swath of windows under the west penthouse were simultaneously blown out, the building suddenly went limp, and within a fraction of a second it transitioned from full support to freefall.
They took their start time several seconds prior to the actual start of freefall when nothing was happening. The building was just sitting there, with the clock running, for several seconds. Then it dropped, with sudden onset, and continued for 2.5 seconds of absolute freefall.
Freefall is an embarrassment to the official story, and those doing mental gymnastics to try to explain it is absurd because freefall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building with the damage that WTC 7 sustained. In a natural collapse there would be an interaction between the falling and the stationary sections of the building. Once again, asymmetrical damage bringing about the symmetrical collapse, and causing 2.25 seconds of freefall ? BS!!


You know what else I find odd, is that they claim to have known that that WTC 7 was going to collapse and evacuated and gave up all firefighting efforts.
A few questions for you then,
 How was it possible to have certain knowledge of the building's demise before it collapsed, but be completely in the dark about how it happened after the building collapsed?
How do you know an *unprecedented* event is going to occur prior to its happening but not have any clue as to why it happened after?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 21, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> I would like to look into this, if you don't mind, what in your opinion is the significance of the .8 tenths of a second when discussing the decent? I mean doesn't that compare to a blink, or half blink or something just as fast?



It doesn't matter if it was "in the blink of an eye". The fact is that the claim being made here was that ALL the columns for the perimeter facade were blown at the same time to create the simultaneous descent of the roof line at free fall. 

The problem is this, when the roof line starts its descent is when the columns were all supposedly blown, thus creating the "no resistance" scenario. That means that free fall should have ensued IMMEDIATELY, not .8 seconds after that.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 21, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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


 You mean the freedoms that you say are not being taken away with the passage of police state legislation like the Patriot Act. You are delusional..and why wont you answer if you would shoot your fellow Americans if they should protest and finally stand up to the ever increasing tyrannical BS or not? Would you stand with the people or support forces trying to suppress the constitutional rights you say you fought for?
 I suppose you'll say just sit back and enjoy.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 21, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> This is just amazing...For most people simply watching it collapse is all it takes. Most people are not stupid. Most people can recognize the difference between a demolition and a natural building collapse with nothing more being said. Using an artificially early start time several seconds prior to the beginning of the obvious, sudden onset of freefall is disingenuous and is obviously a deception.



Let me ask you something Mr. Jones.

Do you understand loads and stresses when applied to a building structure? When the interior penthouses collapsed inside, what happened to the loads that the column were bearing? Where did they get transferred to? Here's a drawing to help you.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 21, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > This is just amazing...For most people simply watching it collapse is all it takes. Most people are not stupid. Most people can recognize the difference between a demolition and a natural building collapse with nothing more being said. Using an artificially early start time several seconds prior to the beginning of the obvious, sudden onset of freefall is disingenuous and is obviously a deception.
> ...











Stop playing these games coward.  Investigate Building 7.

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


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > This is just amazing...For most people simply watching it collapse is all it takes. Most people are not stupid. Most people can recognize the difference between a demolition and a natural building collapse with nothing more being said. Using an artificially early start time several seconds prior to the beginning of the obvious, sudden onset of freefall is disingenuous and is obviously a deception.
> ...



dont pretend ...dipshit


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 21, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to look into this, if you don't mind, what in your opinion is the significance of the .8 tenths of a second when discussing the decent? I mean doesn't that compare to a blink, or half blink or something just as fast?
> ...


 What a weak argument you try to present. 
Imagine if after the penthouse collapsed the main building stood for a further, say, 3 hours before going down, would we then have to say the 'global' collapse of WTC7 took 3 hours? I guess you would. How silly. Seriously you're embarrassing yourself  Go watch a CD and and you'll see that the explosives go off and within a very short time the global collapse ensues. This .8 tenths of a second argument of yours is a total fail 
The building came down inconsistent with the scattered damage claimed and more consistent with a CD, .8 tenths of a second or not.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 21, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > This is just amazing...For most people simply watching it collapse is all it takes. Most people are not stupid. Most people can recognize the difference between a demolition and a natural building collapse with nothing more being said. Using an artificially early start time several seconds prior to the beginning of the obvious, sudden onset of freefall is disingenuous and is obviously a deception.
> ...


 Go ahead and explain this to me I'm all ears  Did they know this was going to happen, is that why they 'pulled" the FDNY and told Guiliani? I enjoy learning something new.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 21, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


----------



## signelect (Mar 21, 2011)

Like everyone said "I KNOW THE TRUTH"  You seem like a nice person, please start taking your meds again and everything will be OK>


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 21, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



You mean you don't know? How can you rule out structural failure of you don't understand how it all works????

So basically what you're admitting is that you are guessing at this point and aren't really sure?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 21, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Did they know this was going to happen, is that why they 'pulled" the FDNY and told Guiliani? I enjoy learning something new.



Wow, what a stupid response.

You mean to tell me that firefighters never deem a building unstable with a possibility to collapse? 

I suppose creaking coming from the building isn't a dead giveaway right? Or a transit on the building?

I see. You would get warning signs, but leave your guys in there anyways.

Brilliant.


----------



## signelect (Mar 21, 2011)

According to the theory, Bush did it.

1.  He had unlimited access to more explosives that anyone on earth.
2.  He could have gotten the explosives and disposed of the people who gave it to him
3.  Put in in a truck in the basement, wait a couple of day and boom no more building.  Why 
4.  Blame it on Sadamm.

There is no need to work up the airplane show just to throw us off.

I don't see how anyone can even remotely believe that Bush did this.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 21, 2011)

Fire at Former AC Delco Plant Ruled Arson - YNN, Your News Now

Uh oh Mr. Jones.

Firefighters "pulled" from this building because it was unstable? I guess it's a conspiracy!!!!!


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2011)

gamolon said:


> mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > did they know this was going to happen, is that why they 'pulled" the fdny and told guiliani? I enjoy learning something new.
> ...



creaking ?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 21, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Did they know this was going to happen, is that why they 'pulled" the FDNY and told Guiliani? I enjoy learning something new.
> ...


 I thought you were going to show me something on building stresses and maybe how it relates to this .8 tenth of a second you are constantly posting on here? Is this why they were told to move away and abandon the building and call off the FDNY?
 And what exactly were the reasons warning signs/ why the "pulled" WTC7? Can you please elaborate?


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2011)

signelect said:


> according to the theory, bush did it.
> 
> 1.  He had unlimited access to more explosives that anyone on earth.
> 2.  He could have gotten the explosives and disposed of the people who gave it to him
> ...



this explains the collapses how ?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 21, 2011)

eots said:


> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > mr. Jones said:
> ...



Oh I see, they heard _creaking_ but not audible _explosions_?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 21, 2011)

eots said:


> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > mr. Jones said:
> ...



You don't think loud creaking is possible evidence of structural instability????

Jesus eots...


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 21, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > gamolon said:
> ...



They didn't hear explosions?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 21, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Fire at Former AC Delco Plant Ruled Arson - YNN, Your News Now
> 
> Uh oh Mr. Jones.
> 
> Firefighters "pulled" from this building because it was unstable? I guess it's a conspiracy!!!!!


 Do you even read the nonsense you post?
*"Just this past week, City Council voted to spend nearly a half million dollars in state and federal funding to clean up the long vacant building......
"Previous fires in this complex the buildings have collapsed at least in some portion,&#8221; said Chief John Caufield of the Rochester Fire Department. &#8220;Little to be gained here in terms of saving anything of value, so we don't want to put our firefighters at any undue risk."*
http://rochester.ynn.com/content/to...t-former-ac-delco-plant-ruled-arson/?ap=1&MP4

How you can compare a run down, long vacant and dilapidated building to the WTC7 building is another total fail on your part  Stop it please, my side hurts from laughing at you!
Now what were you saying about the stress factors and the .8 tenths of a second again?


----------



## BrianH (Mar 21, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to look into this, if you don't mind, what in your opinion is the significance of the .8 tenths of a second when discussing the decent? I mean doesn't that compare to a blink, or half blink or something just as fast?
> ...



exactly.  Watch the roof of any demolished building...  And the .8 seconds of non-freefall also comes after several seconds of the pentousse collapsing before anything else.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 21, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



For the love of God....

If you don't understand, read SLOWER. Here is the claim in order of sequence.

1. 8 floors are detonated which IMMEDIATELY/INSTANTLY starts the symmetrical roofline descent
2. Building collapses at free fall speed for 2.25 seconds.
3. Collapse continues at non free fall speed

Do you see points 1 and 2?

If the descent of the roofline started with the supposed demolition of the 8 floors, why did it take .8 seconds for free fall to start. 

My reference to loads and structural design was to explain why it was possible for fire to cause such a collapse. Then again you believe the demolition theory so must completely understand structural design to a point that you can refute it correct?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 21, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Investigate Building 7 | A Call to Reexamine the Most Important Event of Our Time - Home


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 21, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


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



I support the Constitution dumbass.

What you and your ilk forget is that the world changed on 9-11-01 and you refuse to accept the facts that we as a country have to change a little bit with it if we are to survive. So if that means that some computer is going to listen to my phone calls to my sons in Germany then fine with me. If for some reason some federal agent thinks they need to see who I'm talking to on line, they have my blessings.

I understand the reasons, and I don't see the right to privacy the  way you want me to.

Oh well. Not my problem that you can't accept the truth.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 21, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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



You are a disgraceful human being.  Your service was worthless IF YOU MAKE SUCH STATEMENTS LIKE THIS.  What kind of contradicting statement is this?  You are so ignorant and so disgusting I am saddened types like you protect our Constitution.  Go MIA next time please, you are a TRAITOR, NOT a soldier with such DISGUSTING COMMENTS LIKE THIS.


			
				SFC Ollie said:
			
		

> _If for some reason some federal agent thinks they need to see who I'm talking to on line, they have my blessings_



Unbelievable.  So uneducated and uninformed.  So ignorant. SO ignorant. 

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - *Benjamin Franklin*


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



as the  demolition expert said  a slight delay is not unexpected


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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



they did need your blessings in a police state ...but you bending over and taken it sure makes it easier


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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



what is it like to live in such fear ???


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 21, 2011)

Isn't it wonderful to have such a loving nation.

I support the constitution of the United States. You guys are now telling me that the Patriot Act is Unconstitutional.

Well I guess you had better give the Supreme court a call and instruct them on the error of their ways.

Thankfully we have some people in Washington (though at times it is hard to believe) who know more about what is going on and about the law and our beloved constitution than any of you losers.

There isn't one of you who can tell me how to think. Not one of you has ever had an original thought of their own.

So go ahead and attack my service to this great country and live with the fear that some computer is listening to your phone calls. Or that some federal agent is checking your library records..

LOL, none of you are worth the trouble.

By the way, not only did I serve on Active duty for 22 years but I have been the Vice Commander of my local American Legion post for the last 3 years and will probably be Commander later this summer. And I have turned down the Vice Commander position at the county level. And just this evening I attended the county United Veteran Council meeting....

Yep I'm still as active in Veterans affairs as I can be..... I hope that gives you all nightmares.


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2011)

sfc ollie said:


> isn't it wonderful to have such a loving nation.
> 
> I support the constitution of the united states. You guys are now telling me that the patriot act is unconstitutional.
> 
> ...



double think at its finest young ollie...you will do well in the party


----------



## BrianH (Mar 22, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Surely even you can attempt to understand what he's talking about.  He made no claims that building 7 specifically was creaking.  (Though it's very probable.)  He's addressing your nonsense claims about the FDNY being pulled from the area.  You're claiming they were pulled from the building because it was going to be demolished.  He's telling you that firefighters are pulled from buildings all of the time because they're are warning signs that the building may collapse,therefore, it's more than possible that they were pulled from this building because it was deemed unstable. IN FACT, you have firefighter statements that say that they thought the building was coming down, therefore, they were pulled from the building.  If you've ever spoken to a firefighter (or even watched a firefighting movie) you'd know this.  The roof caving in, the supports creaking and cracking, the building swaying, an uncontainable fire, are all warning signs of possible collapse.  And don't get a hardon about the building swaying, most buildings that sway do so un-noticed.  Buildings sway from the wind...


----------



## eots (Mar 22, 2011)

brianh said:


> mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > gamolon said:
> ...



big difference between a roof or ceiling falling or even a partial collapse and progressive collapse of the entire structure in secs collapse in seconds


----------



## BrianH (Mar 22, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



All you have to do is watch a video of ANY building that is being demolished.  Compare it to building 7 and you'll find that it's not the same.  You see MANY visible explosions in a controlled demolition.


You tell me what's missing at WTC 7


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 22, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



A slight delay for what? 

Are you saying that the laws of physics are like those in a cartoon where the character runs of a cliff, hangs in the air for a bit, waves at the audience, then starts to fall?

Are you a complete ass? Let me answer that for you. Yes you are.

Let me explain this to you dipshit. Look at the video. The roofline starts to DESCEND which means the columns ALL COLUMNS have supposedly been cut at the same time. That means NO RESISTANCE and free fall should ensue IMMEDIATELY. Do you understand what your idiot counterparts are actually saying?

There is no delay once the support is removed which is why the perimeter starts to fall.

What a fucking moron you are.

You guys have been proven WRONG yet again and you try and say that there is a delay in the start of free fall when the resistance has been removed?

You guys are nuts!


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 22, 2011)

eots said:


> brianh said:
> 
> 
> > mr. Jones said:
> ...



What the fuck are you talking about???? Eots, you're either high again or just stupid.

Creaking of a building structure is one sign of structural instability. The firefighters were also talking about the damage suffered by WTC7 as another reason. Not to mention a transit was put on the building per chief Haydens quote below:


> Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
> Division 1 - 33 years
> 
> ...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. *Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse.* You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 oclock in the afternoon, but by about 2 oclock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
> ...


http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

Do you understand what the warning signs of structural instability is to a firefighter or are you just making asinine assumptions? I guess the latter. Maybe you should talk to a firefighter and ask him. 

Tell you what asshole. I KNOW some firefighters. I'll ask them myself. I'll let you know what they say.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 22, 2011)

Firefighter quote:


> But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, were going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didnt look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasnt really keen on the idea. Then this other officer Im standing next to said, that building doesnt look straight. So Im standing there. Im looking at the building. It didnt look right, but, well, well go in, well see.
> 
> So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and *Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobodys going into 7, theres creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped.* And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.



Read the rest. Go read other firefighter reports and tell me there was no signs of structural instability or possible collapse.

You guys are idiots. I suppose with all the warning signs, you would have sent your  people in there regardless with reckless abandon and not cared for their safety right?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 22, 2011)

eots said:


> as the  demolition expert said  a slight delay is not unexpected



Not when ALL columns of ALL 8 floors are removed at the same time idiot.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 22, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Go read my above posts for the warning signs jackass. Quotes from firefighters. Maybe you should do yourself a favor and get educated. Go talk to some real live firefighters about warning signs of structural instability. 

This seems to be a major problem with you. You argue things with no knowledge about the topic. Just like you admitted you know nothing about structural design, loads, and stresses yet you argue that it couldn't have happened.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 22, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > THE NIST QUOTE IS THERE HAVE BEEN SIMILAR FIRES IN BUILDINGS OF SIMILAR CONSTRUCTION ..SO AGAIN GO ARGUE WITH NIST..NOWHERE WAS THE DESIGN OF WTC 7 CALLED INTO QUESTIONS...NO BUILDING CODES WHERE CHANGED AS A RESULT ...YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT AND FLINGING LIKE  THEW MONKEY YOU ARE
> ...



When are you going to admit you were wrong about what NIST actually said? Doesn't make you look to good when you "stretch" the truth like you did in order to make your claims look better.

Just like you left off the less-than-palatable part of Quintiere's quote about "becoming conspiracy theorists, but in the proper way". Or the fact that you post videos of the WTC7 collapse WITHOUT the penthouse collapse.

Seems to be a pattern with you folks.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 22, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


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


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 22, 2011)

signelect said:


> According to the theory, Bush did it.
> 
> 1.  He had unlimited access to more explosives that anyone on earth.
> 2.  He could have gotten the explosives and disposed of the people who gave it to him
> ...



Nobody here is saying Bush alone did it.Bush is just a puppet for Cheney.His neocons in his administration are the ones that orchestrated it mostly.Not Bush.Bush is too stupid and incompetent.they arent though.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 22, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Fire at Former AC Delco Plant Ruled Arson - YNN, Your News Now
> ...



If you would learn to read and digest the information, you would understand my point. But, having less than normal gray matter upstairs, I'll have to elaborate.

A building deemed unstable is unstable no matter WHAT the cause. Are you telling me that that WTC7, being deemed unstable because of the bulging of the side, structural creaking, and results of the transit, would still be safe to enter?

You MUST be smoking the same shit as eots.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 22, 2011)

BrianH said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


 You still don't seem to understand that the event was NOT intended to look like a CD, but a terrorists attack crashing planes into the towers, how the hell 7 came down in in symmetrical CD fashion is the question here, and NIST says that it happened because of 1 beam, and a "new phenomenon" for structural steel, called thermal expansion.. Can you use your head a little and imagine if all 3 buildings displayed the typical CD explosions for EVERYONE to see?
The buildings displayed an amazing resemblance to CDs, except the over abundance of the flashes and sounds in your videos, therefore it is suggested that a thermite cutter charge, that makes less noise and cuts through steel was probably used.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 22, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



No controlled demo explosions and no precut steel. So what else ya got?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 22, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


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


----------



## BrianH (Mar 22, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You obviously didn't pay attention in science class.  Thermal expansion is not a new concept.  I learned in the 5th grade that metal EXPANDS when heated, and retracts when cooled.  This is precisely the reason why metal can crack when cooled or heated too rapidly.  But that's an entirely different subject.  

Thermite and Sulfer- Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition

Read about 1/2 of the way down where he's talking about the use of thermite and how the beams were supposedly "cut" by thermite.  The metal supports that are cut at an angle are from ironworkers cutting the beams during cleanup to make sure they fell a certain way.  There's a picture that truthers use to prove their thermite conspiracy that involves firefighters at ground zero and a beam behind them that is cut at an angle.  They try to say that because firefighters were there than it was immediately after, even though for months after 9/11 there were firefighters on scene...which makes that claim useless.  As far as the cut beam behind them, if this picture was taken well after 9/11, it's possible that the beams were cut by ironworkers that wanted to make sure the beams fell the correct way.  This is supported with an an actual picture of an ironworker at ground zero cutting a beam in this exact manner.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 22, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> My reference to loads and structural design was to explain why it was possible for fire to cause such a collapse.


 This theory that took NIST years to come up with, has been proven to be highly unlikely.
So according to your posts, you are saying that they knew the building was going to partially collapse, or totally collapse?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 22, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > My reference to loads and structural design was to explain why it was possible for fire to cause such a collapse.
> ...



WTF is the matter with you? Can you not read at ALL? They did what they did because the building was unstable given the myriad of signs that were observed as I have shown. Bulging wall, transit readings, creaking coming from inside the building?

Would you send your people into a building that is on fire and has those types of signs with 100% certainty that they'll be safe?

Show me that proof. Show me where ANYONE has looked at NIST's numbers and calculations and shown them to be incorrect.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 22, 2011)

Thermal expansion of railroad tracks on a hot day.






How the hell do you think a steel beam or column under stress and it's connection points would react to the same thermal expansion? 

Are the bolted connection going to give or is the beam going to bend?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 22, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> how the hell 7 came down in in symmetrical CD fashion is the question here,



Why do you continue to post bullshit?

WTC7 did NOT come down symmetrically. Do you call the east penthouse, then the west penthouse, then the outer facade, in that order, a symmetrical collapse?

If it were symmetrical, the building AS A WHOLE would have come down at the same time, not in stages as the videos show. Are you only watching the same crap videos that eots posts which only show the pouter facade collapse? Is that what you're basing this on?

If you were truly honest, your post would have read:

"...how the hell 7's perimeter facade came down in a symmetrical collapse..."


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 22, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > how the hell 7 came down in in symmetrical CD fashion is the question here,
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 22, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## BrianH (Mar 22, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 22, 2011)

Because a fraction of a sec delay is not abnormal


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 22, 2011)

eots said:


> Because a fraction of a sec delay is not abnormal





For an object to start falling after the resistance below is removed????

Eots, you HAVE to be a troll because nobody is this stupid.


----------



## eots (Mar 22, 2011)

gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > because a fraction of a sec delay is not abnormal
> ...



no , it is a fraction of a sec of reticence before the full free fall collapse


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 22, 2011)

eots said:


> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



And what does 2.25 seconds of free fall prove anyway. The entire collapse took 40% longer than free fall. And all of the truthers want to discount the east penthouse and it's collapse 6 seconds or longer before anything else.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 22, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Thermal expansion of railroad tracks on a hot day.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 You are totally fucking clueless here. The point is that the scattered fires in the building could not have reached the required temps, at all the precise locations, and heated up with the intensity required for the building to collapse straight fucking down!
All the BS NIST said occurred inside that building, is BS and evidence of it would have been seen, furthermore one would expect for the thing to come down partially, not all at once. 
Why didn't this occur in the north tower in 1975? You don't understand that steel dissipates heat, and if one section would have gotten hot enough to cause it to fail , the other parts that weren't as hot would have held, causing an uneven partial collapse, not a total fucking collapse while free falling for 2,25 seconds!
What you are saying is that this heat applied itself to all the support beams with the same temps, at the same time for it to fall the way it did-straight fucking down! Are you that stupid? Go and study this shit before you post nonsense.
 it is clear to anyone with a brain, and common sense that such extreme, asymmetric damage would have caused an asymmetric collapse, not a straight down free-fall speed collapse as we see in the videos. 
Christ, you first post a story comparing a previously fire damaged dilapidated old building, now some railroad tracks, and try to compare this shit to the WTC buildings? 
 Wow I wonder how they kept all the steel from the WTC  from "thermally expanding" like spaghetti noodles before it was installed? Make sure they kept it all out of the sun I suppose, perhaps dousing it with water 

Structural steel has a thermal conductivity of 46 W/m/K, which means that any heat applied is easily wicked away, and your BS office fires could not have caused the straight down collapse unless all the beams that supported the building reached the required temps at the same time!
*
"Their growth and spread were consistent with ordinary building contents fires." NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii *
*Add to these facts that NIST admitted in their December 2007 advisory committee meeting that the fuel load could only support 20 minutes of fire in any given location. *
*    "However, it appeared likely the critical damage state occurred between 3.5 h and 4 h." NCSTAR 1A, p 32*

What could possibly have been burning, under those beams, for another three hours? 

To sum up, steel components that were certified to withstand hours of fire failed in typical office fires lasting a maximum of 32 minutes in any given location.

NIST tells us that most of these unprecedented, illogical and thoroughly fantastic events were happening within the box of WTC 7 itself, *before we saw anything* . Of course, they have absolutely no evidence for any of these things happening in the real world. 

What's really fucked up is that NIST and its brainwashed supporters need the fire temps to be exasperatingly high for their theory, but then they turn around and wave away the fact that there was molten metal underneath it that burned for months, that could not have been caused by the scattered office fires! Because then they would have to take a serious look at the possibility of something else that shouldn't have been there causing the high fire temps, either way you nuts loose. 
 You people are fucking crazy.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 22, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> And what does 2.25 seconds of free fall prove anyway. The entire collapse took 40% longer than free fall. And all of the truthers want to discount the east penthouse and it's collapse 6 seconds or longer before anything else.


 For one thing it proves NIST lied when they adamantly denied it happened,and now you have to explain how office fires removed the critical points in the building at the same time to cause this freefall collapse.

Re; the collapse of the penthouse marking the start of global collapse. ...Does it? I think every reasonable person knows what part of the collapse is really the global collapse you know, the big part called *the building*.

Imagine if after the penthouse collapsed the main building stood for a further, say, 3 hours before going down, would we then have to say the 'global' collapse of WTC7 took 3 hours? I guess you would.
 I know it's hard for you to grasp all of this, so take your time, do a little reading on this amazing revelation, and try to block out the brainwashing you're experiencing, you really can see the truth that's right before your eyes if you try.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 22, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > And what does 2.25 seconds of free fall prove anyway. The entire collapse took 40% longer than free fall. And all of the truthers want to discount the east penthouse and it's collapse 6 seconds or longer before anything else.
> ...



So the penthouse falling into the building had nothing to do with the collapse of the entire structure? Don't tell me you've been hitting on Eots's bong again haven't you?

And WTF is this "Imagine if" stuff? Just stick to the facts and........

Oh I'm sorry , you don't believe in facts.....


----------



## eots (Mar 22, 2011)

sfc ollie said:


> mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



 In  reality the ignorant fool has to babble about bong hits in his flailing attempts to avoid addressing facts and replace them with his lil imaginings...what a hypocritical clown


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 22, 2011)

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > mr. Jones said:
> ...



I presented the facts, you ignore them.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 22, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 22, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


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


----------



## eots (Mar 22, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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


----------



## BrianH (Mar 23, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Thermal expansion of railroad tracks on a hot day.
> ...



I like how ALL of your explanations leave out the fact that BIG ASS PLANES crashed into the buildings...  The NIST report does not say that only the fires caused the collapse.  If you would actually take time to read the report it says the IMPACT and ensuing fires contributed to the collapse.  I guess the rest of the building stayed completely sound when an object traveling close to the speed of sound crashed into it.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 23, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > And what does 2.25 seconds of free fall prove anyway. The entire collapse took 40% longer than free fall. And all of the truthers want to discount the east penthouse and it's collapse 6 seconds or longer before anything else.
> ...



Lied?  Why do you assume it was a lie?  Could it not have been that they just flat out didn't believe it?  Why do you assume everything has a malicious intent?  Have they since acknowledged it?  Slight incompetence doesn't mean that they were lying...


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 23, 2011)

eots said:


> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I'm sorry dumbass, but gravity cannot be reticent as you claim. The second something has it's support/resistance removed as your idiot companions claim was done, gravity takes over.

Case closed.

The amount of stupidity from you is just staggering...


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 23, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > And what does 2.25 seconds of free fall prove anyway. The entire collapse took 40% longer than free fall. And all of the truthers want to discount the east penthouse and it's collapse 6 seconds or longer before anything else.
> ...



Tell you what jackass. Show me the exact quote where NIST specifically denied 2.25 seconds of free fall.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 23, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Thermal expansion of railroad tracks on a hot day.
> ...



You're a fucking dumbass. If buildings were just great big heat sinks then why the hell do they fireproof steel components?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 23, 2011)

Gamolon said:


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



Tell YOU what jaggoff, here it is-
0 to 4:57 of the video,-denies freefall
 also take note that when Sunder is talking about measurement of collapse time, he clearly mentions the ROOFLINE, as the point of reference, not the penthouse you idiots here are claiming.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 23, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Thermal expansion of railroad tracks on a hot day.
> ...



First of all, let's give you a little lesson, since you obviously haven't got a CLUE what you are talking about. You've admitted this much about structural design, yet you argue points like you have some knowledge about this subject.

Let's talk about heat dissipation of steel and thermal expansion. Let's look at steel piping. I worked in an engineering firm dealing with industrial piping in many steel mills. Do you know what expansion joints are? No? Here's a picture of one.




They put those inline to "absorb" the expansion and contraction of the pipe lines as they heat up and cool down. Do you know what and expansion loop is? No? Hears a picture of one.




They install those so when the pipes thermally expand, that loop "bends" and absorbs the expansion. If steel has such great dissipation properties as you seem to think, why to they need such components? Why do they fireproof steel members if it dissipates heat like you say?

Why did the rails bend like they did in the picture? That was just a hot day with no fires yet they bent like noodles? Are you saying the heat that day was greater than an office fire? 

You have NO CLUE.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 23, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Well think about it some dumbfuck... There's a fire, and it spreads to steel beams, causing the spread of heat/fire fire to something that has a lower flash point and could more easily burn like say, walls, wiring etc..
Man your're the dumbass


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 23, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Wahahahahaha!!!!

Listen to the question Chandler posed to him and what Sunder's answer is you fucking twit!!!!!

Is Sunder answering about the ENTIRE timeframe of the collapse being 40% slower than free fall or is he specifically denying that a portion of the collapse did not fall at free fall?

You see, this is what you d-bags do. You quote mine and take things out of context. He never denied that there WASN'T 2.25 seconds of free fall. He says that the entire collapse was not at free fall.

So again. Show me where NIST ever A PORTION of the total collapse was at free fall.

I'll make this easy for you. How long was the total collapse of the roofline from start to finish?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 23, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Flash point is for liquids and vapor you twat!

Your ignorance is really showing now. Keep going!

Let's point out some more of your stupidity. Fireproofing steel is not, repeat NOT put on to keep the heat from spreading to other items with a lower *laugh my ass off* "flash point". It's applied to PROTECT the steel from temperatures which cause it to weaken and fail.

God damn you are fucking dumb. No wonder you believe all this conspiracy crap.

Here. Go read this link about fireproofing steel.
Construction building envelope and ... - Google Books


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 23, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Well think about it some dumbfuck... There's a fire, and it spreads to steel beams,



Think about what you just posted. If heat from a hot day can cause railroad tracks to thermally expand and bend what the hell do you think is going to happen to a steel beam with a constant heat source such as a fire will do?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 23, 2011)

Here's more Mr. Jones.


> Structural steel requires external insulation (fireproofing) in order to prevent the steel from weakening in the event of a fire. When heated, steel expands and softens, eventually losing its structural integrity. Given enough energy, it can also melt. Heat transfer to the steel can be slowed by the use of fireproofing materials.



From Structural steel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in the section about fireproofing.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 23, 2011)

Here's how much steel expands per degree.

6.5 10-6 (in/in oF)

Go figure it out.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 23, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Here's how much steel expands per degree.
> 
> 6.5 10-6 (in/in oF)
> 
> Go figure it out.



"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Gamolon again."  

I bet he's still in college and majoring in business or something.  He has no idea how structural components work.  You're correct.  Good Job.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 23, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Here's how much steel expands per degree.
> ...



I'm still in college and have no idea how structural components work?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 23, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Thermal expansion of railroad tracks on a hot day.
> ...



The bolded part is why you continue to fail miserably. There fires didn't all have to be at precise locations for the structure to fail.

This is why having some knowledge about that which you speak makes a BIG difference. Getting this information from youtube videos doesn't cut it.

Here is the explanation. I structural steel design is made up of MANY different components such as columns, beams, and their respective connections. All these components are used together to support a load.

Here's an easy example of load distribution. Let's say, God forbid, that I cloned three of you. The we took a 20 foot long, 10" diameter steel pipe and put one of you at each end and one in the middle to hold it up. All three of you are supporting the total weight of that pipe. Let's say the middle person let's go leaving only two of you at the ends. That means two of you are now supporting the total weight of that pipe, meaning the two of you are now supporting MORE WEIGHT than when you had three.

When you weaken the steel support column due to fire, that column no linger can support the weight intended.Now the remaining structural components have to pick up the slack. When column  79 (circled in red) failed, where did the load (weight) of all the floors, beams, and girders go that it once supported? Where was that transfered to? Then the core columns failed to the west leaving what left?





See if you can follow this.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 23, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



HE...not YOU.  It was a dig at him and a compliment to you.  I tried to give you a rep but I already gave you one.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 23, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



Ah.

I saw my name posted above and thought you meant me.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 23, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



No sir, I think you're great! lol.  I've been arguing with these loons for the last few years about this nonsense.   Mr. Jones has obviously dug himself into a hole filled with his own BS.


----------



## eots (Mar 23, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



because you post a diagram and parrot back nonsense you do not not even understand ?


----------



## BrianH (Mar 23, 2011)

eots said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



I didn't post a diagram.  It's apparent that I understand more than you.  You use youtube videos and lack of evidence to prove your points.


----------



## eots (Mar 23, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Here's how much steel expands per degree.
> 
> 6.5 10-6 (in/in oF)
> 
> Go figure it out.



I believe engineers are aware that metal can expand and have been for sometime...you make out like they were unaware of this recently discovered property of steel and that collapse from fire is simply to be expected...clown


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 23, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Here's how much steel expands per degree.
> ...



No d-bag. 

It was for Mr. Jones' purpose, not the engineers. Get with the program and put down the bong for a change.


----------



## eots (Mar 23, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



the bong ?...so what you are really saying is you have no intelligent response so you say..bong... to distract from that fact...I see


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 23, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



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

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

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


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


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 23, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I guess you're too stupid to see the sentence before the bong comment?

The thermal expansion number was for Mr. Jones who seems to think that the fireproofing of steel was to keep heat from transferring to other components that have a (I laugh at this every time) lower flash point.

I didn't post it to point out that engineers just learned about thermal expansion.

Idiot.


----------



## eots (Mar 23, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



then builders were well aware of how much steel expanded  per degree and factored that in to the design obviously...this is the reasons that hi-rise buildings do not collapse in fires


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 23, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



My God, can you do anything other than cut and paste? Can't you think on your own at all? We've seen this same post from you at least 25 times if not more. Enough already.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 23, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


*

Why was there .8 seconds of no free fall before the2.25 seconds? I though the explosives removed all the supports?*


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 23, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...





Please eots. Let us bask in your structural design knowledge. Pray tell, how do the structural engineers accommodate for this thermal expansion of columns and beams in a steel structure? 

If a column or beam grows due to heat in a fire, how do they compensate for that growth? 

Let's see what you've got.


----------



## eots (Mar 23, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



not into playing your games if you have a statement to make ..make it ..instead of trying to hide behind your lame riddler routine...are you trying to imply the effects of fire are not compensated for in a hi-rise building design .


----------



## eots (Mar 23, 2011)

"grows"....lol


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 23, 2011)

Gee even I can answer that,


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 23, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You are saying that they do, thus implying you know how it's done. Show me what you are basing this claim on. How is thermal expansion due to fire designed into a building's structure?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 23, 2011)

eots said:


> then builders were well aware of how much steel expanded  per degree and factored that in to the design obviously



Just to make sure eots.

Are you making that statement above because to are 100% sure that they do or are you just assuming.

If you are 100% sure, how do you know this? Where you told by a structural engineer? Did they explain how thermal expansion in a structure due to fire was accounted for?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 23, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



He hasn't a clue, I know though.......


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 23, 2011)

Here you go eots. Put your money where your mouth is. Let's take the beam I circled in red. It is bolted on both ends making a rigid connection. If that beam expands (or grows in length due to that expansion) lengthwise, what happens? How did the designers account for that thermal expansion from fires you so vehemently claim that they did.


----------



## Terral (Mar 23, 2011)

Hi Gam:

This fool comes to this Conspiracy Theories Forum every day to defend Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the murderers of innocent Americans with stupidity like this:



Gamolon said:


> Here you go eots. Put your money where your mouth is. Let's take the beam I circled in red. It is bolted on both ends making a rigid connection. If that beam expands (or grows in length due to that expansion) lengthwise, what happens? How did the designers account for that thermal expansion from fires you so vehemently claim that they did.



The single component of any steel-framed skyscraper does not simply heat up and expand independent of the entire network!!!!! If heat enters that beam at any point, that heat energy is spread throughout the entire steel-framed network faster than any single component can heat up. Period. That is why no steel-framed skyscraper has ever burned down in history and why none ever will; because that is impossible and you now it. 

WTC-7 was taken down by *controlled demolition* (topic) like WTC-1 and WTC-2 and that is plainly obvious to anyone after careful examination of all the facts. And guess what?

Flight 93 Empty Hole Topic






This is still the picture of an empty hole outside Shanksville that has nothing to do with any crashed jetliner, if this idiot wants to push official cover story lies to the end of time.

What Happened At The Pentagon






There is no way any 100-ton Jetliner crashed into this Pentagon wall. The Pentagon was struck by a Hughes-Raytheon Hypersonic Missile at 9:31:39 AM and attacked a second time by an A-3 Jet painted up by Cheney and Rumsfeld to look like a real AA Jetliner. American Airlines has NEVER issued the *N644AA* registry to ANY Boeing 757 Jetliner in history (link). The Govt documentation itself proves 9/11 was an inside job (link) and Gam cannot debunk a single word. 

But hey, the guy can draw circles around red-iron beams with the best of them and ask stupid questions ...

Terral


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 23, 2011)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> This fool comes to this Conspiracy Theories Forum every day to defend Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the murderers of innocent Americans with stupidity like this:
> 
> ...



Go hunt for brown dwarfs, you even make PE look intelligent.


----------



## Terral (Mar 23, 2011)

Hi Ollie:



SFC Ollie said:


> Go hunt for brown dwarfs, you even make PE look intelligent.



Yeah? Ollie is another one-liner Official Cover Story defender of murderers of innocent Americans like Gam and the rest of his troll crew. At least I come to the USMB Conspiracy Theories Forum to post my conspiracy theories so everyone has the opportunity to weigh the facts and judge for themselves. What about you? 

Everyone defending official cover story murderers of innocent Americans is worthy to burn with Bush, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest right along along with them. Ollie cannot offer a rebuttal to a single word posted above either. Right? Of course not. Even if Ollie had the intelligence, you could not make a case for the Official Cover Story LIE any better than Gam or anyone else.

Terral


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 23, 2011)

Terral said:


> Hi Ollie:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, you, like the other truthers, come in here to ignore the actual facts that are presented because they don't fit in with what you want to be true.


----------



## eots (Mar 23, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Here you go eots. Put your money where your mouth is. Let's take the beam I circled in red. It is bolted on both ends making a rigid connection. If that beam expands (or grows in length due to that expansion) lengthwise, what happens? How did the designers account for that thermal expansion from fires you so vehemently claim that they did.



you are playing silly little games  and trying to pretend it is some kind of rational question worth taking the time to answer in depth when it is not...without question engineers build tolerances into their designs in both construction and materials to allow for the effects of heat
so if you have a statement or fact you wish to present, do so...if you wish to pretend and hide behind your pseudo -intellectual riddler routine...go fuck yourself


----------



## eots (Mar 23, 2011)

> No, you, like the other truthers, come in here to ignore the actual facts that are presented because they don't fit in with what you want to be true.





No, you, like the other debwunkers come in here to ignore the actual facts that are presented because they don't fit in with what you want to be true ...blah blah blah


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 24, 2011)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> This fool comes to this Conspiracy Theories Forum every day to defend Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the murderers of innocent Americans with stupidity like this:
> 
> ...



Really? When an office fire happens, are you applying heat to just one point of a beam? What a moron. I guess heat doesn't build up in the room at all right?

Tell you what. Let's take a steel beam and apply a 600 degree flame to one end for 30 minutes. Based on your argument, the steel beam will keep up with the 600 degree flame and transfer all that heat away from that end and it will stay cool?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 24, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Here you go eots. Put your money where your mouth is. Let's take the beam I circled in red. It is bolted on both ends making a rigid connection. If that beam expands (or grows in length due to that expansion) lengthwise, what happens? How did the designers account for that thermal expansion from fires you so vehemently claim that they did.
> ...



That's what I thought you pussy.

I'll ask you again since you know for sure. In a *RIGID* structural steel design, how do structural engineers allow for thermal expansion due to an office fire? How do they allow for the possible weakening of a component due to fire?

What do they do? Are you assuming they do this or do you have 100% confirmation from a structural engineer?

According to your idiotic friend Terral, a structural steel framework is such a good conductor of heat, that they don't NEED fireproofing at all OR design to allow for ANY of this. The heat is just whisked away throughout the structure without any problems whatsoever.

You two need to have a discussion because you're contradicting on another.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 24, 2011)

Terral said:


> Hi Ollie:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey Terral.

If steel is such a great conductor of heat, why do they need to fire proof it?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 24, 2011)

Here you go assholes. Explain why Terral's thermal conductivity bullshit didn't work on this structural steel design.





Friggin' morons.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 24, 2011)

eots said:


> "grows"....lol



Are you telling me that steel doesn't "grow" in length when heat is applied???


----------



## BrianH (Mar 24, 2011)

Terral said:


> Hi Gam:
> 
> This fool comes to this Conspiracy Theories Forum every day to defend Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the murderers of innocent Americans with stupidity like this:
> 
> ...



Except for the fact that 100s of eyewitness on the freeway acknowledged seeing the plane....


----------



## BrianH (Mar 24, 2011)




----------



## eots (Mar 24, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Ollie:
> ...



wtf ???....In cant believe how pathetic you are...lol


----------



## eots (Mar 24, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > "grows"....lol
> ...



no, it expands...moron


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 24, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Go look up "expands" in a thesaurus (if you can put your weed down long enough) and tell me what you find under words beginning with "G" in the list.

What a dope.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 24, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Terral said:
> ...



Obviously you don't know why they fire proof steel jackass.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 24, 2011)

BrianH said:


>



Thermal conductivity at it's best!!!! Look at all that steel! Look how well all the heat was distributed to all the other pieces in that network so that nothing was affected!

Terral you there?

Hello?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 24, 2011)

OK they have convinced me. They have convinced me that they are all ignorant uneducated morons. I honestly cannot believe how stupid this is. The facts are right there in plain sight, we have destroyed every theory that they have dreamed up and they still insist on stupidity.

I'll stop into these threads every now and then to pass out Negs but I'm tired of trying to get through to them.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 24, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



So much for their "No steel building has ever collapsed from fire" theory...


----------



## eots (Mar 24, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Grow is not th term used for the expansion of metal, regardless of how much you flail and spin...lol


----------



## eots (Mar 24, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



it is ...No hi -rise steel frame building  and it is a direct quote from NIST...ninny


----------



## eots (Mar 24, 2011)

gamolon said:


> brianh said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



you are a complete clown !!!...lol...who is it you are trying to fool ???


----------



## candycorn (Mar 25, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> OK they have convinced me. They have convinced me that they are all ignorant uneducated morons. I honestly cannot believe how stupid this is. The facts are right there in plain sight, we have destroyed every theory that they have dreamed up and they still insist on stupidity.
> 
> I'll stop into these threads every now and then to pass out Negs but I'm tired of trying to get through to them.




You really do have to wonder where these morons came from.

Now that they're cutting education spending to the bare bone in most places; can you imagine what this board will be like in 20 years?  You may look at eots as some sort of scholar compared to whats coming.  

It almost makes me happy that I likely won't be around to see it.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 25, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Really asshole? Do you even look up stuff before posting it? Obviously not.

Thermal Expansion Calculations



> Enter your length of pipe and pipe temperature to calculate the thermal *growth* in inches for the various materials.



What a dumbass.


----------



## eots (Mar 25, 2011)

Lol...so why dont they call it a heat growth calculator instead of a thermal expansion calculator....dumbass


----------



## eots (Mar 25, 2011)




----------



## Liability (Mar 25, 2011)

People DO want to know the truth about 9/11/2001.  Therefore, the LAST fucking person they'd ask for information is a 9/11 troofer.

All those shitheads are completely brain-addled scum-sucking douche bags.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 25, 2011)

eots said:


> > No, you, like the other truthers, come in here to ignore the actual facts that are presented because they don't fit in with what you want to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 25, 2011)

Terral said:


> Hi Ollie:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## cbi0090 (Mar 25, 2011)

So, I see this crazy arguement is still going on and no one has yet gone to the trouble of visiting a real demolition site to see what it takes to conduct a controlled demolition??  It woudn't be because if you did you'd quickly learn how crazy the demolition theory is???  Talk about people with their heads in the sand.  Try learning something first before opening your mouths.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 25, 2011)

cbi0090 said:


> So, I see this crazy arguement is still going on and no one has yet gone to the trouble of visiting a real demolition site to see what it takes to conduct a controlled demolition??  It woudn't be because if you did you'd quickly learn how crazy the demolition theory is???  Talk about people with their heads in the sand.  Try learning something first before opening your mouths.






Fact.


----------



## candycorn (Mar 25, 2011)

>


.................................


----------



## eots (Mar 26, 2011)

cbi0090 said:


> So, I see this crazy arguement is still going on and no one has yet gone to the trouble of visiting a real demolition site to see what it takes to conduct a controlled demolition??  It woudn't be because if you did you'd quickly learn how crazy the demolition theory is???  Talk about people with their heads in the sand.  Try learning something first before opening your mouths.



*this guy has..*.




h*im as well..*


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 26, 2011)

cbi0090 said:


> So, I see this crazy arguement is still going on and no one has yet gone to the trouble of visiting a real demolition site to see what it takes to conduct a controlled demolition??  It woudn't be because if you did you'd quickly learn how crazy the demolition theory is???  Talk about people with their heads in the sand.  Try learning something first before opening your mouths.



You STILL want to keep coming back making yourself look like a moron? You just got your ass handed to you on a platter and taken to school  by these two posters son.You obviously slept through junior high school science classes.


----------



## Liability (Mar 26, 2011)

9/11 troofers are scum sucking morons.  They may pose a danger to themselves and others.  Be wary around those fucking shitheads.

That is all.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 26, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



The fires in the WTC buildings did not reach the temps required to
cause the expansion of the steel, and certainly not cause melting of the steel, to produce the type of collapse that occurred.
According to your Expansion Calculator, for piping, even entering temps of 600F degrees to a 100 ft length, produces only slight variations of expansion.
This is for piping,  gauge thickness unknown..not for the massively huge beams and support structure that was used in the construction of the WTC.
Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two). 
"The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes"

So, you say that the temps from the combustible materials inside the building were hot enough to cause this expansion and in such uniformity, that the building collapsed in a straight down symmetrical fashion? The evidence against your theory is overwhelming, for even just one building, and to believe it happened in 3 buildings...in one day...for the first time ever..is plain fucking outrageously nuts. 

The temperature was nowhere near high enough to be caused by office fires to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.  
building fires with hydrocarbon fuels do not cause the straight down collapse of steel buildings, in seconds.

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A). 
"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments." 
 The North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers. 


WTC North Tower fire on   February 13, 1975 lasted  3 to 4 hrs= no collapse
WTC North tower fire on September 11, 2001 lasted 1¾ * hrs=total collapse and pulverization
WTC South tower fire on September 11, 2001 lasted 1 * hr.=total collapse and pulverization
WTC 7 fire on  September 11, 2001 duration/intensity unknown=total collapse and pulverisation    
1st Interstate Bank fire on May 4-5, 1988 lasted   3.5hrs=no collapse
Broadgate Phase 8 fire on June 23rd, 1990  lasted  4.5hrs.=no collapse
1 New York Plaza Fire on August 5, 1970  lasted   6hrs=no collapse
One Meridian Plaza fire on  February 23-24, 1991 lasted 19hrs.=no collapse. History is very much against your theory.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 26, 2011)

And not a mention of all the support beams and floors that were damaged and destroyed by airliners flying into them at full speed. It wasn't just the fires. Why can't you people learn anything? It's simply not that simple.

It is this simple though. There are no recordings of any sounds that sound like a controlled demolition. There is not one inch of Det cord found in the debris. You have zero physical proof that the 911CR or NIST reports are wrong on any main point. You have nothing except opinion. And worst of all You don't understand that you have nothing.....

Which is why I'm not going to attempt to teach the unteachable anymore. To stupid to learn is to stupid to learn.....


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 26, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> And not a mention of all the support beams and floors that were damaged and destroyed by airliners flying into them at full speed. It wasn't just the fires. Why can't you people learn anything? It's simply not that simple.
> 
> It is this simple though. There are no recordings of any sounds that sound like a controlled demolition. There is not one inch of Det cord found in the debris. You have zero physical proof that the 911CR or NIST reports are wrong on any main point. You have nothing except opinion. And worst of all You don't understand that you have nothing.....
> 
> Which is why I'm not going to attempt to teach the unteachable anymore. To stupid to learn is to stupid to learn.....


 Your new name should be Ollie Alzheimer because all that you mention here has been brought to your attention and explained to you already.
There have been countless videos and witnesses that heard multiple explosions including FDNY, demolition experts know that Det cord wouldn't have been used in a clandestine operation and, there are multiple sources of credible people in all walks of civilian and military life including the 9-11 commission members themselves that now reject their own 9-11 report, and have shown the NIST report to be junk science and a farce. You are an ignorant, unreachable fool, who insists that the growing numbers of true Americans that know they have been lied to are "unteachable"? 
You don't attempt to teach anybody anything, what you do is spread tired old propaganda that has been shown to be less then credible by experts, like the CD expert in the video that was posted.
Well, thank God that there are still normal thinking citizens that haven't been totally brainwashed (teached) to display the amount of cowardice and ignorance like you do.
Since your memory is so bad I suggest you go back to the countless posts and threads that school you on why your stupid and outdated arguments are BS, or perhaps you are truly a textbook case of a willfully ignorant brainwashed stooge.
The opinions that a rouge element within the American government assisted in the 9-11 attacks, or let it happen, and covered it up comes from a vast segment of public, private, government, and military circles who have bravely put their reputations on the line and made their opinions publicly known from all over the world. 
Those people show more bravery now compared to your boastful military service way back when, they are putting their lives and their families lives on the line by coming out and speaking truth to power.

You on the other hand are just an old scared fool that can't or wont
except what has been done to this nation, and who doesn't have the balls to so much as even question the true facts of the attack that these highly regarded patriots have brought to the peoples attention.


----------



## Liability (Mar 26, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > And not a mention of all the support beams and floors that were damaged and destroyed by airliners flying into them at full speed. It wasn't just the fires. Why can't you people learn anything? It's simply not that simple.
> ...



Wrong.  There _were_ some videos demonstrating some stuff that sounded a little bit like explosions and some people HEARD what they said sounded like explosions, but nobody can say that they DID hear an explosion *as opposed to the sound of the fucking buildings making loud BANGS as they fucking collapsed.*

There is not one single solitary iota of credible evidence of any intentional demolition of the buildings.   There never has been and there never can be.  The notion remains not just facially absurd, but absolutely ridiculous.  

You 9/11 Troofers are all fucking scumbags.

End of story.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 26, 2011)

Liability said:


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


 Spoken like a true OCTASS pussy. You can continue to ignore all the inconsistencies, absurdities, cover ups, lies,
the witnesses testimonies, the families seeking the truth, the 9-11 commission rejecting the report, and countless of other credible people, scholars, engineers, architects, FDNY, CD experts, military pilots, CIA, FBI whistle blowers, all you have is cowardice and ignorance. Why do you assholes hate the USA, the constitution, and instead kiss the asses of the criminals that have hijacked the nation? Because you are scum sucking treasonous fucks, that's why.


----------



## Liability (Mar 26, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



And all your little dweeb jargon terms are fucking ghey as hell, by the way.  OCT and debwunkers.  You guys sound like fucking imbeciles because you ARE fucking imbeciles. 

Make sure the attendant does his job.  You must not be permitted to be near sharp objects.

Listen up, you foul lowlife scumbag shithead.  The fucking bad guys called "al qaeda" did it.  *They* hate America.  By claiming [with not one hint of rationality] that any of US did it to ourselves, as you scumbag Troofers always end up claiming, YOU are the pussies who demonstrate a hatred of America.   You loathsome diseased clit.

Seriously.  You just can't suck enough, you low life scumbag moron.  Eat shit, fuckface.  Gag on it.  Puke and then lick that up and swallow it, too.  You vermin Troofers make me nauseated.  You are beyond stupid.  What fucking assholes you guys are.

And I say all of that with all due respect, which is to say: none.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 27, 2011)

Liability said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


 My dweeb jargon? You can't even spell Truthers properly, spelling it like a dweeb juvenile 
You don't know the first thing about Al CIA Duh
you fucking asshole, you willfully ignorant  pathetic official BS story cock swallowing slave, I'm glad you're nauseated, the feeling is mutual, but you are a breed more detestable then that which you abhor, because anybody with any sense can see what the fuck is wrong with the official fairy tale and are not afraid to speak out like your pussy ass refuses to do. 
You're the kind of motherfucker that if the TSA required to start collecting DNA by probing your rectum, you'd drop your panties, and spread wide, all in the name of protecting you from AL-CIA-DUH  You fucking bootlicking pussy.
You're a pathetic excuse for a human, and one of the worst examples of an easily manipulated, and indoctrinated asshole on this forum.
Like always, you are woefully stupid about the 9-11 attacks and can only vomit the party line rhetorical bullshit, but that's all you are good at, even though most people on here who do care about the topic put your sorry ass to shame constantly, yet you come on here and continue to present to all what a slimebag you are.
Facts have been presented that counter the official theory and put it and you assholes to shame, not even your precious 9-11commision report is credible, yet you continue to ignore facts such as this instead of showing the slightest bit of concern, this only substantiates that you truly are, a traitor to the nation you live in and to the American people, why don't you pack up and get the fuck out of our country.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 27, 2011)

miller said:


> There's 2 pictures.  The 1 at the top shows the explosion abut an hour after the plane hit.  You're the liar and a stupid one at that.  I'm finished with every conservative asshole in America.  I won't respond to any conservative about anything.



Dear Miller: You just answered your own question. Do you realize this?
When you close your mind to counterexplanations by others who oppose you,
then others close their minds to counterexplanations you provide!

When you open your mind equally to both sides,
you will invite others to meet you halfway.

There are VERY FEW people willing to be completely open to both sides and not cling to one bias or another. Those people will probably be able to sift through all the information, all the rebuttals back and forth, and come up with objective lists of what can be ruled out and what is still able to be questioned and not confirmed one way or another.

So only if you are in THAT group of people, who are completely open minded to BOTH SIDES equally, would I say you have a right to ask for openmindedness.

If you have picked your side, as most people have, you will get the same in return.
That's just how human reactions work.

You do the same thing here, so again, I hope you recognize the answer to your own question. Others are likely asking the SAME THING YOU ARE but from the opposite side: why are conspiracy theorists like you so closeminded they don't want to know the truth?

Coincidence?


----------



## candycorn (Mar 27, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Wow...if someone handed my ass to me like Liability did to you; I'd get pissed off too.  I'd probably maintain my composure in an attempt to save face though but I guess when you get owned like that; theres no need to try to claim it didn't happen.

Yikes; you should go away...very far away until we forget about you.  PS: Most of us already have.


----------



## Douger (Mar 27, 2011)

All of this shit coming from an ass-hole that uses a coke head as his avatar.
Impressive.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 27, 2011)

And again Mr Jones as true to the truthers creed ignores the fact that there were no recordings of any explosions that could be confused with those sounds that an actual controlled demolition would make.

I am not going to waste my time posting more videos of what should have been heard. We've all heard it before, but not on 9-11-01. I think I'll just add a neg  instead.


----------



## Liability (Mar 27, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



There has yet to be one rational argument from you scumbag Troofers to support the insane (completely baseless) suggestion that anybody in the USA other than some al qaeda terrorists committed the 9/11/2001 atrocities, you fucking asshole.

Not one of you mental midgets has the ability to answer the most basic of questions.  They have been posed to you anal sphincters repeatedly and just as frequently ducked.

You have absolutely no hint of cred.  Fuck off.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 27, 2011)

Liability said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Me? Look moron, there are mass quantities of government covert BS that has been done to  the people of this nation by lunatic criminal evil motherfuckers all throughout our history.
You show no interest in attaining the basic knowledge of this history that many people who actually take the time to research already know. You come on here with other assholes who flippantly deny the existence of the criminal behavior and past deceptions and cover ups
 and you look like idiots for denying it,  brainwashed dupes, disinformation agents paid or otherwise, willfully ignorant morons that can't ever possibly admit the criminal actions of their government because you are trying to save whatever face or pride you think you have from arguing from a point of denial all these years on boards like these...or you really are fucking traitors and wish to adhere and kiss up to a tyrannical controlling form of government in hopes you can get your ass probed before every flight....I think you fucks are a combination of all the above.

You say there is no credible evidence that the attacks like 9-11 could have originated in the minds of evil scum like the writers of the PNAC, you either haven't read about it or are what others say about you- that you are in a state of denial-or what I say about you which is you're a scumbag traitor that does know all about it, and are here to purposefully argue in defense of the all controlling government, 

either way you and others like you are the enemy to the nation, and to the people who want the truth, who want the style of government
this nation was founded on, and who want to keep the liberties and economy, and rights that the fucking government has slowly been taking away from them and still is...in the name of keeping them safe from ALCIADUH-- You can hate on people like us all you want, but rest assured we hate motherfuckers like you 10 times worse because you are against the country and way of life that many came here for and died for, and instead you are on the side of the bastards that take it away.
 When you really think about it..You actually side with the terrorists.


----------



## Liability (Mar 27, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



You may be a crashing bore and utterly unpersuasive, but at least you know your script, shitface.

Yes.  Folks have done criminal shit in the past.  And some of the criminal shit done in history has been done via conspiracy.

What is lacking from your moronic theory, however, shitbird, is any hint of rational support.

You are a mindless fucking drone.  

In order for the Twin Towers to have come down via some criminal conspiracy involving persons in positions of power within the U.S. government, you dishonest diseased asshole, those individuals would not only have had to have coordinated with the al qaeda scum who did the actual deeds, but they would have also had to have planted these mythical high explosives within various locations inside the towers (and presumably within Bldg 7, too).  Such explosives would require MILES of wiring and nobody saw any such thing.

Alternatively, in your scumbag empty-minded view of how things "must have" happened, the explosives would have to have been secretly planted at very precise structural points within the buildings (nobody saw any such thing being done, though, oddly enough) and then detonated wirelessly and remotely to coincide with al qaeda's jetliner attacks.

Scumbag mutant motherfuckers like you and your idiot ilk don't even begin to see how ridiculous your scenario is.  And it raises tons of questions which you assholes couldn't possibly ever answer.

Again, shit-fuckers like you are diseased maggots.  Fuck off, shitstain.

With all due respect.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 27, 2011)

Liability said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


----------



## candycorn (Mar 27, 2011)

Liability said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Post of the year right there.


----------



## eots (Mar 27, 2011)

candycorn said:


> liability said:
> 
> 
> > mr. Jones said:
> ...



a rant full of inaccuracy ,fallacy and strawmen


----------



## candycorn (Mar 27, 2011)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > liability said:
> ...



Shut the fuck up you worthless sack of shit.


----------



## Liability (Mar 27, 2011)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > liability said:
> ...



No fallacy.  No inaccuracy.  No straw man.  In short, as is always expected when a scumbag Troofer bleats, the claims made by the Troofer are lies.


----------



## Liability (Mar 27, 2011)

Douger said:


> All of this shit coming from an ass-hole that uses a coke head as his avatar.
> Impressive.



Nobody asked for your always worthless opinions, Booger.  So, just shut the fuck up, ya pussy.    You are using a dead bird as your avie, you simpleton.  To more accurately reflect you, it should be bird shit.

And I believe the late great comic genious, John Belushi, was a heroin addict, by the way, you ignorant shit muncher.   He's not a user of anything anymore, being dead and all, you fucking moron.


----------



## eots (Mar 27, 2011)

candycorn said:


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



you have no credibility agent cornhole you are a hired troll


----------



## eots (Mar 27, 2011)




----------



## Liability (Mar 27, 2011)

eots said:


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



Another entirely made-up claim from the always dishonest hack Troofer, id-eots, for which he has no evidence, no proof and no concern about the lack of proof.  

That's why we call him "id-eots."  Unpersuasive dishonest hack Troofer fuck stick that he is, he is suitable only for outright constant derision.  All Troofers should be closely monitored since they may pose a danger to others and themselves.  Keep those shit birds away from sharp objects.


----------



## eots (Mar 27, 2011)




----------



## eots (Mar 27, 2011)

Ask it ...its a paid troll


----------



## Liability (Mar 27, 2011)




----------



## Liability (Mar 27, 2011)

eots said:


> Ask it ...its a paid troll



Hey,  candycorn, a person with all of the credibility expected from a 9/11 Troofer has said that I should ask you if you are a paid troll.

Are you a troll at all?

Are you a PAID troll?

Is there a YouTube video that qualifies in the "mind" of a Troofer as "proof" of his claim?


----------



## eots (Mar 27, 2011)

So an expert in controlled demolition that works for the very company used as the foremost authority in all debwunker videos is considered random and meaningless by liarabilty...what a foolish little man he is


----------



## Liability (Mar 27, 2011)

Enjoy.  (It's on YouTube, so you KNOW it's all authentic!)


----------



## Liability (Mar 27, 2011)

Let's try again to get this through the amazingly dense pinhead of that fuck-stick id-eots in the hopes that it might find the incredibly microscopic target known as his brain:

There is not one scintilla of *actual* evidence that anybody did plant (or that anybody could have planted) explosive demolition charges at the Twin Towers.   It requires mental gymnastic beyond the paranormal to conceive of all that would have had to have been "true," for any of that fantasy bullshit to be real.

This is why idiot Troofers lap that shit up.  They are fucking too dumb to breathe.


----------



## eots (Mar 27, 2011)

Liability said:


> Enjoy.  (It's on YouTube, so you KNOW it's all authentic!)
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEteKy20tVU&feature=player_detailpage



SO IS YOUR CLAIM THAT THESE CONTROLLED DEMOLITION EXPERTS ARE NOT WHO THEY SAY THEY ARE ??...IS THAT HOW YOU MAINTAIN YOUR IGNORANCE


----------



## Liability (Mar 27, 2011)

At last.  id-eots speaking as clearly as he has ever spoken on the topic.

NOW it's beyond doubt!


----------



## candycorn (Mar 27, 2011)

Liability said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> > All of this shit coming from an ass-hole that uses a coke head as his avatar.
> ...



I thought he was talking about Brian Griffin:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol6-N3gqjN8&feature=player_detailpage"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol6-N3gqjN8&feature=player_detailpage[/ame]


----------



## Liability (Mar 27, 2011)

candycorn said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Douger said:
> ...



Who knows?  

id-eots is, after all is said and done, an idiot.

He cites Jowenko becaus Jowenko is an expert's expert expert.  Or sumpin' like that.  So he accepts the expert expert on demolition when the expert expert says shit like that "in his expert opinion" WTC7 came down via a controlled demolition.  But it is not as clear that id-eots accepts Jowenko when the expert expert says he *doesn't* find sufficient evidence that the Twin Towers came down via controlled demolition.  

Did I mention that id-eots is an idiot?


----------



## Liability (Mar 27, 2011)

A guy with the uername wolf nipple chips (probably a family name, I'm guessing  ) says something kinda interesting about hte findings of the "expert" jowenko:



> Jowenko admits to not knowing the building. In that interview he isn't even familiar with the buildings structure, the height, the floor height, he hasn't even seen the building as it was before, except for a basic floor plan, a picture of the rubble and a movie of the collapse. No doubt the guy interviewing him forgot to show him the clip where the penthouse collapses far before anything else. "Believe me, not your own eyes" Right, so your saw hundreds of bright flashes and heard huge cracking explosions did you?
> 
> entered by : wolf_nipple_chips
> Submitted on : Sep 26,2006 614 am


  -- Jowenko admits to not knowing the building. In th: rate the comment

I do find it funny when an "expert" shares an expert "opinion" without having bothered himself with the nasty churlish business of getting to know anything very detailed about the matter in question.


----------



## eots (Mar 27, 2011)

Liability said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



No, it means you are an incoherent rambling jerk off


----------



## eots (Mar 27, 2011)

Liability said:


> A guy with the uername wolf nipple chips (probably a family name, I'm guessing  ) says something kinda interesting about hte findings of the "expert" jowenko:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



blah,blah, blah what ??..did you say something ???...anything specific...details ?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 27, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> And again Mr Jones as true to the truthers creed ignores the fact that there were no recordings of any explosions that could be confused with those sounds that an actual controlled demolition would make.
> 
> I am not going to waste my time posting more videos of what should have been heard. We've all heard it before, but not on 9-11-01. I think I'll just add a neg  instead.


And again Alzheimer Ollie forgets to watch the video of the CD expert in which he clearly mentions that thermitic cutter charges would not make the very loud explosions, like the ones in your posted videos, and he also mention that it certainly could have been done with remote detonators. 
The videos you post are videos of what one would see and hear in a CD that was not a covert clandestine operation, that was made to look like 2 planes were the cause of the buildings demise you stupid jerk.


----------



## candycorn (Mar 27, 2011)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Ask it ...its a paid troll
> ...



No.  I'm a plant.  What type of plant am I?

*EVERGREEN BABY!  ​*
No, I am not paid.

There are no paid posters on this or any other board.  The entire idea is so preposterous that it borders on the insane;  Can you imagine someone paying me for posting 3 times a day?  If I were getting paid, don't you think I'd be here 24/7 posting any and all jibberish on every topic?  Hell, Christopher alone could have funded my last trip to Taos!


----------



## eots (Mar 28, 2011)

candycorn said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



cornyhole... paid troll


----------



## KissMy (Mar 28, 2011)

Can the collision of an aluminum aircraft into rusty steel beams cause a thermite reaction creating iron spheroids?

Can the collision of the WTC aluminum facade & its rusty steel beams during the collapse cause a thermite reaction creating iron spheroids?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4De8-B1CSk"]Thermite Balls[/ame]

*You Bet It Can!!!*

Truthers have a huge problem.


----------



## eots (Mar 28, 2011)

KissMy said:


> Can the collision of rusty steel & aluminum cause an thermite reaction creating iron spheres?
> 
> Thermite Balls



so what ?...is this your red herring...it is meaningless


----------



## candycorn (Mar 28, 2011)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



eots--treasonous tub of shit.


----------



## eots (Mar 28, 2011)

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


----------



## Liability (Mar 28, 2011)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



No.  _You_, you candy ass pussy,  have conclusively proved that you are nothing more than a dishonest piece of shit.  So, once again, eat shit and fuck off, scumbag.

Jowenko did offer an "expert" opinion without knowing the facts.  And tools like you lap that shit right the fuck up and spread it around as though it was worthwhile.  It isn't.  You are just a rancid ass clown, id-eots.

With all due respect.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I stopped reading here. Until you understand what you are talking about, your bullshit has no place here. If what you say is correct, then how did this happen this STEEL railroad?






Are you telling me the temperatures on this day were GREATER than an office fire????

What an idiot.

Furthermore, here is a chart that shows how much certain materials expand per degree.
Thermal Expansion Metals


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Slight variations???? What the fuck are you smoking? Obviously the same shit as eots. I'll make you look stupid yet again. Take a look at this page:
Pipes and Tubes - Temperature Expansion

100 feet of steel pipe is heated from 32 to 212 degrees. It expands 1.728 inches. Now let me ask you something. If I have 100 ft of pipe anchored down at both ends with U-bolts, what is going to give? Will the pipe buckle like the railroad or will it shear one of the weaker U-bolt connections? 

What you fail to get is that when steel expands, that expansion has to go somewhere. Bolted connections are NOT going to stand up to thermal expansion and make steel beams or columns buckle instead of shearing off.

Why do you continue to make it seem like you are versed in construction design and the like?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> So, you say that the temps from the combustible materials inside the building were hot enough to cause this expansion and in such uniformity, that the building collapsed in a straight down symmetrical fashion?



*sigh*

As has already been explained to you numerous times, components in a building design are calculated to work TOGETHER to support loads. When you start to fail components such as connections that were sheared due to thermal expansion, you start to take away from the design as a whole. When components start to fail, the load they helped support must be transfered elsewhere and thus put additional load on the remaining structure. That structure can only handle a certain amount until it fails completely.

You keep using the term symmetrical. That collapse was FAR from symmetrical as the east penthouse collapse followed by the west side. THEN the perimeter collapsed.

Let's discuss something. When the east penthouse collapsed and then the west side, what was left?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).
> "In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."
> The North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.
> 
> ...



SO you think that every single building should act exactly them same in a fire no matter WHAT the design?

Is that your thinking?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> The evidence against your theory is overwhelming, for even just one building, and to believe it happened in 3 buildings...in one day...for the first time ever..is plain fucking outrageously nuts.



What evidence????

You idiots keep saying that. 

Show me the evidence that you are using. Show me where in history a skyscraper with the same design as the twin towers, being struck by jets in the upper third, has NOT collapsed.

Can you do that?

No? Why is that? Because it never happened. How can you say that the evidence is against me when there is none for the scenario under discussion?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



This coming from the asshole that thought fire proofing of steel beams was to PROTECT the surrounding components with lower "flash points"!!!!


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 28, 2011)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Enjoy.  (It's on YouTube, so you KNOW it's all authentic!)
> ...



Demolition expert???

Are you high again? He was a staff photographer and someone who HANDLED explosives and placed them? Are you telling me that a welder is an expert in structural design and can speak on that subject with authority?

You're a dumbass.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > And again Mr Jones as true to the truthers creed ignores the fact that there were no recordings of any explosions that could be confused with those sounds that an actual controlled demolition would make.
> ...



Can your expert explain to us how these charges were protected from the Aircraft so that they wouldn't ignite before they were supposed to? Can he even explain how they were installed so that they would remain in place when that fully loaded aircraft smashed into the building? Maybe he can explain how the demo crew got into the building and placed all these charges without anyone seeing them or getting suspicious? Maybe he can then tell us why he no longer works for CDI? Sorry but your version never happened.


----------



## KissMy (Mar 28, 2011)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Can the collision of rusty steel & aluminum cause an thermite reaction creating iron spheres?
> ...



Not exactly propaganda boy. But it certainly exposes your red herring.


----------



## eots (Mar 28, 2011)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



no it means nothing


----------



## eots (Mar 28, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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



he did you were not listening


----------



## Liability (Mar 28, 2011)

FYI:

If anybody wanted to know the truth about 9/11/2001, the last person he'd speak with is a fucking scumbag 9/11 Troofer.  9/11 Troofers are incapable of honesty.  Fucking scumbags that they are.


----------



## eots (Mar 28, 2011)

liability said:


> fyi:
> 
> If anybody wanted to know the truth about 9/11/2001, the last person he'd speak with is a fucking scumbag 9/11 troofer.  9/11 troofers are incapable of honesty.  Fucking scumbags that they are.



blah ,blah, blah...you say nothing..you are meaningless


----------



## candycorn (Mar 28, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Well, he may be an expert when compared to the common twoofer; in the land of blind men; the man with one eye is the king.


----------



## eots (Mar 28, 2011)

candycorn said:


> gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



wtf do you know troll


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 28, 2011)

We know that your "expert" says that you have to cut the stairwells, and use a cutting torch on the support beams, and remove the elevator cars before you plant the charges...... How did they do that on 9-11-01?

Fail, massive fail... BTW your interview was massively edited, again.....


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 28, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Look, let's say a part of the building did get hot enough (though there is plenty of argumentative evidence that says it didn't)
 and cause this thermal expansion, does it not make sense to you that _that_ part of the structure would then deform and that there would be evidence of such deformations, and that therefore we would have seen the building come down in a manner more conclusive with this kind of sporadic damage?
It has not been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these fires did get hot enough to cause the amount of thermal expansion, to all the points, and at the precise time to cause the straight down collapse of the building, but this is alleged to have happened to all 3 buildings on the same day, something that has never before happened in a hi-rise fire in history, despite many other fires in hi-rises that burned for substantially longer periods of time.
You are comparing a set of railroad tracks to the massive components of the material used in the WTC.
Let me ask you  something about that picture...have you ever witnessed railroad tracks deform like that in your life? Could that very old and dated picture represent an anomaly that occurred, say due to using material of shitty quality?
You are also comparing expansion temps of piping...are these local temps on one part of the piping? Or does it refer to the entire length of say a 100ft section?
I have bent and custom fabricated piping of various gauges and installed the piping with MIG welders, and also oxy- acetylene welded them at times. Never has the temps of the welding caused my entire project to deform, or fallen down from its anchoring due to do thermal expansion.
Most of my custom projects were for making custom exhaust on modified and race vehicles, where the exhaust headers can reach temps of 1200 to 1500 deg. coming out of the head. 
Again NEVER have I or anyone else I worked with encountered enough thermal expansion that would even be noticeable, or ruined the project. Your comparisons are a fail..the temps in the 3 buildings have been proven to not have reached the very high temps, and for the needed duration to cause the straight down collapse of all 3 WTC buildings.
Again the WTC towers suffered different damage from the 2 planes, yet collapsed in the same straight down manner, and WTC 7 had hydrocarbon office fires, was not hit by a plane, yet collapsed in the same straight down manner...all displayed CD style destruction.

It is visibly obvious to anyone with any common sense, but when we have many people in the field of building construction, engineering, science etc.. explaining the inconsistencies and what has turned out to be outlandish lies and fabrications found in the NIST report..well it really shows that the science the gov used in it's theory is not credible.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 28, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> We know that your "expert" says that you have to cut the stairwells, and use a cutting torch on the support beams, and remove the elevator cars before you plant the charges...... How did they do that on 9-11-01?
> 
> Fail, massive fail... BTW your interview was massively edited, again.....


  Obviously it wasn't done on 9-11 you nitwit!! The WTC had in its history, many renovations and repairs.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 28, 2011)

candycorn said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



He is also an expert compared to the common OCTA internet propaganda spewing troll.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 28, 2011)

Liability said:


> FYI:
> 
> If anybody wanted to know the truth about 9/11/2001, the last person he'd speak with is a fucking scumbag 9/11 Troofer.  9/11 Troofers are incapable of honesty.  Fucking scumbags that they are.


If anybody wanted to know the truth about 9/11/2001, all one has to do is research the opinions of the many credible experts, especially those who don't have to rely on government contracts or funding, and aren't afraid to speak truth to power. "troofers"--and you actually came on here to post that those with the alternative hypothesis to the attack on 9-11, are "dweebs" for calling you assholes OCTAss or debunkers   what a fucking hypocrite!

You are a hypocritical scumbag of the highest order, and I say that with all due respect to you also, which obviously is absolutely none.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



dont you love it how when the OCTA'S are getting their ass handed to them on a platter they get so desperate they resort to that old railroad picture? apples to oranges.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



So then welders are experts at structural design? Is that your reasoning? A person who uses a computer is an expert computer programming?

Come on now.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Look, let's say a part of the building did get hot enough (though there is plenty of argumentative evidence that says it didn't)
> and cause this thermal expansion,



Let's break your post down bit by bit.

1. At what temperature does steel start to expand? You're saying that thermal expansion doesn't start until a certain temperature. What is that temperature?

2. If a beam is anchored at both ends with bolted connections and that steel beam expands by 1", where does that expansion go? Does the beam buckle or would it shear the bolts?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 28, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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



Your argument comes from the point of view that if no one can show you the exact plan, or det cord etc.. then the WHOLE alternative hypothesis is flawed, which is another fallacy you boneheads use..it's so obvious.
 One need not show you the precise plan and execution of it, or hand you the conspirators confession on a silver platter..there are many things that no one can explain without a real non bias new investigation. 
The WTC buildings did not collapse and pulverize the way they said it did, many credible experts back this up.
In other words just because we don't know the exact people involved, or when the cutting charges were placed, or by what crew, doesn't mean that the buildings were NOT destroyed in a manner other then what has been told to us.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 28, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Look, let's say a part of the building did get hot enough (though there is plenty of argumentative evidence that says it didn't)
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> does it not make sense to you that _that_ part of the structure would then deform and that there would be evidence of such deformations, and that therefore we would have seen the building come down in a manner more conclusive with this kind of sporadic damage?



For fuck sake Mr. Jones. The building did not come down all at the same friggin time!!!! How many times must you be told this. The east penthouse collapsed into the building. Then it progressed west. Then the perimeter fell.

Now, is that a symmetrical collapse or sporadic. I can''t believe I'm having this conversation with you.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> You are claiming to be the expert here, you tell us.



Sorry. You made the claim that steel doesn't start to expand until a certain temperature, not me. So back up your claim or don't you know. That means you're making false claims doesn't it? SO again. What's the temperature at which steel starts to thermally expand?



Mr. Jones said:


> You are saying that the entire steel beams in question in the WTC buildings got hot enough to expand, when it has been shown that there were only sporadic fires of less intensity to cause this. Am I wrong? Prove it then.


I'm trying to, but you won't answer the question. At what temperature does steel start to expand? You have made a claim, now back it up with some links or evidence. Otherwise your claim is bullshit and you don't have a clue.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> You are saying that the entire steel beams in question in the WTC buildings got hot enough to expand, when it has been shown that there were only sporadic fires of less intensity to cause this. Am I wrong? Prove it then.
> And for you to assume that a mere 1" of expansion will cause the straight down collapse of 3 buildings is just plain fucking lunacy  Why didn't it collapse in a manner more consistent with the damage caused by the sporadic and highly displaced fires, in other word..some partial collapse?
> You do realize that heating steel in one spot does not mean the entire length of that beam is going to be the same temp along its entire length don't you?



Do you understand structural design? All components work together to support a load. If you start failing individual components, then the remaining components have to take over that part of the load. I gave you a simple example before, but you ignored it.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 28, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > So, you say that the temps from the combustible materials inside the building were hot enough to cause this expansion and in such uniformity, that the building collapsed in a straight down symmetrical fashion?
> ...



Here is the unedited collapse of the WTC 7 building..do you see the big main part of the building, AKA as the ENTIRE BUILDING collapsing in a straight down manner that produced 2.25 seconds of freefall? 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...of-the-wtc-7-collapse-with-the-penthouse.html

You are doing mental gymnastics to overlook this fact...all the BS about one particular support beam or trusses you say actually caused this? With only sporadic office fires, and it didn't show signs of deformation that sporadic fires and temps, in a few areas of the building had?

NISTs explanation is crazy, we would expect to see some partial collapsing and deformation..but in all 3 buildings we witnessed straight down global collapses. NIST theory and your adherence to it is absolutely fucking nuts.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 28, 2011)

If you have three people sharing the load of a steel pipe and the middle person drops out, do the people on either end now evenly take up the load that the middle person was handling or is it transfered to only one end?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Where did the load that the central beams were supporting go Mr. Jones when those columns failed?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 28, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > You are saying that the entire steel beams in question in the WTC buildings got hot enough to expand, when it has been shown that there were only sporadic fires of less intensity to cause this. Am I wrong? Prove it then.
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Another question for you. Here is Chandler's quote from the Remeber Building 7 site.
Remember Building 7 | Stand with the 9-11 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - Free Fall Collapse

Pay real close attention now.



			
				Chandler said:
			
		

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



Did the bolded and enlarged text in Chandler's above quote happen in that video you just posted? Did all 24 interior and all 58 columns get removed at the same time? Yes or no.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 28, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> If you have three people sharing the load of a steel pipe and the middle person drops out, do the people on either end now evenly take up the load that the middle person was handling or is it transfered to only one end?


 The other 2 people would not automatically collapse to the fucking ground you dumbass! They would resist doing so if even for a little while! Perhaps an individual on one side or the other would give out first, and the pipe would tilt in that direction. You make too easy!

The 3 buildings came straight fucking down as though all the support beams lost their integrity at the same fucking time!!
That is why people with common sense and knowledge started to question the whole collapse scenario.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > If you have three people sharing the load of a steel pipe and the middle person drops out, do the people on either end now evenly take up the load that the middle person was handling or is it transfered to only one end?
> ...



You dumbass!

Not if the load was too great for two people to handle!!!

What a dipshit. I guess, based on your logic, that being a welder makes you an expert in structural design.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


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



In other words you have no evidence that the 911CR or the NIST reports were flawed in any way. Thank you for explaining that.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 28, 2011)

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> AKA as the ENTIRE BUILDING collapsing in a straight down manner that produced 2.25 seconds of freefall?



Perfect example of how stupid you truly are. You say ENTIRE BUILDING collapsing straight down.

I see the east penthouse collapse first, then the west. That's not the ENTIRE BUILDING collapsing at once dumbass.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > FYI:
> ...



 amen to that.


----------



## Liability (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > FYI:
> ...



Except you fuckwads never cite to credible experts.  You are far too dishonest and stupid.  You understand nothing of math or science.  You are deliberately distorted.  You pussies are all filthy vermin.

Eat shit, you lying cock-scraper.  Clean the foreskin scrapings off your teeth.

All troofers are lying stupid scumbags.  You pose a danger to yourself and others.  You should be monitored.


----------



## eots (Mar 28, 2011)

Liability said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



why do you lie and spew obscenities are you mental ?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 29, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> You are saying that the entire steel beams in question in the WTC buildings got hot enough to expand, when *it has been shown that there were only sporadic fires of less intensity to cause this*. Am I wrong? Prove it then.



Come on Mr. Jones.

Please post the link that proves there is a temperature in which steel starts to thermally expand. You made the claim. I'm challenging you to show me the validity of it.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 29, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> And for you to assume that a mere 1" of expansion will cause the straight down collapse of 3 buildings is just plain fucking lunacy



*sigh*

You're just too stupid to even BEGIN to understand. If a steel column expands, it will shear the bolted connections thus rendering the structure weaker as a whole. This didn't happen in one spot you fucking imbecile. Not to mention that the heat WEAKENS, not MELTS, steel components. If you put a load on a steel beam, and apply heat, it starts to lose it's ability to support that load. As the temperature climbs, the weaker it gets. You idiots can't seem to grasp that. o talk to a structural engineer and ask about it.



Mr. Jones said:


> Why didn't it collapse in a manner more consistent with the damage caused by the sporadic and highly displaced fires, in other word..some partial collapse?



Because the the load supported by the weakened/damaged components gets transfered to the remaining, still intact components as a whole. When the core columns collapsed in WTC7 the 58 perimeter columns were left with trying to hold up not only themselves, but the reaming floors, trusses, and girders that remained attached to the perimeter columns. The perimeter columns were designed to HELP the center columns with the support of the floors and everything else. Eventually the load became to0 much for the 58 perimeter columns to support and came down as a whole.


Mr. Jones said:


> You do realize that heating steel in one spot does not mean the entire length of that beam is going to be the same temp along its entire length don't you?



Come on Mr. Jones. Are you really that stupid? Are you telling me that an office fire in several rooms doesn't heat up the ENTIRE room or area (including the steel columns and truuses, etc.)? Are you comparing a localized welding torch applied to a piece of steel to an office fire as far as how the heat is distributed/contained?

As far as the twin towers were concerned, you didn't only have fire that made the towers collapse. You started the sequence with damage from the jet. First you severed perimeter columns on one side that helped distribute the load of the upper portion of the tower. Then you have damaged/severed core columns. Taking out these two components made the remaining components have to take up the load slack that the damaged/severed components once helped with. (hence the pipe and three people example). Then the office fires started which began to weaken (not melt) the remaining support components (core columns, floor trusses, etc.) when you start to weaken already over-stressed components, what do you think happens?

The next stage of the collapse is the upper \"block" coming down. That upper block hits the first floor below the failed components. What do you think failed? That block completely destroyed any floor connections on that next floor. Without anything holding the perimeter columns to the core columns, the block kept going to the next floor.

Do you think this (the block circled in red):





Could have been stopped by these components circled in red? These are what held up each floor around the perimeter.





Hears another thing. That "block" was eventually broken up as it descended as there are photos of the core columns still standing for a few seconds before it collapsed. I thought you said the towers were demolished completely and uniformly?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 29, 2011)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > gamolon said:
> ...



I see you never answered the question. Is that guy considered a "demolitions expert" when it is clearly stated that he was either a "staff photographer" or a "materials handler"?

If you say he is, then a welder is a "structural design expert". A person who uses a computer is a "programming expert".

You're a moron.


----------



## Liability (Mar 29, 2011)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



I don't lie.  That's your job, you dishonest scumbag.

No.  I am not mental.  Troofers like you, you lowlife scumbag liar, *are* mental, however.  And I direct obscenities at you lowlife Troofer vermin to underscore my contempt for your complete hostility toward truth, you prissy rancid clit.  

Eat shit, fuck-brain.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 29, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Here you are in this post claiming to have some expert knowledge in the collapse scenario because you worked with piping, does that make you an expert?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3453228-post857.html

I do not claim to be an "expert" but since you made a comparison to the strength or rigidity of piping in comparison to the WTC steel, I played along in your comparison game, since the topic switched to heat deforming steel.
Your double standard attempts to prove something that could not have happened the way we were told is weak and made obviously transparent in your posts.
Again I will ask you, how can the displaced, and sporadic fires in 3 buildings cause the straight down collapse of these 3 buildings? Your explanation suggest that these fires jumped to all the critical load bearing supports, at the exact time, and with the required intensity, to "thermally expand" these huge columns, and beams, and trusses,
to cause all 3 buildings to come down..in the first time in history..in a manner that displayed almost all the traits of a CD!
If parts of it deformed, that part would have gave way, dragging the rest of the rigid part with it, this would have been seen as a partial collapse, or a delay in the rigid part resisting -we didn't see that-
we saw 3 global collapses, including the mere few seconds of the penthouse at WTC 7.

Your claim that the buildings penthouse collapsing into the the rest of the 47 story building proves somehow that the collapse was NOT in a straight down manner is astoundingly deceptive and laughable.
That NIST fails to support its key assertion that "collapse initiation" automatically leads to "global collapse",  and since NIST's theory of the demise of the Twin Towers is essentially a fire theory, the lack of a single example of fire-induced total collapse of a steel-framed building presents a problem for that theory. 

You are trying to tell people that what they saw with their own eyes simply is not true. It is said that the structure came down in 13 secs.
after the new CBS video came out.
And of course,
You still haven't responded to the fire in 1975, where the WTC didn't collapse. The February 13, 1975 WTC1 North Tower Fire. The 1975 fire was more intense than the 9-11 fires is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break and flames could be seen pouring from these broken windows. This indicates a temperature greater than 700°C. In the 9-11 fires the windows were not broken by the heat (only by the aircraft impact) indicating a temperature below 700°C. 
Surely according to your theory the building should have collapsed then.

The Silverstein report also concludes that fire temperatures were lower than typical "fully developed" office fires. The fires were fueled by office furniture and floor contents initially ignited by the jet fuel, which burned out quickly. Dust and debris distributed by the crashes *inhibited* the fires, which at the impact floors were between 750°F and 1,300°F.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 29, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > And for you to assume that a mere 1" of expansion will cause the straight down collapse of 3 buildings is just plain fucking lunacy
> ...



In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. 
Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types.
If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C.
This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen.
But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio.
Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmiths bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C 
It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.
Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750800°C range.



Mr. Jones said:


> Why didn't it collapse in a manner more consistent with the damage caused by the sporadic and highly displaced fires, in other word..some partial collapse?





> Because the the load supported by the weakened/damaged components gets transfered to the remaining, still intact components as a whole. When the core columns collapsed in WTC7 the 58 perimeter columns were left with trying to hold up not only themselves, but the reaming floors, trusses, and girders that remained attached to the perimeter columns. The perimeter columns were designed to HELP the center columns with the support of the floors and everything else. Eventually the load became to0 much for the 58 perimeter columns to support and came down as a whole.


The over stressed components could fail, dragging the still rigid part of the building with it, causing a deformation, and initial partial collapse, we saw non of that, just a straight down collapse of 3 buildings, in seconds, remember these were sporadic and displaced fires you claim did this damage, therefore we should have seen the end result be sporadic deformations, and partial displaced collapses, 
You have parts of the building that are still rigid, resisting coming down...what part of that can you not comprehend, think about it.




Mr. Jones said:


> You do realize that heating steel in one spot does not mean the entire length of that beam is going to be the same temp along its entire length don't you?





> Come on Mr. Jones. Are you really that stupid? Are you telling me that an office fire in several rooms doesn't heat up the ENTIRE room or area (including the steel columns and truuses, etc.)? Are you comparing a localized welding torch applied to a piece of steel to an office fire as far as how the heat is distributed/contained?


And you are comparing expansion of piping to the massive columns of the WTC? 
Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.
 There was only localized heat and fire at the WTC. But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmiths bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C .



> As far as the twin towers were concerned, you didn't only have fire that made the towers collapse. You started the sequence with damage from the jet. First you severed perimeter columns on one side that helped distribute the load of the upper portion of the tower. Then you have damaged/severed core columns. Taking out these two components made the remaining components have to take up the load slack that the damaged/severed components once helped with. (hence the pipe and three people example). Then the office fires started which began to weaken (not melt) the remaining support components (core columns, floor trusses, etc.) when you start to weaken already over-stressed components, what do you think happens?
> 
> The next stage of the collapse is the upper \"block" coming down. That upper block hits the first floor below the failed components. What do you think failed? That block completely destroyed any floor connections on that next floor. Without anything holding the perimeter columns to the core columns, the block kept going to the next floor.


That block was pulverized, basically disappearing, what caused that? Here's a 3 part video that can better debunk the smaller block crushing the larger stable lower block.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 29, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > You are saying that the entire steel beams in question in the WTC buildings got hot enough to expand, when *it has been shown that there were only sporadic fires of less intensity to cause this*. Am I wrong? Prove it then.
> ...



Read the part you emboldened again...I am asking YOU to prove this if you deny it, quit trying to say I'm making a claim I am clearly not.


----------



## candycorn (Mar 29, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Yes you are; you're claiming that "its been shown" dumbass!


----------



## candycorn (Mar 29, 2011)

mr. Jones said:


> you still haven't responded to the fire in 1975, where the wtc didn't collapse. The february 13, 1975 wtc1 north tower fire. The 1975 fire was more intense than the 9-11 fires is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break and flames could be seen pouring from these broken windows. This indicates a temperature greater than 700°c. In the 9-11 fires the windows were not broken by the heat (only by the aircraft impact) indicating a temperature below 700°c.



there
was
a
plane
that
crashed
into
the
building
you
everloving
dumb
ass.

Go 
fuck
your
self.

By
the
way,
bush 
won
ohio
twice


















bitch!


----------



## KissMy (Mar 29, 2011)

No Explosives Gravity Collapse​
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o"]Many No Explosive Collapses[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIsE8CkZI6U&feature=related"]Progressive Collapse Proven[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYnVWQhAeH4"]Progressive Collapse Intiated on 3 Buildings [/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prwvj-npt5s&feature=related"]No Explosives Gravity Collapse[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzKBBB_THE&feature=feedf"]No Explosives Gravity Collapse[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NZtBL1PjMk"]Gravity Collapse[/ame]


----------



## eots (Mar 29, 2011)

KissMy said:


> No Explosives Gravity Collapse​
> Many No Explosive Collapses
> 
> Progressive Collapse Proven
> ...



you are funny...do you have a point ? if so what is it ?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 29, 2011)

candycorn said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



I see you can't comprehend what is being said either, must be a terrible thing living with that affliction..that and being a penis hungry troll that goes by the gay name of "candycorn"


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 29, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > AKA as the ENTIRE BUILDING collapsing in a straight down manner that produced 2.25 seconds of freefall?
> ...


 You are weak...you resort to nit picking non sense...it is obvious the main part of the building is the 47 stories, and it is obvious the 47 story part of the building is the MAIN structure..and it is obvious that the 47 story main part of the building comes straight down..or do you see it collapsing to the side, or perhaps you would argue that it collapsed straight up....fucking weak ass imbecile.
Have you figured out why the 1975 WTC fire, that burned longer, and more intensely didn't collapse the building...there weren't even sprinklers installed in them back then..Why are you ignoring this?


----------



## Liability (Mar 29, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



What you just said is NOT "obvious."  It is, in point of fact, false.

No surprise.

9/11 Troofers lie.

You are almost all fucking scumbag liars.

When reality gets in the way of your idiotic "theories," you shit-munchers simply deny reality and lie about actual facts.  

Fuck off shit bird.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 29, 2011)

Liability said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


You poor sad sack of shit..How pathetic to have a video of the collapse of a building on 9-11 right in front of you, that shows clearly the 47 story main building come down and you can not even be man enough to admit what your own eyes see, and then call it "false"?? You should be lobotomized....No maybe you already were.
Your name really should be "Liarbility"

and btw, what facts are you saying I am lying about?


----------



## eots (Mar 29, 2011)

Liability said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



blah blah blah scumbag blah blah blah twoofer blah blah blah ...   lol what a loser !!


----------



## Liability (Mar 29, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



The liar remains you, shit for brain sack of crap lying fuckwad Trooofer scum.

The video IS right in front of us and YOU are the one clearly lying about it, you scumbag moron.

This was ALREADY pointed out to you, too.  So you lie on top of prior lies despite valid refutations and video evidence.  

You are an abysmally stupid lying sack of shit.  But you are a 9/11 Troofer, so that's just redundant.

Mr. Jones.  Not that fuckstain "Alex" by any chance?


----------



## Liability (Mar 29, 2011)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



When you suck off Mr. Jones, do you gargle his load before you have to choose between "spit or swallow?"



Fuck yourself, you lowlife lying sack of rancid pus.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 29, 2011)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



And there you have it folks..Liarbility in all his sick glory..Never answers anything about the actual topic, and instead exposes his sick homo fantasies on a public political forum.
This one will be saved for the archives in case anyone forgets what a sick fuck you truly are.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 29, 2011)

Liability said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Watch it and weep you sorry ass loser 
WTC 7 47 stories coming straight down, no lies just actual FACTS!!!

Ha Ha you crying sack of blubbering shit 



Your government lied to you pussy, what ya going to do about it? What you always do..deny reality and look like the stupid sick little crying bitch that you truly are!!  

C'mon show us all how you loose your lil' temper and throw a hissy fit!!   Ha Ha priceless


----------



## Liability (Mar 29, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Speaking of sick fucks, and yes I was talking about you, you dishonest rodent twat, you are EXACTLY the kind of lying shit-stain who DENIES what is PLAINLY visible on a videotape YOU offer as "evidence" of your false claim.  

Try to smarten up for one moment of your worthless life, scumbag.

When you falsely CLAIM that Bldg 7 went "straight down," you imbecile, *you* post a video image that *shows that part of the building* (the penthouse section) *CLEARLY started to go down BEFORE* the first trace of a hint of *a collapse of the main portion* of the building.

What this MEANS, you bald-faced liar, is that  YOUR sub-moronic CONTENTION translates as follows: "if you discount the part that proves me wrong, this video substantiates my idiotic position!"  

You couldn't have done a better job proving yourself to be valueless in terms of an honest discussion on this topic even if you were a founding member of a *debwunker* group!  

See?  I can even use your imbecile ghey jargon, shit bird.


----------



## Patriot911 (Mar 29, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



I see Mr. Jones is still showing off his video with the "clear explosions" going off of the non-explosives he then claims were used.  Fucking retard can't even keep his stories straight!    Man, truthtards are really sinking below the scum line.  How pathetic!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 29, 2011)

Liability said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


 Are you lying twats actually saying that the building did not collapse in a straight down manner???Are you fuckwads really this purposefully blind?? Look at the fucking thing assholes!!
Do you see it fall to one side? You know the side that is supposed to have all this fire induced "thermal expansion" No you clearly don't.

You just don't want to understand how absurd your explanation , or lack of one really is..Listen-
While heat does indeed expand steel and concrete, the primary method for deducing that the heat generated in WTC 7 was enough to damage the floor framing on multiple floors was based on *model simulations where inputs could be easily tweaked* to produce the desired results. 
 Is there any physical evidence of the steel from WTC 7 to corroborate this model?  Nope.
 Equally important, did NIST conduct any laboratory analysis, with a full scale beamcolumn set up in a furnace in an effort to replicate the simulation results? Nope.
  Since the model input can significantly affect the output and the conclusions are so remarkable, and since it the first time in history that a building globally collapsed allegedly due to thermal expansion, a full scale fire test simulation should have been done, in fact they still could do it.

Because the temperatures did not last for the minimum time necessary to generate the heat on the beamcolumn system for them to predict that thermal expansion could have occurred, no physical evidence was found indicating beam joint failures, no testing was done to confirm this, and the fact that thermal expansion never caused a global collapse on any steel structure, it is very highly unlikely that thermal expansion could possibly be the real cause of the structures  total  straight down global collapse.

Do you assholes even know that thermal expansion of floor beams breaking its beam seat connection and then causing a global collapse has never happened before, and very highly unlikely?  Structural engineers do not even design connections for lateral forces from thermal expansion because it is so rare.  No structure before or after 9/11 has ever globally failed due to thermal expansion and its very doubtful if it was the cause of the collapse of WTC 7. 
And BTW- Thermal expansion for a 53 foot beam with a delta T of 654 F (752  body temp) is less then 2.7 inches. But you ignorant fucks believe what you want to.

Other pages in NCSTAR 1-9 indicate s*ag *in the floor system due to the heat.  (NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 1 Chapter 8, Page 323:  Elevated temperatures in the floor elements led to thermal expansion, with or without thermal weakening and sagging".
This "sagging" The sagging effect is also indicated graphically in NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 2 Page 56.

But guess what? Any sag effects need to be *subtracted *from the lengthening effects of "thermal expansion".  Also, any warping of the flange or web will also consume some distance and must be subtracted from any *elongation* and assumed forces of the thermal expansion.
NIST is claiming that girders basically just walked off their beam seats at the major connections with Column 79 and a few others.  But the elongation from thermal expansion, even if the sagging effects are ignored, is only a couple of inches at most, yet the beam seats are longer.  How can the girders walk off their beam seats if the seats are longer then the possible expansion?  

You assholes come on here, and all you do is ridicule and make asses of yourselves, instead of being seriously interested in the facts, and what NIST is pulling over your stupid ass faces.
 Posting ridiculous pictures of twisted railroad tracks, and going on about structural support, never stopping to think that a rigid part of a structure will fucking resist coming straight fucking down while being pulled by the part that is under attack!
You fucks are so willfully blinded that you actually DENY a video that shows you the straight down collapse of WTC 7!

Steel structure beam to beam, or beam to column connections have been riveted, bolted, welded or a combination thereof for over a hundred fucking years! With no significant thermal expansion sheering problems during much hotter fires that lasted a hell of a lot longer, which is one reason its simply not necessary to include in any structural design analysis, it just has NEVER happened, let alone to 3 buildings in 1 damed day!

Because no steel structure has ever failed globally due to fire, and this fire was a cool office fire, and in sporadic locations, when compared to historical fires, the suggestion that thermal expansion of the floor beam system was the trigger for global collapse is highly improbable and definitely should not be considered the leading theory for the collapses, given the overwhelming evidence for a hypothetical blast scenario.

But you stupid fucks can not even bring yourselves to admit what the video of the collapse shows you..which is a straight down, vertical collapse of 47 stories!!


----------



## Liability (Mar 30, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Hey fuck brain.  YOU are the lying diseased twat.  And yes, you ARE lying by claiming that the building went straight down.  You fucking cock scraper.  The penthouse area went first.  Then the rest of the building came down.  Thus, your lie is flatly exposed, you scumbag obvious lying rodent twat.

When the building went down, gravity took it DOWN.  That happens more or less in a straight line in ALL cases, you fucking idiot.

It offers no proof of any kind whatsofucking ever of anything supportive of your mutant and absurd conspiracy theory.

You keep trying.  You keep lying.  You keep failing.

You are a scumbag rancid piece or rat twat.  Since you are so far beyond stupid, it is not surprising that you fail to grasp how badly you have failed to persuade any thinking person of anything.  You are that stupid.


----------



## eots (Mar 30, 2011)

Liability said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



blah blah blah blah ! ,blah blah ????


----------



## Liability (Mar 30, 2011)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Sadly, that is about as coherent as id-eots ever gets.

Of course, even when he is trying to use actual words, he just lies.  That's no surprise.  All 9/11 Troofers lie compulsively.  They detest facts and truth.  Ironic handle those scumbags use.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 30, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Wrong dipshit.

I worked in an engineering firm for many years. Piping design was just ONE of my jobs. I was an on-site construction supervisor for many different steel mill projects INCLUDING blast furnace renovations. I did rolling mill studies. I designed hydraulic systems for casting plants. I did on-site damage assessment for disaster sites including the Shell Oil site in Belpre, OH (Belpre blast alarm ignored says Shell-14/11/1994-ECN) and at the IMC/Angus nitroparaffin plant in Sterlington, LA (Belpre blast alarm ignored says Shell-14/11/1994-ECN). I did design work for the Army Corp of Engineers on the Toole, Utah Chemical Agent Disposal facility (Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). I was a project supervisor for the installation of an Oxygen pipe line in the River Rouge steel mill in Michigan. I've done structural, architectural, and mechanical design. I've done HVAC design.

So yeah, I say I know what I'm talking about.

What have you done?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 30, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Again I will ask you, how can the displaced, and sporadic fires in 3 buildings cause the straight down collapse of these 3 buildings? Your explanation suggest that these fires jumped to all the critical load bearing supports, at the exact time, and with the required intensity, to "thermally expand" these huge columns, and beams, and trusses,
> to cause all 3 buildings to come down..in the first time in history..in a manner that displayed almost all the traits of a CD!



And this is where your ignorance in the matters of structural design and loads comes into play. 

What you fail to understand, as I have told you many times, you you remove/weaken one or more structural components in a STEEL FRAMEWORK (one that is designed to work together as a whole), you start to over-stress the remaining components. Not only does thermal expansion shear bolted connections, put you are weakening the internal steel structure with heat. Not melted, WEAKENING.

You also try and distort the truth about the twin towers. There was structural damage from the planes you moron.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 30, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



What a fucking dishonest prick you are! You try and pass off the above paragraph as if YOU wrote it on your own and try to get some credibility for yourself? You disgust me. I KNEW it sounded way more intelligent then you could possibly be on this subject so I searched for a line of text from above. What did I find? You fucking copy and pasted it from another site. Why wasn't it in quotes and why didn't you link the source you dishonest fuckwit?

You've been busted. This is how you assholes operate.

Here is the site you copied it from.
George Washington's Blog: Jet Fuel Made the WTC Fires <i>Cooler</i>

And here is the exact same paragraph from the site.


> In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. A jet burner generally involves mixing the fuel and the oxidant in nearly stoichiometric proportions and igniting the mixture in a constant-volume chamber. Since the combustion products cannot expand in the constant-volume chamber, they exit the chamber as a very high velocity, fully combusted, jet. This is what occurs in a jet engine, and this is the flame type that generates the most intense heat.
> 
> In a pre-mixed flame, the same nearly stoichiometric mixture is ignited as it exits a nozzle, under constant pressure conditions. It does not attain the flame velocities of a jet burner. An oxyacetylene torch or a Bunsen burner is a pre-mixed flame.
> 
> ...


----------



## eots (Mar 30, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



you are not a engineer


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 30, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Your point? I have worked with enough structural engineers to know you and your ilk are nothing but spineless pussies who run from every tough question and instead post youtube videos because you can't think for yourself.

Just like the idiot Mr. Jones who tried to post bullshit that was COPIED from another site yet made it look like he/she knew the subject. Didn't give a link nor posted it as a quote. What a dope.

Typical dishonest bullshit.


----------



## eots (Mar 30, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



now you sound more like liarability than an engineer


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 30, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Still the truth isn't it eots?


----------



## Liability (Mar 30, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Hey shit-brain.  Yeah, id-eots, that means you,

You lackluster fuckwits toss around terms like "liar" pretty casually.  But you couldn't point to one lie I ever posted if your worthless life depended on it.  

9/11 Troofers detest the truth.  Your name itself is ironic.  Tuther.  Pfft.  "9/11 Liars for the Dissemination of loopy utterly baseless ridiculous conspiracy theories."  There.  It's too long, but it is much more accurate in describing you and the shit you spew, asshole.

You guys are rat twats.


----------



## eots (Mar 30, 2011)

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


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


Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) &#8211; Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter.  U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech).   Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology.  22-year Air Force career.  Also taught Mathematics and English at the University of Southern California, the University of Maryland, and Phillips University.
Member: Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: 

"Scholars and professionals with various kinds of expertise---including architects, engineers, firefighters, intelligence officers, lawyers, medical professionals, military officers, philosophers, religious leaders, physical scientists, and pilots---have spoken out about radical discrepancies between the official account of the 9/11 attacks and what they, as independent researchers, have learned. 

They have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that, therefore, the official &#8220;investigations&#8221; have really been cover-up operations. 

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
*
gee... Deets, Bowman....OR THE SHITSTAIN KNOWN AS LIARABILITY...TOUGH CALL...LOL*


----------



## Patriot911 (Mar 30, 2011)

eots said:


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



So you have a couple jackasses in Deets and Bowman who are too stupid to understand the real world.   No thank you!  I wouldn't trust anything any one of you fucking truthtards said at face value.  You have to PROVE your claims, not just make them.  Credibility only gets you so far and no further.

Deets claims he can tell everything just by looking at it.    Fucking moron!  What kind of person wouldn't look at the evidence and just go off of visuals?   

Bowman makes claims he can't back up.  

eots is a lying sack of shit who can't back up any of his shit either.

So given the evidence and common sense, I would take anyone not a truthtard over Bowman, Deets, eots or any other truthtard.  The odds are overwhelmingly in my favor that I will come closer to the truth with anyone else than what a truthtard claims.  It is a fact of life.  

Oh, and eots.... you do know opinions are not evidence, right?    Fucking moron!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 30, 2011)

Dwain Deets, who believes that that flight 77 flew over the pentagon and that no plane actually hit it.

Dwain Deets who believes that 5 light poles mysteriously broke off from their bases.

Dwain Deets who is obviously another nut case.

Where did the plane go. There are no witnesses who saw it over the Pentagon or east of the pentagon. 

We have the black boxes from the pentagon, if the flight data was faked why would they fake it so that it would be impossible to be true?  Think..............This is not rocket science. This is common sense. Of which Mr Deets talks about but shows little of.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 30, 2011)




----------



## eots (Mar 30, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Dwain Deets, who believes that that flight 77 flew over the pentagon and that no plane actually hit it.
> 
> Dwain Deets who believes that 5 light poles mysteriously broke off from their bases.
> 
> ...



got a link to any of these alleged statements Ollie


----------



## eots (Mar 30, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


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



yes you belong on team liarability indeed, good choice... for you


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 1, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Run Mr. Jones, RUN!!!!!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 1, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


 LOL, It looks like you're busted, dipshit. Once again, you ignore the facts that pertain to the topic, and sidetrack by crying over a missing link. FYI, I got that piece of information from a note I created about fire temps and it was not from the georgewashington.blogspot. I always take notes, and provide a link on here, when I gather useful information, provided I have the link, which in this case I could not find.
It should be very obvious to anyone who reads it  
So you actually did me a favor as the GWblog site had the source where I got my notes! And you show that what is in the article, is of no relevance to you.
It might be of benefit to you, to read this article from an expert in the field of what was being discussed, instead of playing your childish games..but that's not why you're here is it...
You're here to sidetrack, and create an atmosphere of disinformation, while trying to tell people that a building they can clearly see fall straight down..didn't  

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 1, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


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



Right. Twice in two different posts with two different pieces of information?

You're a lying twat.

Nice try though.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 1, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


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



Except for the facts that get in the way. WTC 7 did not exactly fall straight down. I don't know why everyone wants to pretend that it did.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 1, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Hey you crying little bitch go and dispute what the article says, instead of crying about where the info came from, would you like me to post more of my notes so you can go on another wild goose chase you stupid moron?
You got absolutely nothing to dispute the facts of the post so you resort to questioning where it came from?? You crying little beeeach 

here ya go some more notes I have about the topic... go and try to find this, instead of debating the facts LOL !

Those who support the official account like Thomas Eagar (p. 14), professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT, usually argue that the collapse must be explained by the heat from the fires because the loss of loading-bearing capacity from the holes in the Towers was too small.  

The transfer of load would have been within the capacity of the towers. Since steel used in buildings must be able to bear five times its normal load, Eagar points out, the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated to the point where it "lost 80 percent of its strength, " around 1,300oF. Eagar believes that this is what happened, though the fires did not appear to be extensive and intense enough, quickly billowing black smoke and relatively few flames.

All of your attempts to show how you have this vast engineering experience is BS too, you are a liar and your NIST theory has been proven to be questionable if not all together corrupted, shit you can't even admit the building collapsed in a straight down manner 
You are an idiot, if you expect us to believe that someone like you that can't even admit what is plainly obvious, that you have even any semblance of credibility, that's why you resort to what disinformation trolls do, deflect the topic, attack where info came from, instead of responding with any reasonable counter response!

Wasn't it you that posted a picture of railroad tracks? Or the diagram of the WTC 7 beams? Look fuckwad I'll be happy to post links to everything , and guess what? You'll still not be able to prove your asinine theory, that a building with isolated damage, and isolated fires can possibly come down in a  straight down fashion while experiencing freefall!! 

 alleged damage to the WTC 7 building to cause this kind of collapse without being hit by a plane is BS, and NIST can not prove it, without resorting to some BS computer model that looks nothing like the actual collapse!  
 You come back when you can prove your crazy theory cause right now the only thing that can reasonably explain its collapse is controlled demolition.

Go look this up-The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be saved for forensic analysis but FEMA had it destroyed before anyone could seriously investigate it. 

or this-FEMA was in position to take command because it had arrived the day before the attacks at New Yorks Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, "Tripod II," quite a coincidence. 

The authorities apparently considered the rubble quite valuable: New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and had one truck driver who took an unauthorized 1 ½ hour lunch fired.
Why is this??

The hypothesis of linear shaped charges also explains the perfectly formed crosses found in the rubble (crucifix-shaped fragments of core column structures).
 Explain this to us.... c'mon you have so much knowledge, working with piping and all  Use your own notes.

How come when I fabricated and installed custom piping applying temps way hotter then in the WTC 7 fire...nothing "expanded" or collapsed in a pile of rubble? Go ahead genius make our day, I need a good laugh.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 1, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Ok then in your twisted mind how did it fall?


----------



## eots (Apr 1, 2011)

With a slight lean... you know... like most controlled demolition


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 1, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


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



Not my twisted mind, yours.

If you are honest with yourself and watch the complete video. You see that the east penthouse disappears into the center of the building. several seconds later the west penthouse goes, followed by the facade. This is a progressive collapse. And if you look hard enough you will find that the roof line of the facade didn't really stay straight either, but buckled in the center area. I don't know why nor do I pretend to know what that means, but that's the way it happened.

And what is all this about minimal fires? Have you ever tried to see what was going on on the south side of the building? You know, the side that was actually damaged by tower 1 falling on top of it?

YouTube - WTC 7 fires and south side hole


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 1, 2011)

ask the asswipe trolls how come all protocals were violated that day,evidence was destroyed and removed and not one person lost their job for their alleged incompetence at NORAD or nobody arrested for the illegal destruction of evidence.thats why all these 9/11 discussions are all for nothing,the case is closed that it was an inside job.these shills and Brainwashed Bush dupes cant get around that fact which is why all these 9/11 discussions are mute. The Minnesota senator asked those questions to congress and was removed from office shortly after that.anytime people in government question the official version they get removed from office.why waste time with trolls like them when they cant get around these facts?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 1, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> ask the asswipe trolls how come all protocals were violated that day,evidence was destroyed and removed and not one person lost their job for their alleged incompetence at NORAD or nobody arrested for the illegal destruction of evidence.thats why all these 9/11 discussions are all for nothing,the case is closed that it was an inside job.these shills and Brainwashed Bush dupes cant get around that fact which is why all these 9/11 discussions are mute. The Minnesota senator asked those questions to congress and was removed from office shortly after that.anytime people in government question the official version they get removed from office.why waste time with trolls like them when they cant get around these facts?



Translation: I got nothing.


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 1, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > ask the asswipe trolls how come all protocals were violated that day,evidence was destroyed and removed and not one person lost their job for their alleged incompetence at NORAD or nobody arrested for the illegal destruction of evidence.thats why all these 9/11 discussions are all for nothing,the case is closed that it was an inside job.these shills and Brainwashed Bush dupes cant get around that fact which is why all these 9/11 discussions are mute. The Minnesota senator asked those questions to congress and was removed from office shortly after that.anytime people in government question the official version they get removed from office.why waste time with trolls like them when they cant get around these facts?
> ...



He never has and never will.  It is hard to educate yourself when you're a sycophant to all the other truthtards.  He's got his head so far up their asses agreeing with everything they say that he has suffered from oxygen deprivation.  It certainly explains the complete lack of original thought.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 1, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



BWAHHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!


----------



## BrianH (Apr 1, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


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



lol... I didn't see a link on your first ingenious post...lol.  To make a long story short, you tried to pass off something intelligent as your own without posting a link.  Someone called you on it and then you tried to still come off intelligent  by claiming you take notes...  You got owned artard.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 2, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


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



Translation of the trolls parrot and briantroll-Your right 9/11. you took us to school,we got nothing.we can only make these pathetic replys in defeat because we know that if we destroyed evidence at a crime scene we would go to jail and not get promoted for our incompetence but us asswipes are too pathetic and too arrogant to admit defeat and when we have nothing to counter you truthers with,we just  come on here and troll and prove what dumbfucks we are evading the evidence with irrelevent stuff to evade your points you guys make.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 2, 2011)

BrianH said:


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



yeah it is funny watching you trolls run away and evade those facts of mine  you cant counter.


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 2, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



WHAT facts?  All you do is strut around with your head up eots and Mr. Jones' ass pretending you agree with what they say.  You're a fucking retard who can't even speak English correctly, yet we're suppose to just believe your bullshit?  Not bloody likely!  One would have a better chance getting the facts from a toddler than you.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 2, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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



The whole point is that, to watch the video of the wtc7 building collapse, it is obvious that it essentially comes straight down in a manner that most CD buildings come down. Of course we see the penthouse collapse into the main building, but the corners of the main structure remain relatively uniform in its decent.
As for the fires the posts that I made about fire temps, are helpful to read, in it the information states that it is very unlikely for the scattered fires to cause the amount of thermal expansion damage
 and shearing of the connections, to cause the very uniform collapse that we witnessed. Here are the links that I saved for all to read, since you ridicule people taking notes-

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/GreeningCommentsNCSTAR1-9.pdf


----------



## Liability (Apr 2, 2011)

Part of the building came down first.  This is indisputable from the video record.  Nevertheless, assholes like the always dishonest Mr. Jones and the other scumbag idiot Troofers insist on denying objective reality.

If part did come down first (and the penthouse portion did) then it didn't come straight down.

Mr. Jones is a liar and a lowlife scumbag.

The video *that* moron posted, himself, *proves* that he is a liar.

End of story.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 2, 2011)

Liability said:


> Part of the building came down first.  This is indisputable from the video record.  Nevertheless, assholes like the always dishonest Mr. Jones and the other scumbag idiot Troofers insist on denying objective reality.
> 
> If part did come down first (and the penthouse portion did) then it didn't come straight down.
> 
> ...



Hey idiot the building fell this way






With the sporadic fires and damage we can reasonably expect it to fall this way-East 





so from viewing the video, we didn't see it fall 
this way





nor this way-





it fell this way-





It would be reasonable to have it fall this way, based on the damage
theorized by NIST- In a staggered fashion- But it didn't-





This should be clear enough for any jackass. End of story.


----------



## Liability (Apr 2, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Part of the building came down first.  This is indisputable from the video record.  Nevertheless, assholes like the always dishonest Mr. Jones and the other scumbag idiot Troofers insist on denying objective reality.
> ...




Hey, you mindless lying piece of crap.  It's called GRAVITY.  Gravity pulls all such shit DOWN.

You imbecile.


----------



## elvis (Apr 2, 2011)

I miss christophera.


----------



## Liability (Apr 2, 2011)

elvis said:


> I miss christophera.



Academic discussions about Invisicrete were entertaining, at least.

_"Invisicrete  It's CLEARLY superior."_


----------



## elvis (Apr 2, 2011)

fucking treasonous agents, all of you.


----------



## Liability (Apr 2, 2011)

elvis said:


> fucking treasonous agents, all of you.




Debwunking treasonous agents, if you please.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 2, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


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



Mr jones why do you bother with the trolls,that last post of mine proves what chickenshit cowards they are who wont  admit defeat.Notice how Parrot  keeps dodging that fact and constantly evades it since he knows he cant refute it? thats why I dont get it why you two waste your time with these shills? go on to someone else who wants to listen.these trolls on this board arent worth your time.

again thats why everything else you waste your time with on these shills is irrelevent because they cant get around that fact that it could only have been an inside job with all that happening that I mentioned.lol.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 2, 2011)

Liability said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Yet you stated many times that it did not come straight down, you fucking stupid motherfucker! A downward collapse, gravity assisted,
would find the path of least resistance...so your thinking is that there was no path of least resistance, because there wasn't any.. and that is why it collapsed so uniformly..so maybe you can explain why there was no resistance and gravity made it come down so straight? What removed all the resistance causing 2.25 secs. of freefall?? 
Where's your debunking explanation of how sporadic fires and temps always make a building collapse in this manner? 
Where is your explanation as to why the rigid part of the undamaged building did not resist collapsing with the damaged parts and instead came down so uniformly?
Where's your explanation as to why the 1975 N tower fire didn't cause at least a partial collapse?

In order for a building to collapse such as WTC 7, that would equate the entire perimeter of the lower floor(s) giving in at the same time. If it collapsed due to compromising its structural integrity due to fallout from WTC 1 & 2, one side would have begun to collapse prior to the other. It would seem that a lateral structural compromise would favor an asymmetric collapse as opposed to the apparent controlled drop very close into its own footprint.
 As the video demonstrates, that wasn't the case, and this has been the point I have been making all along, you on the other hand are the imbecile that ignores and distracts from the point being made and instead resort cowardly distraction tactics to avoid the issue, proving once again that you and your ilk are nothing but cowards who are against the nation and its people.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 2, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


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



Very unlikely? So it is very unlikely that I could be related to Thomas Jefferson. but i am.

Very Uniform collapse? Really, I see a progressive collapse. Same as most people who actually open their eyes and minds to facts.

You continue to confuse the facade that you can see with the collapse of the internal structure which cannot be seen. You dismiss the fires that can sort of be seen from the south because you don't see them in most of the videos. Why? Because everything to the south was evacuated because they were unsure when the building was going to collapse. The FDNY knew it was going to. They reported it hours prior. I think firemen on the scene can tell when a building is lost and going to come down. 

Still waiting to hear those explosions that Mr Padden (I believe that was his name) reported.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 2, 2011)

Liability said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > fucking treasonous agents, all of you.
> ...



You haven't debunked shit. You only prove your a lying troll that has to be forced to admit what is clearly shown in videos!  Which I have done...now explain why gravity ignored the resistance of the still rigid part of the building??


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Apr 2, 2011)

How long did it take to find out the truth about Tuskegee Syphilis Study,Agent Orange,
Operation Ajax,Gulf of Tonkin incident and many other conspiracies that turned out to be true ?


----------



## Liability (Apr 2, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



Oh, but along with many many others, I have debunked your failed efforts to contend that "some of us" did the 9/11 atrocities to ourselves.

Your failed efforts remain utterly laughable and you remain a lying simpleton fuckface fool.

Now explain why gravity bringing shit down in a more or less straight line surprises your simple little mind so very much, moron.

And while you're busy trying to puzzle that one out, you lying scum-sucking shit-brain motherfucker, hazard an educated guess for the rest of the class.  How much demolition cord (wiring) was necessary to wire the World Trade Center Towers AND WTC7 to blow, you fucking asswipe.


----------



## Liability (Apr 2, 2011)

Truthseeker420 said:


> How long did it take to find out the truth about Tuskegee Syphilis Study,Agent Orange,
> Operation Ajax,Gulf of Tonkin incident and many other conspiracies that turned out to be true ?



Holy shit.  You mean, you mean, you mean there are examples in history of government lying?

Wow.

That's brilliant stuff.

It's fucking TOTALLY conclusive!

Yes.  It leaves no room for any possibility of doubt.

If the government has EVER lied to us or engaged in deception of any kind -- especially one which can fairly be called a "conspiracy" -- then there is no question that the Troofer claim that 9/11 was caused by a conspiracy within our own government HAS to be "true."

Thanks for that insightful and helpful post!


----------



## eots (Apr 2, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


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



the entire inner structure fell silently behind a facaded...how does that work ?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 2, 2011)

> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Very Uniform collapse? Really, I see a progressive collapse. Same as most people who actually open their eyes and minds to facts.
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 2, 2011)

Liability said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> > How long did it take to find out the truth about Tuskegee Syphilis Study,Agent Orange,
> ...



So how come all the fiercest fires in history never ever cause "thermal expansion" enough to cause a straight down collapse of the buildings?
Try to stay on topic, you have never even tried to explain this, and the asinine assumption that the outer part of a building will not distort while massive columns and beams, that are connected to the outer parts, are falling down INSIDE?
 Yes the governments past lies are well known and that is why we need to be leery of their explanations for all the strange, never before occurrences that happened that day.

In a free society, the citizen's proper role is to ask questions, not suppress them, as you would have it.
There is plenty of reason to doubt what we have been told.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 2, 2011)

Liability said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



You stupid SOB, gravity will always bring things DOWN, however what you can't seem to grasp in your diseased brain is that there normally is RESISTANCE and there were parts of 7 that would have provided such RESISTANCE,  thereby causing the building to NOT come straight down, with 2.25 secs. of admitted freefall, you stupid ass troll.
 Also how in the fuck do you expect anybody to tell you how much "wire" would be needed? Who knows...perhaps it was done like has been suggested already, by wireless remote detonators, and thermitic cutter charges to weaken the building. 

Do you really think that this would have been done in a manner that would be so fucking obvious you stupid shit for brains SOB?

You haven't debunked shit pussy.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 2, 2011)

Oh brother.Eots,Mr Jones,I give up on you guys.Thats why Terral doesnt waste his time on 9/11 anymore because these shills are just trying to occupy you with this to get your attention away from the REAL critical issues facing us.9/11 is done and over with.its just going to turn into another Kennedy thing and the real killers are going to get away with it again like they did with kennedy since the american sheepie people are so ignorant and stupid and dont want to know the truth.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 2, 2011)

eots said:


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



Come on Eots, You have seen how many of the videos that tried to claim there were explosions when all you really heard was a rumble.


----------



## Liability (Apr 2, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...





I just finished TELLING you, you scumbag moron, that gravity will ALWAYS bring things DOWN.

Christ on a cracker you are one truly stupid AND dishonest piece of shit.

You fucking pussies cannot and will not even TRY to explain what happened to all the wiring needed to set detonation charges throughout the Towers and Bldg 7.  That's because you know you will expose yourselves as the cheap whore pieces of filth you are.

Pussies and liars the lot of you.

Go have another shit sandwich, scum sucker.

You stand thoroughly debunked.


----------



## eots (Apr 2, 2011)

liability said:


> mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > liability said:
> ...



no wiring is required ...are you really that out of touch ?


----------



## Liability (Apr 2, 2011)

eots said:


> liability said:
> 
> 
> > mr. Jones said:
> ...



No wiring is required?

Are you that fucking delusional or just hopelessly dishonest?

Do you (in your miniscule pin head) have ANY fucking notion of the dangers of setting charges for demolition relying on radio transmissions?

Are you fucking brain damaged?

No.

You're just unable to be honest.

What a fucking liar you are.


----------



## Liability (Apr 2, 2011)

And even if the sci fi world in which these conspiracy assholes reside did have an already existing, reliable, safe, secure wireless demolition detonation system, the mutant fuck-wit lying sack of shit Troofers STILL cannot explain how on Earth the conspirators managed to set the charges in all the fucking places within the buildings without ever being noticed.  

And they did all this voodoo relying on the magic wireless detonation system to coincide with the attacks from the al qaeda crews' various attacks with passenger jets.  



You Troofer maggots are loathsome.


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 2, 2011)

eots said:


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



Go watch Mr. Jones' video where you can clearly hear a rumble after the collapse of the penthouse and before the collapse of the rest.  Seriously.  You guys need to get together and get your stories straight.


----------



## eots (Apr 2, 2011)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > liability said:
> ...



no but you most definitely are.... wireless detonators are used all the time
they are to expensive to use in a controlled demolition but perfectly functional for that purpose if money is not a concern


----------



## eots (Apr 2, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


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



we are not talking about a little wee penthouse ...it is the entire inner structure...all it made was a rumble ?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 2, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



And exactly what "facts" are you talking about? lol.  Let's see you river-dance around this one....


----------



## BrianH (Apr 2, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


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



Wrong again.  Watch a building being demolished.  There are plenty of videos on youtube.  They do not blow all the lower supports in one explosion.  They bring buildings down from one side to the other.  They start by blowing columns on one side and then keep blowing them through the building.  It comes down like a wave.  Also, you forget that two HUGE buildings collapsed right next to it earlier in the day.  It has been proven time and time again that building 7 was hit by massive pieces of debris from the towers.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 2, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


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



What are you even talking about?  I've looked at your last 4 posts and you haven't done anything but call us trolls and not posted any "proof" of anything.  Quit riding Mr. Jones' and Eots coat-tails to retard land.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 2, 2011)

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



This is a baselss question and you know it.  Your grasping at straws here.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 2, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...




There is a "perhaps" or "maybe" in a shit-load of your posts.  "Maybe this"  "Maybe that" "What if this..."  Like I've said.  Innocent until proven guilty.  We don't have to prove it was a conspiracy.  You have to prove that it was an inside job.  Something you've failed to do.


----------



## eots (Apr 2, 2011)

BrianH said:


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



and you are forgetting    again   NIST determined that damage played no significantly role in the collapse


----------



## eots (Apr 2, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



NIST failed to prove its theory


----------



## PhysicsExist (Apr 3, 2011)

eots said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw]YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)[/ame]

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

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

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

*Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building. *
*-1,474+ Verified Architects and Engineers and counting.  *

Check their license numbers, degrees, names, and other information here:
Sign the Petition

The Truth Shall Prevail.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



The building didn't. Only a part of the facade. You are another one who ignores the fact that the inside of the building had collapsed several seconds before the facade that you can see ever moved.


----------

