# I am not into the truther movement but I have a question



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 22, 2012)

I was watching this video from the BBC talking about building 7 collapsing but when they were talking about it they showed it still standing even though they said it has collapsed. How can that be?

  [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Trj_5J02k]If This Does Not Get Thru To You; Nothing Will!!! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jul 22, 2012)

Beginning to notice the glaring inconsistencies aren't ya'? 

WARNING! Rabbit Hole Ahead!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 22, 2012)

Mad Scientist said:


> Beginning to notice the glaring inconsistencies aren't ya'?
> 
> WARNING! Rabbit Hole Ahead!



The only problem I have is with what I have heard others say things like fake planes or bombs strapped to planes. If they are fake planes where are the people who were supposed to be on those planes?
Oh by the way did you watch the video and see the exploding windows on 7?


----------



## eots (Jul 22, 2012)

*This website provides responsible criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report by senior military, intelligence and government officials. .*

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


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 22, 2012)

eots said:


> *This website provides responsible criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report by senior military, intelligence and government officials. .*
> 
> Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report



Thanks for the link, but right now I am more curious about this video.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 22, 2012)

I've always had questions about building 7 but nothing solid to show otherwise until I watched this video.
In my opinion something is not right.


----------



## eots (Jul 22, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *This website provides responsible criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report by senior military, intelligence and government officials. .*
> ...



the end of the video is fake..


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jul 22, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I've always had questions about building 7 but nothing solid to show otherwise until I watched this video.
> In my opinion something is not right.


Are you saying that... It was all planned out ahead of time? Why that's a "conspiracy theory"! 

Fake planes?

I figger you've already heard of Project Blue Book. But have you ever heard of Project Blue _Beam_?

Google it. Go ahead. I dare ya'!


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jul 22, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zpEKdPFa4U]Donald Rumsfeld Questioned About WTC 7 - Feb 2011. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 22, 2012)

eots said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



OK how so?


----------



## eots (Jul 23, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



it is an admitted and well known fake put out by a debunker in a flailing attempt and show twoofers will believe anything on youtube the original full length version has a half sec of a ufo pass by just to see who is watching


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 23, 2012)

eots said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



So if the ending of the video is fake that must also mean all the video is fake?


----------



## eots (Jul 23, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



No the early reports of wtc 7 collapsing by bbc are well documented and not in dispute by anyone..but for some reason the maker of this video tacked a portion of this attention seeking NY stand up comedians fake video with photoshoped flashes and sounds and as I said in the full version a flash of a ufo fly by


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 23, 2012)

eots said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I wonder why they ended with the fake clips? They didn't have to do that.


----------



## eots (Jul 23, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



ya it sucks...he could be unaware..or it could be an attempt to propagate the gag by mixing it with reality


----------



## Freewill (Jul 23, 2012)

Whow, the FBI, CIA, The whole of the Republican party, the airlines, the traffic controllers, the news feeds showing the airplanes striking the WTC, the families of the victims and now the BBC.  What an incredible array of an conspiracy organization.  All capable of keeping their mouths shut, amazing.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jul 23, 2012)

Freewill said:


> Whow, the FBI, CIA, The whole of the Republican party, the airlines, the traffic controllers, the news feeds showing the airplanes striking the WTC, the families of the victims and now the BBC.  What an incredible array of an conspiracy organization.  All capable of keeping their mouths shut, amazing.



Not everyone you mentioned needed to be "in on it". A few rouge traitors in positions of authority, that no one thought, or dared to question, and their underlings just go about doing their jobs, unaware they were being used.
We can apply the same logic to Alqaeda..Such a huge elaborate plan...and no one talked?
Surely someone would have spilled the beans..no? 

BTW, the BBC wasn't the only network that reported the premature demise of WTC 7.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFdcPv3XXI]New: Fox News 5 reports WTC 7 collapse BEFORE it happens - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PqbGfCcef0]9/11 CNN Reports World Trade Center Tower 7 Collapse Before it Happens - YouTube[/ame]

There's another station, I have a video of that mirrored these reports I have to find it, but
this is really amazing when you consider the other hi-rise fires that burned longer and were more engulfed, and no one assumed they were going to "collapse".

What's more, Fox news tried their best to obfuscate this contradiction that suggest fore knowledge, by having a reporter claim, he was told by Con Ed,and police, that Larry Silverstein was on the phone with his insurance company, trying to get approval to allow  a CD of the building. Which also suggest that the building could be rigged in short order, OR it was rigged sometime beforehand.
_
"To dispute the conventional historical account is intellectually dishonest and nonsensical.
I know this because I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard."

"Governor Ventura and many 9/11 Truthers allege that government explosives caused the afternoon collapse of Building 7. This is false."

"Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me 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  since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the buildings imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy."_

Shame On Jesse Ventura! | Fox News

So, by this account, Silverstein was involved in the CD of the WTC 7. Interesting....

A lot of the OCT does not make sense, when one examines it closer, there's no doubt to objective, rational observers, that it is BS.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 23, 2012)

Freewill said:


> Whow, the FBI, CIA, The whole of the Republican party, the airlines, the traffic controllers, the news feeds showing the airplanes striking the WTC, the families of the victims and now the BBC.  What an incredible array of an conspiracy organization.  All capable of keeping their mouths shut, amazing.



Be in on what? All I wanted to know about, is  why the BBC was reporting that building 7 collapsed when in fact it had not.  Do you think the teleprompter knew something in advance?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jul 23, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Whow, the FBI, CIA, The whole of the Republican party, the airlines, the traffic controllers, the news feeds showing the airplanes striking the WTC, the families of the victims and now the BBC.  What an incredible array of an conspiracy organization.  All capable of keeping their mouths shut, amazing.
> ...


 Had to be, or so it seems doesn't it?

9/11: "Honest Mistake" or BBC Foreknowledge of Collapse of WTC 7? Jane Standley Breaks Her Silence

_"Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me 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  since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the buildings imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy."_

According to this, Larry knew the building was pre-wired/rigged for CD,as well as many others around him that day. This news got to the media, and they had knowledge this was going to take place, so from the sounds of it, Larry had his building set to come down by CD. Now when did they manage to place the charges, and by who, and for what?

NIST already admitted to freefall, after saying that freefall could not possibly have occurred and that the building fell 40% longer then freefall, "due to the resistance of the structure, which is consistent with physical properties" something that can only occur after removing the resistance to the falling structure above.

It's worthy to note that once that BS was exposed as a lie, they then changed their report to admit freefall, but removed from the contents of the report any mention of "consistent with physical properties" and offered no explanation about it.
So add these things up, and make up your own mind about how it sounds. These are the main reasons why many people are facing the reality that NIST and your government lied, and continues to lie to you about 9-11....among many other things that they assume the American people are too stupid to first..to put together, and 2nd, to speak up about, for fear of being labelled unpatriotic, or a "conspiracy theorist", and for the most part spending a little time on the USMB, and reading the level of denial and ignorance, they're right in assuming this about the American people..


----------



## salem.hills (Jul 24, 2012)

Structural damage


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jul 24, 2012)

salem.hills said:


> Structural damage


 Asymmetrical structural damage that produced symmetrical collapses, that should have instead leaned, toppled over and taken a longer time to fall are all things that are not explained by NIST. There are no miracles in science, but NIST found it had to resort to a first time miracle to weasel out of explaining WTC 7.
To believe NIST is to be ignorant to these things, or worse.

Of course the easiest explanation is that the massive buildings were assisted in their collapses by some other means, like Silverstein was alleged
to have mentioned to his insurance company in a phone call, and noted by a reporter. Perhaps that is why the BBC and other networks knew it would be coming down
just not at the time it was reported on and aired. The problem with this is that a 47 story fortified skyscraper can not be rigged in such a short time, so that leaves pre facilitating the building in the months prior to 9-11 as the only logical explanation.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 24, 2012)

salem.hills said:


> Structural damage



I've seem how structurally damaged buildings fall, none have like building 7 did.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 24, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> salem.hills said:
> 
> 
> > Structural damage
> ...



True it would be unsound to send a crew into a build that had structural damage with the chance of it collapsing  to set charges to bring it down in a controlled fashion. Their  would not have been enough time to set the charges and do the prep work.


----------



## Jos (Jul 24, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> salem.hills said:
> 
> 
> > Structural damage
> ...


The Plane that was supposed to hit WTC7 was shot down by a rogue pilot, who was not in the Loop
*Flight 93 Shot Down by Lt Col Rick Gibney*
Flight 93 Shot Down by Lt Col Rick Gibney
 but they "pulled" it anyway


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jul 24, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > salem.hills said:
> ...



This is just one of  the many weird, strange, and too coincidental to ignore instances among many, about the official storyline. The 9-11 attacks are too important to us as a nation to simply trust a lying government and its agencies to explain.
It has changed the way many Americans look at their government, its leaders, and themselves, and has produced an awakening that has been dormant for decades, especially when one includes all the other things that have effected us recently, and the lies, coverups, and excuses.
Followed by legislation that is obliterating the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

The economic disaster, and the Osama Bin Laden raid fiasco, are just 2 of the more recent instances that come to mind immediately, that don't quite add up or make sense, but history is full of instances like Vietnam, Pearl Harbor, 1st Gulf War, the Fed Reserve central bank creation, and plans like Northwoods that contain more BS then what we were led to believe, at the time.
We need to be more well informed and scrutinize everything we are told, remembering how many times we were lied to, and get off the beaten wife syndrome wagon, and speak out and resist and protest in whatever manner is fitting, when we feel that our governments actions are becoming more  conspicuously egregious.

Massive wide spread voting for "none of the above", or writing in a candidate that isn't following the same paths as previous ones that led us to where we are today, would be a good start and send a message, signaling we aren't going to go along with their BS anymore.
Hell other countries populations have risen up, why the hell can't we? We gotta put an end to the manipulation and stop this train before shit gets so bad that they will impose martial law and suspend the constitution, which is what many think they are slowly building up to do, but they are bankrupting us first and taking away our resources, and passing legislation to make it more difficult for us to do this.
The future looks bleak if Americans don't seriously regroup, and join together, educating ourselves and one another is the first step.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 24, 2012)

You're almost 12 years too late. No offense, but it makes no fucking difference now. Too late, the bus left.


----------



## eots (Jul 24, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > salem.hills said:
> ...



*according to NIST the removal of a single column (79) would of caused the Collpase of wtc 7*


----------



## candycorn (Jul 25, 2012)

Unless you can show the "how", nothing else matters since it's physically impossible.  Please carry on though.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 25, 2012)

at 5:26 am today someone farted in here.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 25, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I was watching this video from the BBC talking about building 7 collapsing but when they were talking about it they showed it still standing even though they said it has collapsed. How can that be?
> 
> If This Does Not Get Thru To You; Nothing Will!!! - YouTube



Bld 7 is the crux of the 9/11 coverup commission that and disinfo agents like candycorn and his troll buddie Rat In The Hat whom I guarantee will be on here in seconds,cant get around.


----------



## eots (Jul 25, 2012)

candycorn said:


> unless you can show the "how", nothing else matters since it's physically impossible.  Please carry on though.



its physical impossible to take out a single column ?...how so ?


----------



## Ariux (Jul 25, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I was watching this video from the BBC talking about building 7 collapsing but when they were talking about it they showed it still standing even though they said it has collapsed. How can that be?



The most likely reason is that it was a video from earlier in the day, placed behind her on a green screen.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 25, 2012)

Ariux said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > I was watching this video from the BBC talking about building 7 collapsing but when they were talking about it they showed it still standing even though they said it has collapsed. How can that be?
> ...



Watch the video it's live on location they don't do green screen back drops on a live on location news release.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jul 25, 2012)

Jos said:


> [The Plane that was supposed to hit WTC7 was shot down by a rogue pilot, who was not in the Loop
> *Flight 93 Shot Down by Lt Col Rick Gibney*
> Flight 93 Shot Down by Lt Col Rick Gibney
> but they "pulled" it anyway




_Building 7 could not have been accessed by a plane strike from the south side as that the North and South towers completely shielded it from approach from that direction.

You should also notice the north side of Building 7 was also partially shielded by 3 buildings in close proximity. These buildings to the north of Building 7 didnt completely obscure its north face from a potential air strike, but they did protect over half of its overall target area, making approach from that direction more difficult and therefore, more risky.

once the towers fell out of the way, due to the layout of lower Manhattan and the Trade Center, all of a sudden, you have a clear shot right at the heart of Building 7.

As it just so happens, Mayor Giuliani cleared the building earlier, and with the exception of one key witness, who has since died under very suspicious circumstances, Building 7 was completely vacant.  Its rather odd that the mayor of New York would leave his multimillion dollar emergency command post bunker long before the first tower collapsed.  After all, even if he says that he feared a plane attack on Building 7, as we can see, as long as the towers stood, there was little chance of that.

Another rather telling aspect of the flight path of Flight 93 is how long it was in the air. Why did the hijackers wait so long to take over the plane?  Logically that makes no sense.

So why did they wait so long to take over the flight?

In fact, why did they wait at all? They near D.C. when they took off and the departure time was already delayed to start with. All they would have to have done was take over the plane once they got to cruising altitude, turn the plane south to D.C. and they would have struck there target just minutes after the towers were hit. But for some reason, the hijackers waited over 35 minutes before they took over the plane.

Why would they risk all that time in the air, coming back from Ohio? They must have known they would be shot down if they were terrorists with box cutters that is.

However, if the terrorists knew that multiple national security drills would be taking place that day and that NORAD rules had been changed in June of 2001 that kept NORAD commanders from giving the intercept and engage order, perhaps they would have known they had more time.

Perhaps, in that case, they would have known they had just enough time to circle around on a long exposed hijacked flight just long enough for both towers to collapse just as they made it back to downtown Manhattan.

And that is exactly why they waited so long. They were waiting for a clear path to Building 7.

Flight 93 was turned and headed straight back to its real target, while still far enough away to give enough time for the buildings to collapse out of the way.

Conclusion

The inescapable conclusion drawn from this is that a lot of very odd things had to happen to put Flight 93 on a direct collision course with Building 7 at just the right time after the two towers were cleared out of the way. Odd that is, if one believes they all happened by chance.

But, if you take a look at these events in the context of a deliberate schedule then you see that these odd occurrences took place in exactly the right sequence to put that plane in the north face of Building 7 at just the precise moment to not only justify the complete collapse of the building (and destruction of volumes of evidence) but also to serve as the final terrifying act of the New Pearl Harbor event the neocon Vulcans sitting in the command bunker had written about just 1 year earlier._

Interesting read on this theory, that ultimately led to the need of having NIST create the "miracle" of thermal expansion
and the whole BS fire theory. Also could explain Silverstein on the phone with his insurance company asking for permission to CD his property, as it was already pre-rigged, for the gran finale to end the days performance. Flight 93's demise before completing its mission had them scrambling for years to explain the "collapse" of WTC 7, now admittingly complete with free acceleration (that NIST tried to sneak past), that no massive highrise in history has experienced due to sporadic office fires.

_"A hero took down 93 but building 7 still had to fall. It was stuffed like a turkey ..with demolition material."

"......publiclly proclaimed all their goals there in the PNAC documentation."_

9/11 Shock Opera Act 4


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 26, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...





Dont forget the Kennedy assassination which till 9/11 was the worst tragedy ever.All the unaccountable bullets that were never reported and suppressed for years such as one in the windshield,one on the curb,one in the sign,one on the grass showing a police officer picking up and putting in his pocket.theres an awful lot of similarites in those events.the lack of security,the profits that were made as a result,the destruction of evidence,people dying mysteriously for giving a story that did not go along with the governments version,the list goes on and on and on.also bld 7 just like the towers had explosives planted in them months in advance so there was plenty of time to plant them in there.

thats what everybody needs to do is follow Mad scientists advise is vote for ron paul as a write in candidate.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 26, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> You're almost 12 years too late. No offense, but it makes no fucking difference now. Too late, the bus left.





Best post on this thread.I myself shouldnt have gotten drawn into this discussion because 9/11 is just like the kennedy assassination,done and over with.Its the LEAST of our problems we have to worry about from the government right now.suing the orchestraters behind 9/11 is pointless.

the courts are corrupt,the judges are corrupt,hand picked by powerful corrupt people,the justice system is corrupt,cops lie,lawyers lie,judges lie,nothing will ever change as long as we have this corrupt two party system which is really a ONE PARTY SYSTEM designed to look like two parties so the american sheople think they have a choice in who gets elected when actually are candidates are SELECTED for us.The elections are such a joke.Romney will be the new president.Obama and Romney are there only to serve wall street and the zionists,not us.

He is the one the Bilderbergers have tapped for the POTUS.He's their boy they have selected.We know he will be the new president because just like the last elections,Mccain wasnt at a bilderberger meeting but Obama was and he got elected,same here.Obama wasnt there this time but Romney and his political advisor was.He is their boy.Just like Obama and Romney,he will continue our our great depression we are in and continue the phony war on terrorism.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 26, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The news resport might have been live, but that doesn't mean the content in the background was live.  I didn't see a claim there that the reporter is on location.

Maybe the news reporter just misidentified a building that had already fallen.  A very simple mistake.

Or, maybe the BBC received a report that authorities feared WTC7 would fall, and in the excitement, someone misread the report and thought WTC7 had fallen.

Another possibility is that the video is fake.  The ending, with the explosions, is certainly fake.  The lady reporter never mentions WTC7, so she might not have been talking about WTC7.  All it would take is someone splicing an earlier segment of the same coverage to a later segment (notice, with the man's head turned, you can't see him actually asking about WTC7, making a good splicing point). 

An ABSURDITY is that the BBC botched their role in a conspiracy.  It would be completely unnecessary for conspirators to include the BBC.  This would demonstrate such rank stupidity among the conspirators that there's no way they could have pulled it off, let alone kept the conspiracy secret, aside from little clues like this video.  

You do realize there's a whole crew producing that news report.  That's another dozen people to blow the whistle on the conspiracy.   And, for what, like there's a possibility the media wouldn't notice WTC7 falling without advance notification?

The only conspiracies there is regarding 9/11 is the conspiracy of Arab hijackers to pull it off and the conspiracy of Israel and her supporters to let Israel off the hook for not sharing vital intelligence with the US prior to 9/11.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 26, 2012)

Yeah, you are a birfer and a trufer and a stupider and generally just conceptually challenged.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> I was watching this video from the BBC talking about building 7 collapsing but when they were talking about it they showed it still standing even though they said it has collapsed. How can that be?
> 
> If This Does Not Get Thru To You; Nothing Will!!! - YouTube


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 26, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yeah, you are a birfer and a trufer and a stupider and generally just conceptually challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



and your a chickenshit afraid of the truth about government conspiracys and the government loves you for being scared.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 26, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, you are a birfer and a trufer and a stupider and generally just conceptually challenged.
> ...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 26, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


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



yeah thats all you can do is try and laugh about it while failing miserably in your pathetic attempts to disprove the evidence so all you CAN do is sling shit in defeat like the scared monkey troll you are. for instance,debunk this video here.you cant and wont even try cause as we BOTH know,you are a chickenshit coward afraid of the truth and in denial about government conspiracys and they love you guys since your afraid like they want you to be.congrats on making them happy that they can brainwash and program you.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 26, 2012)

This is a post I saw on another message board,it decribes you to a tee.

People always have problems with incoming&#65279; information. People are so standardized and brainwashed. Anything that to the ordinary average consciousness is different to what they understand or think they know, they reject with a platitude and a spit. Oh! I've never heard of that. Where did you get that? I'm sticking with my version because that's weird. Much easier to roll with comfortable ideas than rock their beautiful world.

The thread starter of this thread is correct.He has NEVER been a truther.I have seen him many times in the pasy ignore evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.Mad Scientist used to be the same way.Myself,Eots,Mr Jones and others argued with him till we were blue in the face and we could never get through to him but eventually on his own,he came around a few years later.I see thats starting to happen with this thread starter as well.He now has serious doubts about the official version and like MS,is STARTING to become awake on government corruption such as 9/11 that something is not right.


----------



## whitehall (Jul 26, 2012)

So the BBC was in on it too? Y'all have to adjust those tinfoil hats from time to time.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 26, 2012)

whitehall said:


> So the BBC was in on it too? Y'all have to adjust those tinfoil hats from time to time.



yep,thats what you need to do,adjust your tin foil hat.


----------



## Triton (Jul 26, 2012)

What Take a Step Back said. 


Yawn.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 26, 2012)

Yawn.

No story, move along.





9/11 inside job said:


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


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 26, 2012)

Just as I knew.Run Jake Run. Nice dodge loyal Bush dupe.



JakeStarkey said:


> Yawn.
> 
> No story, move along.
> 
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 26, 2012)

Truly no story.  The debunking has been done elsewhere.

However, the historians will investigate the narratives behind the feral looniness of trufers and birfers and so forth. 

That is the story.    



9/11 inside job said:


> Just as I knew.Run Jake Run. Nice dodge loyal Bush dupe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 27, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yeah, you are a birfer and a trufer and a stupider and generally just conceptually challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are a fucking idiot. Can you explain why building 7 fell the way it did like a controlled implosion? And why had it been reported falling when it was shown to still be standing in the BBC news release?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 27, 2012)

Ariux said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...



The media doesn't work that way, it want's to show a disaster for the ratings  They aren't going to be talking about it falling and show a green screen of it still standing  What you said would be uncharacteristic of the media it's not enough showmanship talking about a building that had just fallen and show it still standing


----------



## Ariux (Jul 27, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You are a fucking idiot. Can you explain why building 7 fell the way it did like a controlled implosion? And why had it been reported falling when it was shown to still be standing in the BBC news release?



Stop being a f-ing idiot.  See my previous post.  I gave several possible explanations.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 27, 2012)

Ariux said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > You are a fucking idiot. Can you explain why building 7 fell the way it did like a controlled implosion? And why had it been reported falling when it was shown to still be standing in the BBC news release?
> ...



And see mine idiot.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 27, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The media doesn't work that way, it want's to show a disaster for the ratings  They aren't going to be talking about it falling and show a green screen of it still standing  What you said would be uncharacteristic of the media it's not enough showmanship talking about a building that had just fallen and show it still standing



I gave several other possibilities, if you didn't like the green screen.  Are you too illiterate to notice the possibilities I pointed out?  But, you want to believe the most stupid theory.  

They were showing a disaster for ratings.  And, they might be using a green screen if for some reason they can't put their correspondent on the scene, where they might want her.  It's not like they could have flown her in there.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 27, 2012)

Ariux said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > The media doesn't work that way, it want's to show a disaster for the ratings  They aren't going to be talking about it falling and show a green screen of it still standing  What you said would be uncharacteristic of the media it's not enough showmanship talking about a building that had just fallen and show it still standing
> ...



You gave me your opinion, but that's not how the media does it.
The media is not going to report a building collapsing  and show it still standing. It's not possible that is not how the media works.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 27, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You gave me your opinion, but that's not how the media does it.
> The media is not going to report a building collapsing  and show it still standing. It's not possible that is not how the media works.



You have shit for brains.  You're given half a dozen reasonable scenarios any of which could explain the building in the newscast, but you choose to believe an idiotic scenario... with the most stupid, hypocritical excuse imaginable.... "that's now how the media works"  Really, fucktard?  The media normally works by pointlessly taking part in huge conspiracies?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 27, 2012)

Ariux said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > You gave me your opinion, but that's not how the media does it.
> ...



I don't give a fuck about your opinion, that is not how the media does it. It's idiotic to suggest that the media would use a green screen talking about a disaster and showing the building still standing. THAT IS IDIOTIC TO EVEN SUGGEST IT SHIT FOR BRAINS.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 27, 2012)

Sure, a plane ran into it.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, you are a birfer and a trufer and a stupider and generally just conceptually challenged.
> ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 27, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sure, a plane ran into it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Building 7 had a plane crash into it?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 27, 2012)

Triton said:


> What Take a Step Back said.
> 
> 
> Yawn.



amen to that.


----------



## Triton (Jul 27, 2012)

BigReb,

All you are going to get from this thread is idiocy and name calling. There will be no rational discussion. Only back and forth banter.

Its clear that the BBC video is a huge smoking gun in shredding the lunacy that is the OCT of 9/11.


----------



## Liability (Jul 27, 2012)

One question has opened up a bag of nuts.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jul 27, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> You're almost 12 years too late. No offense, but it makes no fucking difference now. Too late, the bus left.


I have to respectfully disagree. 9-11 still matters as the fallout from it still is and will be effecting our lives and world events for the foreseeable future, and it can not be let to fade from memory, nor can their OCT ever be taken as factual, because it's not.
As far as bringing the criminals to justice, I can't honestly see that happening when the criminals are the ones running the system, but using that as the excuse to blow the 9-11 attacks off from the American consciousness, is itself another injustice.
We owe it to all who have died and all who have and will suffer because 9-11 was used as the excuse, and we owe it to all who have sacrificed and struggled to try to make America what it was supposed to be, to honestly NEVER FORGET.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 27, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > You're almost 12 years too late. No offense, but it makes no fucking difference now. Too late, the bus left.
> ...



Wow, you should do something about that.


----------



## paulitician (Jul 27, 2012)

One of the many mysteries of 9/11. I've become a proud 'Truther.' It's inevitable, once you start digging into the 9/11 tragedy.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 27, 2012)

Triton said:


> BigReb,
> 
> All you are going to get from this thread is idiocy and name calling. There will be no rational discussion. Only back and forth banter.
> 
> Its clear that the BBC video is a huge smoking gun in shredding the lunacy that is the OCT of 9/11.



True, especially too call someone a truther when the question is asked how did building 7 fall.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 27, 2012)

Liability said:


> One question has opened up a bag of nuts.



Liability
As for discussion board members I respect your opinion, I may not agree with it but I do respect it.
Now can you give an explanation as too how Building 7 fell?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 28, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > You're almost 12 years too late. No offense, but it makes no fucking difference now. Too late, the bus left.
> ...



and thats why you ignorantly keep taking the bait of the paid shills around here like Liar ability,candyass,and Dawgshit who have all been sent here to try and derail 9/11 truth discussions and you then take their bait feeding those trolls making their handlers happy because they have achieved their goal their handlers pay them for, to derail a 9/11 truth discussion.

9/11 is just like the kennedy assassination,done and over with.there never will be any justice done in it or ever a real investigation as long as we have this corrupt two party system of demopublicans and reprocrats elected who get elected to serve the zionists and wall street instead of us and of course the majority of congress is all bought off and paid for by the zionists as well.any good one that gets in such as cythia mckinney or dennis kucinich who were both ron paul supporters,they get rid of them. 

until we get a third party president in office who believes in the constitution and will serve us   instead of wall street and the zionists like our two parties currently do such as Gary Johnson for example,9/11 is just going to be like the kennedy assassination,fade into history with no real investigation done into it.

9/11 and the Obama birth certificate are just smokescreens by the establishment,they want you all to keep arguing back and forth with these agents that have penetrated this site while the establishment prepares other crimes against the american people that Obama will continue to be their willing puppet for them on or Romney if elected.

9/11 is the LEAST of our problems we have to worry about from the government right now.why argue about something from the past when there are more important things to worry about in the future? I wised up about that about 4 years ago and wisely put these agent trolls that you argue with all the time on ignore which angers them that I did that.these agent trolls here are just here to waste your time and you fall into their trap and take their bait everytime giving them your time.

I guarantee you that they dont like that.They would get angry with you as well if you did the same thing but you just keep feeding the trolls and make their handlers happy in the process all the while when the government is planning something far more sinister against you.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 28, 2012)

Triton said:


> BigReb,
> 
> All you are going to get from this thread is idiocy and name calling. There will be no rational discussion. Only back and forth banter.
> 
> Its clear that the BBC video is a huge smoking gun in shredding the lunacy that is the OCT of 9/11.



exactly.
the best thing to do if you want to learn the truth about 9/11  is find a site where they dont allow agents to come on and try and derail the discussions on it.i know of a couple where only truthers are allowed to come on that I wont post here.thats the place if a truther wants to learn things about 9/11 free of trolls should go to post.I used to go there all the time when i was obsessed over 9/11.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jul 28, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Excuse me, but I am far from ignorant when it comes to responding to these trolls. You can reply with your fart comments, and I'll respond with something insightful that makes them look like shit when they have no answers to back up what they believe in, especially when new people join in the discussion looking for information about 9-11 and other events, and the trolls immediately go on the attack.
They would like to stifle any rational discussion as is obvious by their sidetracking of threads.
IMO, forgetting about 9-11 and not rebutting these people with verifiable facts is what they want.


----------



## Liability (Jul 28, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > One question has opened up a bag of nuts.
> ...



The explanation is complicated and UNRAVELING all of it from the bullshit the idiot twoofers try to seed into the story make it even more difficult. 

Here's a link to get you started:  Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

And now, for a short hand version.  The building was severely damaged when the towers fell.  A key structural point needed for the integrity of the building was damaged.  There was too much overall damage for the building to stand.  

It did not fall all at once.  It did not fall at free fall speeds throughout the entire fall.  It took a longer time to fall than the twoofer nuts admit.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jul 28, 2012)

Liability said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


I'm with Donald Rumsfeld who said: "What's building 7? I've never heard of that".

Oh that's just that building with entire floors *dedicated* to FBI, CIA and DEA offices so of course as Secretary of Defense it's understandable that you've never heard of it. 

Besides, our great country would NEVER lie us into a Middle East war. Yes, they lied us into Vietnam but that was a long time ago.

The US Gov't would NEVER lie to destroy the Constitution either. Yeah, they did Fast and Furious to undermine the 2nd Amendment but that's not *the whole* Constitution! There's like 5 or 6 other Amendments so losing one or two aint gonna matter. You can just back fill with the others.

Now let's stop talking about all this idiot nonsense and concentrate on what's REALLY important: The NFL!


----------



## Liability (Jul 28, 2012)

Mad Scientist said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The U.S. Government does lie to us.  Why, just recently President Obama tried to SELL Obamacare on the basis that it was NOT a tax.  Lying liars who lie infest the Obama Administration.

But the fact that the government is capable of lying doesn't establish diddly dick about the twoofers' bullshit story concerning Bldg 7.

So have another heaping helping of fail and hurry back for more.


----------



## Politico (Jul 28, 2012)

It's called making a mistake. The media does it all the time.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jul 30, 2012)

Politico said:


> It's called making a mistake. The media does it all the time.


 And just how many "mistakes" or coincidences does it take for you to conclude that they are actually lies? I mean are you that gullible, really?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 30, 2012)

Politico said:


> It's called making a mistake. The media does it all the time.



A mistake would be to say it happen and did not happen, but it did fall.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jul 30, 2012)

Liability said:


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


 A heaping helping of fail would fit the NIST report to a tee. Millions spent but it took a high school physics teacher to point out the 2.25 secs. of freefall....for free.


----------



## Liability (Jul 30, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


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



Except, the building didn't fall at free fall, and may not have fallen at free fall for even that brief couple of seconds, either.

The ability to accurately measure wasn't exactly in place.

The NIST report may have problems.  But assholes like you scumbag twoofer idiots then JUMP to the moronic conclusion that it "must" have been a pre-planned conspiracy!

You guys are sick stupid fuckwits.

Seriously.  

All twoofers should be monitored 24-7.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 30, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


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


dear sister jones 2.25 secs of free fall is meaningless..



Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (09/17/2010, ARCHIVE, incorporated into 9/19/2011 update)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at WTC Disaster Study).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

&#8226;Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
&#8226;Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
&#8226;Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time&#8212;compared to the 3.9 second free fall time&#8212;was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 30, 2012)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Still doesn't explain why the BBC reported that building 7 fell before it actually fell.
A mistake would be to report the incorrect building had fallen, not report that the building had fallen before it fell.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 30, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


it does not have too... getting and reporting bad info is all a part of the news game, the point is not whether the BBC reported that it had fallen. 
the point is it was standing long after they reported it fallen. 
that alone would for any one with correctly functioning set of eyes and brain know that the report was wrong.
the BBC did retract the story and apologized.
besides twoofers never let little things like facts get in the way.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 30, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...





> the BBC did retract the story and apologized.



Retract what that they were told to report that building 7 fell?



> it does not have too... getting and reporting bad info is all a part of the news game, the point is not whether the BBC reported that it had fallen.
> the point is it was standing long after they reported it fallen.


No a mistake is reporting that obama is dead that's a mistake the people who told the reporter to say building 7 fell made the mistake a little early.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 30, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


why are you attempting to put a sinister spin where there is none.
obviously you have no clue how the media works.( ALTHOUGH YOU CLAIM TO)
A short lesson in news gathering and reporting: 
1.a reporter is sent to the scene HE /SHE INTERVIEWS witnesses.
2. the report is sent back to the studio via, radio, video, phone.
3. then the report is fact checked proof read then broadcast.
UNLESS it's breaking news (wtc7) then it's reported live, raw feed.
when that happens there is no time to "tell them what to say.."
here's an example: the Colorado batman shootings....first reports said 70 people were shot then later it was 53.
finally the correct number was reported.
after things settled down.
first reports are almost always incorrect, that's what happened at wtc7.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 30, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I'm not putting a spin on anything. The TelePrompter reported building 7 had fallen before it fell

A short lesson on news gathering? Like that lesson of the green screen?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 30, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


so what?   a TelePrompter is just a machine....who ever was operating it  got the story wrong. like I SAID.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 30, 2012)

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



There you go, a TelePrompter is just a machine that has a person typing in the words to say.
How did they get it wrong when building 7 fell?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 30, 2012)

Politico said:


> It's called making a mistake. The media does it all the time.



its called your living in denial and only see what you want to see.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 30, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


are you this dense all the time?
it's been explained.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jul 31, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



_BBC reported the World Trade Center Building 7 collapse before it fell. Furthermore, CNN's Aaron Brown reported that Building 7 "has collapsed or is collapsing" over an hour before it fell. All the local New York network affiliates also report that the building is "about to collapse", most at least three times. These clips both reinforce the shocking, newly discovered BBC coverage wherein Jane Standley reports the collapse early-- with the building still standing behind her. The early timing of these reports is now verified with multiple cross refrence sources announcing Building 7 is about to fall or has fallen more than one hour before its actual collapse. Furthermore, both the BBC report with Jane Standley and the CNN report with Aaron Brown clearly show Building 7 still standing, 'billowing with smoke' as the collapse is reported-- so premature reporting is confirmed visually as well._

_There is no longer any doubt they were all reading off the same script. Reports mirrored testimony of scores of fire fighters, police and emergency workers who were told to get back from the building in the 2 hours before Salomon Brothers building (better known as WTC 7) fell at free-fall speed. Rescue workers were told the building was to be brought down in a controlled demolition. _

_The group that carried out the demolition of Building 7 was in a position to feed the media and local authorities an official story. We have the controlled demolition of Building 7 hidden in plain sight-- including an admission by the building's 99-year lease holder Larry Silverstein. _

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

_WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
*2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)*
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed._

Silverstein is reported (verified) to have been asking for permission from his insurance company to implode his own property. 
It would be seemingly impossible for Alqaeda to have access to his buildings to plant CD devices, so why would he allow his building to be rigged for destruction?

The NIST cut and paste Dawgshit keeps posting is the very same BS that has been debunked and shown to be a lie and a coverup. The media assumed that falling debris contributed to its demise, but even NIST denied this as a contributing factor.
That they admitted to such a huge "error" about the freefall is very telling and contradicts their earlier report and adamant stance that it could not have experienced freefall because the massive structure would pose great resistance, to the falling mass, which they themselves said "is consistent with physical properties"

Now that they have admitted to freefall, all references to "consistant with physical properties" is redacted from their updated concessionary statements that indeed WTC 7 experienced a period of freefall.
This revelation is important, as WTC 7 had asymmetrical, and sporadic fires that would not have caused it to collapse in such a symmetrical manner.
Only the removal of this resistance would allow for the massive building to fall as it did, as only a CD could achieve.
Dawgshits circular and inconsistent arguments regarding this assumes you are as dense and or willfully obtuse as he is.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu_En1tU8wU]9/11 WTC 7 Collapse Reported On BBC Several Times The Hour Before It Happened - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PqbGfCcef0]9/11 CNN Reports World Trade Center Tower 7 Collapse Before it Happens - YouTube[/ame]

Here's a video that deals with NIST's explaining how freefall would be impossible because the building would pose too much resistance for freefall at anytime to occur.
Obviously they have changed their stance and documented this change in their final report
in which they leave out all reference to the observed collapse as being consistent with physical properties and the laws of physics.
NIST does not show how freefall is consistent with their hypothesis, that fire alone is to blame for WTC 7's demise, which then brings us back to how the resistance of the building was removed in order to facilitate the occurrence of freefall, who rigged the building, ( Alqaeda and OBL? Not likely with all the "security at the complex) and of course Larry Silversteins involvement, and the BBC,CNN, and others foreknowledge of collapse, including the report posted by Fox news of the conversation he had with his insurance company asking for permission to CD his building, that tried to explain Silverstein's actions, and plea to CD WTC 7, as normal and even heroic, as a way to smoke screen what is obviously a CD, complete with all the characteristics of one, including the removal of resistance such a massive building would pose, that NIST finally  was forced to admit.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related]WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III) - YouTube[/ame]

Keep using your God given common sense and logic, along with the data and facts surrounding the events, and the dots will start to connect, and you will see that the people who you trusted to deliver you the truth about 9-11 have lied to you, and that the power and authority of just a few top echelon traitors was enough to carry this out, complete with their influence of the media, to perpetrate the attempted cover up during the event and afterwards, up to this day.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 31, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



best load of paranoid shit ever.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I]Penn & Teller - 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jul 31, 2012)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


----------



## Dante (Jul 31, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> i was watching this video from the bbc talking about building 7 collapsing but when they were talking about it they showed it still standing even though they said it has collapsed. How can that be?
> 
> if this does not get thru to you; nothing will!!! - youtube


----------



## Dante (Jul 31, 2012)

eots said:


> *This website provides responsible criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report by senior military, intelligence and government officials. .*
> 
> Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report



This thread says it all: Wishing eots was in wtc 7 when it collapsed


----------



## paulitician (Jul 31, 2012)

Dante said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *This website provides responsible criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report by senior military, intelligence and government officials. .*
> ...



You're such a sad twisted little mutant. Wishing death on a person for questioning the Government's story on 9/11? Man, get some help. You're a menace to society.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 31, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## Triton (Aug 1, 2012)

I love it when the debunkpunks try to explain the manner of building 7's collapse.

In fact, WTC 7 is like their kryptonite yet they still try to spin it anyway they can.

For example they will argue something to the effect of ---- planes crashed into nearby buildings so that is why it had a near free fall total collapse 8 hours later ----



Its pure hilarity.


----------



## candycorn (Aug 1, 2012)

Triton said:


> I love it when the debunkpunks try to explain the manner of building 7's collapse.
> 
> In fact, WTC 7 is like their kryptonite yet they still try to spin it anyway they can.
> 
> ...



Photographic evidence clearly shows the building fully involved in fire and missing up to 20 floors at one of it's corners.  That is why it fell.  

Three years later and you're still believing your own shit?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 1, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> > I love it when the debunkpunks try to explain the manner of building 7's collapse.
> ...


 If that were true then it would not have fallen in such a uniform manner, nor would it have experienced free fall, because of the law of conservation of momentum. If you believe that this physics law has no value, go and test it yourself by driving your car into a brick wall and see how much slower your acceleration will be upon impact. In fact I strongly urge that you perform this easy test..It'll be brief and explain what I'm talking about much more convincingly. If not then just try walking through a closed door with your hands behind your back while someone has a stop watch to time you..This is how the principle works in the horizontal direction, and it works the same in the vertical direction, with the added constant force of gravity added to it. .

You lie and you clearly contradict the NIST report that you worship, as it states that the damage caused to WTC 7 did not contribute to its demise.
Other buildings that were actually and honestly fully involved in huge fires that made the WTC 7 fires look like a camp fire, for much longer durations and more intensity, did not ever collapse like a CD, experiencing any free fall.
It would be expected to fall towards the side of this missing 20 floors, ( remove a leg from a chair and see which way it falls you idiot) and not go from stable to having no resistance with free fall of 8 floors in a symmetrical and even roof line descent.

 Even NIST probably knew that saying the stupid shit you just posted would have drawn an immediate and justified BS! rebuttal, as the video evidence does not come close to even suggesting what you claim was possible.
And BTW...the posters who rebuttal your insane OCT fairy tale, get their information from independent, credible sources and physicists from all over the world, and do not make up or believe their "own shit" unlike you who make up your own crap that goes against the OCT in general,  and specifically the NIST, and many of the 9-11 commission panelists.

To be clear, a crumbling (naturally collapsing) building absorbs kinetic energy making free fall impossible.
NIST agrees saying that-  Free fall in a building collapsing naturally  ("crumpling") is impossible. 
NIST further clarifies by saying that-  Only when structural components structural resistances are removed can buildings free fall as in a controlled demolition.  -- not "crumpling" and not "naturally collapsing" 
NIST finally admitted that- WTC7 was in free fall for 2.25 secs. for about 8 floors, i.e., NO structural resistance and not "crumpling" and not "naturally collapsing" which means WTC7 experienced a state of collapse that can only be achieved by the *removal of structural resistance* that can only be done by deliberate actions like in a  controlled demolition, not by fucking accident or miracles.

Free fall means NO RESISTANCE ..So... how did the building provide no resistance?


----------



## eots (Aug 1, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> > I love it when the debunkpunks try to explain the manner of building 7's collapse.
> ...



So you feel the NIST report was wrong as they determined damage played no significant role in the collapse and that fire alone would have resulted in collapse...do you also feel the rest of the report is wrong ?


----------



## candycorn (Aug 1, 2012)

18 floors missing at the corner.  It falls.  Pretty simple really.  

Any word on the lightpoles yet (since we're in the wayback machine)?  No? Carry on.


----------



## paulitician (Aug 1, 2012)

Our Government lied to us. Par for the course though i guess. The 9/11 Truth Movement is dead. Big Brother has been very successful in marginalizing anyone who dares to speak out. It is very sad, but it is what it is.


----------



## Liability (Aug 1, 2012)

paulitician said:


> Our Government lied to us. Par for the course though i guess. The 9/11 Truth Movement is dead. Big Brother has been very successful in marginalizing anyone who dares to speak out. It is very sad, but it is what it is.



False.

The 9/11 Truth Movement wasn't concerned with truth and wasn't a movement.

Any marginalization of those whacky scumbags is anything BUT sad.


----------



## paulitician (Aug 1, 2012)

Liability said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Our Government lied to us. Par for the course though i guess. The 9/11 Truth Movement is dead. Big Brother has been very successful in marginalizing anyone who dares to speak out. It is very sad, but it is what it is.
> ...



Yes, HEIL BIG BROTHER!!


----------



## Liability (Aug 1, 2012)

paulitician said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...




^ Abysmally dopey comment.  

Disagreeing with the asshole scumbag lying fuckwit twoofers has nothing to do with Naziism or 1984.

But that was a revealing fail on your part.


----------



## paulitician (Aug 1, 2012)

Liability said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Actually, Big Brother is the "asshole scumbag lying fuckwit." Maybe one day you'll get that. And then again, maybe not.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 1, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Triton said:
> ...


bullshit !
what nist really saidIn a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at WTC Disaster Study) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at WTC Disaster Study).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

&#8226;Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
&#8226;Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
&#8226;Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

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

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


as to your dumbass free fall theory 
in the case of wtc7 all it means is that the falling parts of the building hit no obstacles for 1.75 to 4.0 seconds nothing more.
it is no indicator or proof that the  the law of conservation of momentum were bent, broken or disregarded.
it is also no proof of the use explosives.


Free fall is any motion of a body where its weight is the only force acting upon it. These conditions produce an inertial trajectory so long as gravity remains the only force. Since this definition does not specify velocity, it also applies to objects initially moving upward. Since free fall in the absence of forces other than gravity produces weightlessness or "zero-g," sometimes any condition of weightlessness due to inertial motion is referred to as free-fall. This may also apply to weightlessness produced because the body is far from a gravitating body.

Although strict technical application of the definition excludes motion of an object subjected to other forces such as aerodynamic drag, in nontechnical usage, falling through an atmosphere without a deployed parachute, or lifting device, is also often referred to as free fall. The drag forces in such situations prevent them from producing full weightlessness, and thus a skydiver's "free fall" after reaching terminal velocity produces the sensation of the body's weight being supported on a cushion of air.


----------



## eots (Aug 1, 2012)

candycorn said:


> 18 floors missing at the corner.  It falls.  Pretty simple really.
> 
> Any word on the lightpoles yet (since we're in the wayback machine)?  No? Carry on.



So that is a yes ..you are saying the NIST report that took almost 8 years to complete is wrong

*November 20, 2008
NIST  Final WTC 7 Investigation Report*

*falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column&#8217;s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of event*s.

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008


----------



## daws101 (Aug 1, 2012)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > 18 floors missing at the corner.  It falls.  Pretty simple really.
> ...


you wish!


----------



## eots (Aug 1, 2012)

daws101 said:


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



I wish ??...I wish what ?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 1, 2012)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


you need me to make a list for you?
1. you wish the nist report was wrong. (that's all you can do as you have no evidence proving it so.)
2 you wish you were clever.
3. you wish you had a 12" dick


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 1, 2012)

daws101 said:


> as to your dumbass free fall theory
> in the case of wtc7 all it means is that the falling parts of the building hit no obstacles for 1.75 to 4.0 seconds nothing more.
> it is no indicator or proof that the  the law of conservation of momentum were bent, broken or disregarded.
> it is also no proof of the use explosives.


It's not my free fall theory asshole, it's NIST's.  It was measured and is documented, and finally admitted to by NIST after they initially said it was not possible because of the resistance provided by the structure.
You minimize the massive building by calling it "falling parts" instead of what they really are, huge heavy columns and beams, in a heavily fortified building that would have been the tallest in many cities in America and around the world.
You don't want to understand the seriousness of the ramifications of free fall occurring in such a building, where you say there were no obstacles to hit.
There should have been shitloads of obstacles to hit, and could not have achieved any free fall as Sham Sunder explained in the report you sited... unless "parts" were taken out to facilitate the collapse, and the resistance he was talking about was removed.

What this means is that a huge amount of the buildings support structure was removed, cleared out of the way for this to have happened, and this has not ever happened due to sporadic office fires in ANY building in history, without the aid of something removing the resistance(mass) of the structure, and if fire could do this, then the CD industry would be changed forever as they would just light fires at all the support columns and walk away.

All of the supporting structure that needed to be cleared out of the way of the falling structure for free fall to happen, with a straight roof line, would have had to be removed at the same time in order for it to descend the way that it did, and the fires were not concentrated on every single joint, at the same fucking time, with the same fucking intensity for this to have occurred. If you believe this, you're more of a clueless idiot then
I initially thought.

You also conveniently do not mention the video of Sham Sunder of NIST explaining how free fall would be impossible because of the resistance the structure would undoubtedly provide, thus their bogus explanation of the 40% longer then free fall estimation THAT TURNED OUT TO BE FALSE, WHICH IS WHY THEY CHANGED THE REPORT TO ADMITTING FREE FALL ACTUALLY DID OCCUR IN THE REVISED REPORT, YOU STUPID FUCKING SCHMUCK. 

Steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire. No steel-framed skyscraper has ever collapsed at free fall acceleration without the use of CD period.

One of the truthful things that came out of lying MFKER'S Sham Sunder mouth was
"The obvious stares you in the face"  AP-2008.

NIST did a computer based study...So why wont they reveal the data for replication and put this to rest once and for all? What are they so afraid of?

The extreme heat that would have had to be generated at the points of failure *simultaneously *in order for WTC 7 to fall as it did, producing the free fall that NIST tried to hide, could not have come from regular office fires, and this is backed up by eye witness accounts and the flyovers that were done, that measured extreme amounts of heat in the rubble piles of ALL 3 WTC  building implosion sites.

You once again fail, even using parts of the NIST report that contradicts the video evidence, and the measurements and themselves in the process. Why would they overlook such an obvious thing as acceleration rate of collapse? They got caught lying and changed it in their final report, with no plausible explanation to follow.

9-11 was a false flag event, the obvious stares you in the face.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 3, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > as to your dumbass free fall theory
> ...


Hey sister jones 
Final Reports from the NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation

the above is the actual report try using it instead of the bullshit you are using now.
it might help as you have no evidence proving any of the laughable claims you source in this and all of your posts...


----------



## eots (Aug 3, 2012)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



but a few post ago you where contradicting the NIST report...have you ever actually read and understood the NIST findings or do you just blindly accept them ?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 3, 2012)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


show me those posts.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 3, 2012)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Doesn't matter to thinking folks with a working brain who aren't mentally or emotionally handicapped like you. The NIST report wreaks of BS, fudged/changed/hidden data, doesn't explain or put any of the controversy to rest, and instead creates more.
Like the resistance of the structure being a normal and expected observation and absolutely consistent with physical properties, but then oops a miracle happened, the massive structure offered no resistance for for 8 story's and free fall DID occur, and then no mention of it being consistent with physical properties in their revised report, no explanation offered, hide the computer data, shut up and move along?
Fuck you. You may be easily duped, because you want and need to be, while showing off your lack of intellect, and lack of respect for yourself and your country in the process, but
there are many of us who don't take BS and nonsense for answers.

I suggest you take a look at the works and writings of those who have serious objections to the NIST report, and make an effort to compare their grievances with NIST. There are many, with good valid points who point out the inconsistencies deceptions along the way.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 4, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


the works and writing you speak of are from people suffering from the same delusions you are! 
the many you rave about are in reality only a minuscule % of the population.
  besides I've read all "works" and they come up short on fact and evidence.
I'd tell you to go fuck yourself but that would be too little too late.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 4, 2012)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## paulitician (Aug 4, 2012)

The 9/11 Truth Movement is dead. Sadly, Big Brother murdered it.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 5, 2012)

paulitician said:


> The 9/11 Truth Movement is dead. Sadly, Big Brother murdered it.


Depends how you look at it. If it's justice and accountability and court cases and all of that, then yes I'd have to agree, but as far as the 9-11 attacks being used as a tool to awaken the masses to the reality of their governments corruption, and complicity in terror against their own people, then it's still alive.


----------



## paulitician (Aug 5, 2012)

Unfortunately, i'm beginning to believe that when all those Americans died on 9/11, so did our Nation. We've lost so much of our Freedom & Liberty since that awful day. It's very sad.


----------



## Triton (Aug 6, 2012)

Agreed.


9/11 is the justification for all this accelerated police state crap we see now.

If you do not support all the police state crap then the puppetmasters say you are making us all vulnerable to a terrorist attack that could happen at anytime, anywhere, by anybody.


----------



## paulitician (Aug 6, 2012)

Triton said:


> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 9/11 is the justification for all this accelerated police state crap we see now.
> ...



Yes, you're an "America-Hater" if you question Big Brother. It's a genius tactic though. It works. The indoctrination process begins early on for American Children. This video helps understand why we have a Nation of so many loyal Goose Steppers...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okPnDZ1Txlo]SCHOOL SUCKS: The American Way - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Aug 6, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 9, 2012)

daws101  said:
			
		

> ]In an article for Psychology Today, Ilan Shrira wrote: "Conspiracy theories help us cope with distressing events and make sense out of them. Conspiracies assure us that bad things don't just happen randomly. Conspiracies tell us that someone out there is accountable, however unwittingly or secretly or incomprehensibly, so it's possible to stop these people and punish them and in due course let everyone else re-establish control over their own lives. Conspiracies also remind us that we shouldn't blame ourselves for our predicaments; it's not our fault, it's them! In these ways, believing in conspiracies serves many of the same self-protective functions as scapegoating."
> 
> 
> By grasping at straws, and laying the blame on anything other than senseless, random violence - the very hallmark of al Qaeda's crusade - truthers are trying to make order where there is none, and in the end, the only people they want to make feel better are themselves.
> ...




Idiot, you are the mentally challenged dupes that have to resort to the most outlandish of conspiracy theories like 19 Muslim jihadists with box cutters so you can blame them instead of taking responsibility for your nations predicament by blaming yourself for not paying attention to who and what has infiltrated your country, and just who and what your stupid blind ignorant ass is "voting" for.

Be a man and open your eyes and mind to the reality of the situation your country is really in and the people you voted into power that facilitated this mess, instead of hiding behind the most outrageous and lunatic fringe conspiracy theory ever concocted by your 
lying scumbag "leaders".
AlQaeda was created by the liars who you assume are telling you the truth and care about you and your welfare, you fucking dope. They are supposed to be the enemy of the US yet your government is supporting them in Syria, and Libya right in front of your face and yet you say nothing about it.
Hilarious, you don't even see that you subscribe and hide behind, and facilitate the spreading of  the biggest conspiracy theory
with the most outlandish BS that even blindly dismisses science, physics, logistics, and facts, and even when the lies and inconsistencies are shown to you, with credible people to back them up, you come here and accuse others of subscribing to "conspiracy theories" for comfort?? To relieve mental anguish??   

You truly are a sad sack of lost Dawgshit boy.

As for your statement concerning polls regarding 9-11 and people believing US government complicity losing ground since 2005-

Polls Show Widespread Doubt About Official Explanations

The results of polls on peoples beliefs about 9/11 around the world might surprise you:

    In its January 2011 issue, the popular German magazine Welt der Wunder published the results of a poll conducted by the Emnid institute on 1005 respondents. The poll indicated that nearly 90% percent of Germans are convinced that the government of the United States is not telling the whole truth about the September 11 attacks

    A new poll conducted in England by ICM shows that more UK residents agree than disagree that the official account of what happened on 9/11 might turn out to be wrong in important respects. Only 8% strongly agree that they have been told the full story of the 9/11 attacks

    A new poll conducted in France by HEC Paris shows that 58% of French people doubt the official version of 9/11, and 49% believe the U.S. government might have intentionally allowed the attacks to happen

    A Zogby poll conducted in August 2007 found that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush/Cheney regarding the 9/11 attacks, two-thirds (67%) of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7

    A poll conducted by CNN-IBN in August 2007 found that only 2 out of 5 of those polled in India  the worlds second most populous country  believe that al-Qaeda is responsible for the 9/11 attacks

    Indeed, a poll taken by World Public Opinion, a collaborative project of research centers in various countries managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, College Park, polled 16,063 people in 17 nations outside of the United States during the summer of 2008. They found that majorities in only 9 of the 17 countries believe Al Qaeda carried out the attacks. The poll showed that in the worlds most populous country  China  only 32% believed that Al Qaeda carried out the attacks.

9/11 and the War on Terror: Polls Show What People Think 10 Years Later - Washington's Blog

And in a poll of NYC residents, shows that 1 in 3 New Yorkers were unaware of Building 7&#8242;s collapse and, despite the importance of the events of that day, only 25% have ever seen video footage of Building 7 collapsing at free fall.  Only 14% could identify the name of the skyscraper.
So out of sight out of mind but the reality is that it did happened and people need to be made aware, perhaps then any sliding poll numbers that you point to, that are based on ignorance, would go the other way in favor of getting to the truth.

New Poll: 48% of New Yorkers Support a New 9/11 Investigation into Building 7&#8242;s Collapse | 9-11 News | World for 9/11 Truth

July 2006, Time magazine discussing a Scripts Howard poll says that 36% of people polled that's *over *1/3rd, about 108 million people...That's a lot of people...think it likely the US government in some way was complicit, or allowed it to happen.

"36% adds up to a lot of people, this is not a fringe phenomena, it is a mainstream political reality"-Time Magazine

The very same publication many of you lunatics tried to use as a debunking rag back then.
108 million people is more then 3 times the population of Canada.

And in 2006, a Zogby poll showed that half of NY'kers polled said they believed that the US leaders had impending knowledge of the attacks, and "consciously"failed to act".

...the new survey found that 77 percent say their friends and acquaintances have become angrier with government recently and 54 percent say they, themselves, have become angrier _ both record levels.
Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy | ScrippsNews

But those that are willfully ignorant of facts and of history, and even shutting their eyes and minds to what is happening today, need the comfort of creating a belief in which their government is benevolent, caring and just, and live in that false illusion for fear of confronting reality that the opposite is in fact the truth.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlPweD6R3Cc]911 Polls - You Are Not Alone - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Aug 9, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101  said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 17, 2012)

WTC 7 was not brought down by fire alone. NIST has not proven that, and there are many instances of NIST fraud in trying to make fire the only explanation.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 17, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> WTC 7 was not brought down by fire alone. NIST has not proven that, and there are many instances of NIST fraud in trying to make fire the only explanation.


wrong! there are many unfounded allegations  that nist  has perpetrated a fraud.....but none have been found to be credible.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 17, 2012)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > WTC 7 was not brought down by fire alone. NIST has not proven that, and there are many instances of NIST fraud in trying to make fire the only explanation.
> ...


BS. Prove they are not credible I dare you.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 17, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


I triple dog dare you! ....
getting back to reality ..there is no need ...it's already been done ...


----------



## Freewill (Aug 18, 2012)

Here is a site that directly addresses the video in the OP.

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

Take note, the most logical of all statements, why would the news be given prior notice of the collapse of WTC 7?  My logical observation is why did they wait about one hour to pull it on WTC 1 and 2 and 7 hours until they "pull it" on WTC 7.  Are we to believe that a chief in the NYFD was in on the conspiracy?  That he was controlling the explosion?  Really?  The "conspirators" allowed the building, with the demolition charges already in place, to burn for 7 hours, and it did burn.  Wouldn't they be at least a little concerned that the charges may ignite or that the detonation cords might be severed?

Quoting polls on what a whole bunch of uninformed people think is not very productive and proves nothing.

Does the government know more then it is releasing, maybe.  Maybe there were warnings and maybe they were ignored like a multitude of warnings before and since were ignored for not being considered viable.  That information may be withheld.  As was stated in one of the more viral posts, 19 men pulling this off doesn't seem like it could happen.  That poster doesn't believe it and all evidence points to that is what happened, imagine if he were told before 9/11what would happen.  The poster would not believe it.  What if the 2012 Mayan Prediction comes true what will people say then?

So this conspiracy theory goes the way of all conspiracy theories.  Just like the JFK conspiracy theories 19 men killing so many isn't big enough.  One loner with a gun killing JFK was not big enough.  The paranoid want it to be bigger.  Big crime needs a big criminal.  Didn't happen so history must be revised to fit what the conspiracy theory advocates want to believe.

19 men took over a 4 planes as could be heard from the calls from those very planes.  It is really time to see the real enemies.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 18, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Whow, the FBI, CIA, The whole of the Republican party, the airlines, the traffic controllers, the news feeds showing the airplanes striking the WTC, the families of the victims and now the BBC.  What an incredible array of an conspiracy organization.  All capable of keeping their mouths shut, amazing.
> ...



You notice in that first video, after they said it had already collapsed, they saw it collapse and they didn't seem in the least bit surprised that they'd already said it was down.  I don't get it.


----------



## Freewill (Aug 18, 2012)

You need to go to the link I provided.  The news outlets were told that WTC 7 was going to crash.  On the day the SCOTUS announced their ruling CNN and FOX first reported that the mandates were ruled against, they were wrong.

Just use some logic, why would they be given prior knowledge?  Has anyone interviewed those reporters as to how they could have known?

As for being in on it, the reporters would need to be in on it.  The fire chief would need to be in on it.  There are way too many to be in on it to keep it a secret.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 18, 2012)

Freewill said:


> You need to go to the link I provided.  The news outlets were told that WTC 7 was going to crash.  On the day the SCOTUS announced their ruling CNN and FOX first reported that the mandates were ruled against, they were wrong.
> 
> Just use some logic, why would they be given prior knowledge?  Has anyone interviewed those reporters as to how they could have known?
> 
> As for being in on it, the reporters would need to be in on it.  The fire chief would need to be in on it.  There are way too many to be in on it to keep it a secret.


It was reported by an eye witness reporter in the link provided below, who was on the scene at WTC 7, who had been told by FDNY and others there, that Larry Silverstein was on the phone with his insurance company asking for permission to implode his own property. Thus this reporter is saying Silverstein saved lives yada yada, but what he idiotically doesn't reaslize in reporting this, is that such a massive 47 story hi rise could not be rigged in such short notice...while having isolated fires in it as well...

So this is where I believe the prior knowledge of imminent collapse came from, and was then spread to the news outlets only they left out the part of Silverstein talking with his insurance carrier about having the massive building imploded...
*
Shame On Jesse Ventura! | Fox News*


Also, this operation did not need to have every single person involved in the plot. It only required people in top echelon positions of authority that the underlings would not think to question or second guess, as they were in positions of trust.

You can go back in history to find such plots and conspiracies were indeed kept highly secret like Operations Northwoods,and the Manhattan Project. All one need do is study the laws of conservation of momentum, the fuel loads in the WTC 7 complexes, and the free fall that occurred at the WTC 7 and close to it at the towers to realize something else was involved in bringing the towers down and the planes were just used as a side show diversion to cause shock and awe, as it probably assumed it would be easier to explain lax security and plane hijackings by Jihadist extremists as the cause of these buildings "collapsing" instead of lax security on a huge complex in the middle of Manhattan, that had already been the victim of a prior attack in 1993. 

If planes weren't used as a diversion, the question would have been how did they sneak all the CD prep into such a heavily guarded building complex, but as it turned out that question was not avoided by critically thinking people that took the time to objectively research this terrorist
attack. Those who did found that security in the complexes and the airports were handled by Israeli connected firms and or people with Israeli loyalty.

If you dig into the 9-11 attacks with an open mind and take the time to do so, it will open your eyes to something sinister within a small segment in our own government who had an agenda to use military force to control the ME  for natural and strategic resources. PNAC.


Anyway it has been posited that flight 93 was originally destined as the coup de grace of the aerial exhibition that day, by slamming into WTC 7, as this building was apparently pre-rigged, according to the reporter who was on scene, and was told about Silverstein's phone call to the insurance company. This theory is backed up by flight 93's flight, and the time it was "hijacked", as it was the last plane to be "taken over", and once the towers were down had a clear path to slam into WTC 7..

*9/11 Shock Opera&#8230; Act 4*




> -*Freewill*- The "conspirators" allowed the building, with the demolition charges already in place, to burn for 7 hours, and it did burn. Wouldn't they be at least a little concerned that the charges may ignite or that the detonation cords might be severed?


 It is highly possible that for such a high tech operation as 9-11 and the implosion of such massive buildings, that self consuming det cord initiated by remote was used. You would have read about this if you dug deeper concerning the allegations of the truth movement and knowledgeable people in such fields that are part of it, including CD experts, physicists etc.. They have put forward a very plausible theory that includes the fraud perpetrated by the government agency known as NIST. Do you actually think the perps would use conventional tactics and risk the chance of "det cord" and other evidence laying around the rubble piles? I'm sure they never thought people would take the time to analyze the dust for chemicals of explosives or incendiaries either. What started the snooping was the fact that the towers and building 7 exhibited many of the characteristics of controlled demolitions, and the rubble piles burned/smoldered for 3 months after the attacks despite efforts to finally extinguish them including using shit loads of Pyrocool.
Office combustibles would not have burned or melted steel for 3 months at all 3 locations.

*http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/88138*



I suggest that anyone who wants to seriously debate this issue take the time to learn what the truth movements knowledgeable people are saying about the 9-11 attacks in particular the demise of these huge buildings, and compare their opinions to what has been reported by NIST and the media.



> *-Freewill*] -19 men took over a 4 planes as could be heard from the calls from those very planes. It is really time to see the real enemies.


 Both the 19 Jihadists and the phone calls as being totally true are very debatable. Do a search on both, including the testimony of the FBI regarding the calls, and you'll see that the story has changed with thesis on the technology at the time siding with the calls being very unlikely to have been made, and many "hijackers" reported to have been still alive with their passports and ID's being stolen or lost.
I agree that we need to take the blinders off and see the real enemies, both foreign and DOMESTIC at work in our nation.

FBI says, it has &#8220;No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11&#8221;

9/11 Commission Report: Why No Arab Names on Passenger List?

Five men detained as suspected conspirators

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

ALL THE 9-11 AIRPORTS SERVICED BY ONE ISRAELI OWNED COMPANY

EDITORIAL: 9/11 cover-up - Washington Times


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFpbZ-aLDLY&playnext=1&list=PL6FCD384DA1DCA55C&index=8]NIST Report on WTC7 debunked and exposed! - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA]WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k&feature=related]WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II) - YouTube[/ame]

Evidence that contradicts NIST and the official story line is available, and contrary to what some on the USMB say, has not been explained or countered in any rational and scientific way. I find it laughable that when I ask these people to post any rational counter rebuttals they answer by saying that it has already been debunked, without ever linking to anything that advances their position and backs up their claim that the 9-11 attacks and the science of the massive building complex _has already been explained _adequately.

*http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19420*


----------



## paulitician (Aug 18, 2012)

Dare to question. Always question.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_IZaUuK_d0]Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About The 9/11 Conspiracy Theory In Under 5 Minutes - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Freewill (Aug 18, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > *Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight: The 9/11 "Official Story" and the Collapse of WTC Building Seven*
> ...


----------



## Freewill (Aug 18, 2012)

Why would Israel want us to attack Iraq and Afghanistan?


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvFuRYyEkiU]Popular Mechanics Debunked with EASE! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Freewill (Aug 18, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> salem.hills said:
> 
> 
> > Structural damage
> ...



What??? WTC 1 and 2 fell in almost the exact same way.


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2012)

Freewill said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > salem.hills said:
> ...



hardly.the towers were from the top down dumb ass...and the fact still remains any building other than wtc 1-2 or 7 have never fallen in the manner either did from fire or structural damage


----------



## Freewill (Aug 18, 2012)

OK, I listened to the first part of the link you provided.  So tell me, when did they pull the building?  The truth is that the building was never pulled as they did with WTC 4 and 5, it is in the video I provided.  Another point is that one would have to believe that Silverstein was familiar with an antiquated demolition term and so was the Fire Chief.  What I think your link did was cut out further responses from PS.  That is a typical thing to do.

Anyway here is a defintion of pull it:

en.wikipedia.org
Is "pull it" an industry term?

The closest thing I could find to a citation on this was a comment on a forum from someone in the industry responding specifically to that allegation:[5]

"I've had enough. The term "pull it" means pull it over. The term isn't used much today, because of the modern equipment used by demolition contractors. Fifty years ago wrecking contractors were less affluent, they depended more on ingenuity in the work place than on equipment. This was especially true when large buildings were taken down with hand labor. In those situations most interior and exterior walls had to be cabled and "pulled" in onto floors. Before you "pulled" the walls you would place old truck tires on the floor to cushion the shook and maintain the integrity of the floor your working on. In those days wrecking contractors would often attach cables to trucks or a dozer to collapse a section of a building or whole buildings. With advent of backhoes, skid loaders you don't have the need for cabling that you did in those days"

So even if the PS answer was not great it doesn't change the facts that Pull it does not mean to implode the building by detonation.  Again this is typical conspiracy theory stuff.  Make a statement that most people would not question then keep repeating it over and over again.

Now for the hijackers.  At least one call from the airplane describe the hijackers as Arab.  Does it matter if the FBI got their names wrong?  Does it matter if their names appear on the boarding list?  No would be the proper answer.  It is meaningless.  Who in the hell is the government going to hire to fly planes into tall buildings?  Where are the passengers?


----------



## Freewill (Aug 18, 2012)

eots said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Yeah, I win, you are calling me names.  All three buildings fell from where they were damaged.  In the case of the WTC 7 it was from the bottom and the 5 floor where the fire raged.  In the WTC 1 and 2 it was from where the planes hit, and the fires raged.  All the same.  What other buildings have been hit as were those two?  How about the damage to the the WTC buildings?  Was that controlled demolition?  Do you listen to yourself?

Again, insult, a typical conspiracy theory tactic, when they are losing, which is always.


----------



## Obamerican (Aug 19, 2012)

Freewill said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...


Eots listens to Alex Jones. Both are fucking idiots.


----------



## Indofred (Aug 19, 2012)

Given building 7 did a swan dive when no others did, did anyone sue the shitty builders?

America, a compensation state, would have had lawyers crawling all over the builder's arses (in a non gay way).


----------



## Freewill (Aug 19, 2012)

Indofred said:


> Given building 7 did a swan dive when no others did, did anyone sue the shitty builders?
> 
> America, a compensation state, would have had lawyers crawling all over the builder's arses (in a non gay way).



I agree, it seems to me that all three must have had some structural issues.   The other WTC building were built differently and were smaller that is probably why they didn't fall.  Plus there were no fires in any other building, as I have read.


----------



## Freewill (Aug 19, 2012)

paulitician said:


> Triton said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed.
> ...



WTF?  I listened to the video, which is well done, for about 2 minutes.  I went to grammar and high school in the 50s and 60s and I don't believe what the video is trying to say is really all that true.  Yes, we said the pledge of allegiance everyday, and yes we heard a prayer every day, up to HS.  Neither of which prepared me to charge into cannon fire.  What the video starts out as saying about Hitler and Germany he overlays with scenes from American schools.

This is nothing more then anti-American BS, creative but BS none the less.


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2012)

Freewill said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > Given building 7 did a swan dive when no others did, did anyone sue the shitty builders?
> ...



there were fires raging in other wtc buildings that did not fall..you do not even know the details of the NIST report and have never read it

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ]Re: WTC Tower 7: Examining Conspiricist Claims - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## paulitician (Aug 19, 2012)

Freewill said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Triton said:
> ...



Watch the whole video. I'm sure you will see the eerie similarities. And read up a bit on Horace Mann.


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2012)

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


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 19, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > *Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight: The 9/11 "Official Story" and the Collapse of WTC Building Seven*
> ...


David Chandler a high school physics teacher challenged the multimillion dollar agency NIST on the actual collapse of WTC 7, and concluded it indeed fell at free fall for 2.25 seconds, forcing NIST to change their report and admit to this but without explaining how this could be, even after NIST and Sham Syunder initially and correctly stated that there was no way the massive 47 story hirise could fall at free fall because the robust part of the structure would no doubt provide enough resistance to make free fall an impossibility.
Try to use your own logic about this taking into consideration that in order for the collapse to undergo free fall, all the major load bearing components would have to let go and be freed of their ability to resist the falling mass, simultaneously.
First of all the fires at these points would have to be the same temperatures, with the same intensity at the same time in order for this to happen, and no building in history has ever undergone such a thing and collapsed with such uniformity due to office fire combustibles...never. Even the NIST computer simulation does not show the way the actual collapse occurred. Combine this with the fact they were wrong about the fuel loads, the free fall, and their keeping others from duplicating their outcome by withholding the comp sim data for replication, proves that their report and outcome of the investigation is nothing more then a cover up to try to fit the demise of WTC 7 to a fire only probability.
They have admitted that neither the towers collapses nor the diesel fuel tanks were a contributing factor.


> Anyway, here is an easy experiment for you to do.  I viewed the video of the WTC 7 starting to fall.  I see it start at the 32 second mark, but could have been sooner, and when it drops to just about where it can't be seen was about 37 seconds.  This seems to be in line with what the NIST stated.
> 
> So to say either the NIST or the man commenting on the video is wrong is near impossible because it is subject to interpretation.
> 
> ...


NIST was charged with the calculations that Chandler and others prove to be inaccurate at best and totally misleading at worst. They initially said correctly the huge building was supposed to provide resistance and free fall could never occur...so why did they change their report? Because they were wrong, and these types of mistakes, given all the other instances of fudging data to achieve a preconceived conclusion,look like more then just errors and more like intentional fraud.



> Which brings us full circle and the conclusion I come up with is that this teacher is grading the NIST not necessarily proving anything.  Whether or not the building free fell, which I don't see that it did, is not an indication of whether after 7 hours of burning they finally decided to implode the building.


So now you even are going against the NIST report itself. Hell they admitted to the free fall when backed up by honest calculations and data why can't you?
Furthermore you are not giving serious consideration to the fact that free fall can only occur when the massive resistance, that NIST correctly stated no doubt would have precluded free fall from happening in the first place, and the building's support structure is supposed to have provided, vanished for the first 100 or so stories, allowing it to go from stable to free fall in an instant. You also can't grasp the fact that steel will not turn into spaghetti noodles, especially when office combustibles do not reach anywhere close to the temps required to achieve this, with such uniformity. Think all support columns, beams at the same time giving way in sporadic fires with too  low of temps.
I have worked with steel and torches and done fabrication and there is no way this could have happened producing the results we see on the videos. At best if a few of the support components did magically achieve this far fetched scenario, the building would have leaned to that part of its weakest point and came down in a staggered fall, and not in such a uniform manner and straight roof line.
Steel dissipates heat causing the heat to move to the cooler parts of the building or steel, this means that the temps required to remove the resistance had to have been elevated to the point of causing this weakening/melting, had to be constant because of steels ability to dissipate the heat, and had to be both at the same time to collapse in such simultaneous uniformity.



> Even if the detonators were RF remote controlled that too could have been damage by fire and the initial blast from WTC 1 and 2 falling.  Also with all the radio interference from emergency crews the demolition crew would be taking a big chance using RF.


 You are trying to bypass the facts that are mentioned and dismiss them simply because we don't know the equipment or technology used? Does that take away and give reason to throwing basic facts of physics that have been part of science for years and history of hirise building? I don't think so, and if you do you are lazy and in denial of the hard facts, and the evidence to seriously question the NIST fire only BS report.
Fact is massive hirise's, in particular a fortified one like WTC 7 do not come down looking like a CD due to sporadic office fires, while producing astronomical temps in the rubble pile for 3 months.


> Now, rationally ask yourself the very simple question that I posed in my first post.  You do not need to rely on someone else's math.  You don't need to rely on reports from unnamed reporters.


 The problem here is we relied on a trusted gov. agency to explain how these anomalies happened and they lied. I suggest you re analyze your own version of rational, and remove the denial and replace it with objectivity. Hell, NIST relied on someone else's math and data, to the point they were wrong in their initial estimates and report, the troubling part is that they still can not explain things without resorting to miracles having occurred, and that isn't science.



> All you need do is engage your logic.  Why would the news reporters get information that the WTC 7 collapsed before it actually collapsed?


 I already stated my opinion on this, and again it may have come from the fact that the reporter who was on scene and heard Silverstein was on the phone with the insurance company and word got out it was "coming down" they fucked up their timing. Now, try to use your own logic and think about how such a massive structure is to be rigged for CD in such short order?? It isn't possible therefore it had to be pre-rigged months or weeks in advance. Why? Perhaps to ready it for the 9-11 shock and awe show that was needed as a new "Pearl Harbor type of catastrophic event" to galvanize support to go and kill the bad guys. Insurance fraud with friendly judges were a side benfit for lucky Larry.


> BTW, you posted this: "Evidence that contradicts NIST and the official story line is available, and contrary to what some on the USMB say, has not been explained or countered in any rational and scientific way. I find it laughable that when I ask these people to post any rational counter rebuttals they answer by saying that it has already been debunked, without ever linking to anything that advances their position and backs up their claim that the 9-11 attacks and the science of the massive building complex has already been explained adequately."
> 
> I did provide a link that completely demolished the theories you presented.
> 
> Here is another: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Pentagon - Flight 93 - Popular Mechanics


 Popmechanics does not explain away shit and that rag and their article have been destroyed for the BS that it is. This is old news, look up rebuttals to their BS. In the age of the internet it should be no problem.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 19, 2012)

eots said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...


 Anyone who still points to Popular Mechanics as the answer to this topic is seriously way behind the curve. WTC 7 was a heavily fortified building too, makes me laugh that even with NIST admitting the towers nor the fuel tanks inside WTC 7 were contributing factors in the collapse of 7, these people still can't grasp the ridiculous fire only report, and try to resort to saying what a shitty design the building was. They also don't grasp the facts about steel, heat, and its ability to dissipate both, or the fact that NIST has been caught BSting in many instances.
WTC 7 was brought down by hi tech CD with the owner asking permission to due so and it still doesn't resonate with these idiots...


----------



## paulitician (Aug 19, 2012)

To believe our Government told us the truth about 9/11, would be believing in the Mother of all Conspiracy Theories. It would be absolutely crazy. That's one Conspiracy Theory i'll never subscribe to.


----------



## Indofred (Aug 19, 2012)

eots said:


> Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube



That video is pointless.

None of those building were hit by an aircraft where there was a massive fireball, hot enough to change the melting point of steel but not hot enough to burn a paper passport.
The conditions just aren't the same.


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2012)

Indofred said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube
> ...



1..building 7 was not hit by an aircraft 

2.a short lived fireball can not greatly effect the strength of  steel that requires and is credited to sustained fires


----------



## Freewill (Aug 19, 2012)

eots said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...



Yeah, why didn't they pull WTC 5?

According to this site WTC 5 did partially collaspe. (tried to find an independent source)

http://www.haifire.com/Resources/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf


----------



## Freewill (Aug 19, 2012)

eots said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



WTC 7 burned for 7 hours, the chances are it was fed by pressurized diesel fuel that was there to supply generators.  It is in the video.

Here is a video of another buidling falling due to fire:  [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h9TOFP7ViY]building collapses due to fire - YouTube[/ame]

Here is an article that you may or may not find interesting: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - First Time In History


----------



## Indofred (Aug 19, 2012)

I rather like this one.
Seems so many of the dead terrorists are still walking around.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue-MLMnlTzY&feature=related]What Happened to the Planes and Passengers on 9/11 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Indofred (Aug 19, 2012)

911 WHAT REALLY HAPPENED! See with your own eyes - YouTube


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2012)

Freewill said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



nonsense..partial collapse..bits of floor sagged...there in zero comparison to a complete progressive collapse in secs..


----------



## eots (Aug 19, 2012)

Freewill said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...



You a  joke...the building does not collapse a portion does and the steel frame is clearly still standing after the facade collapses...you constantly contrdict the NIST REPORT...which states desial fuel was not a factor in the collapse and that building 7 was the first steel framed building in history to suffer a complete collapse due to fire ...the more you post the clearer it becomes you have never read and have no understanding of the NIST report 
and therefore have no credibility in your opinion of the validity of the report


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 20, 2012)

Freewill said:


> WTC 7 burned for 7 hours, the chances are it was fed by pressurized diesel fuel that was there to supply generators.  It is in the video.


_The extreme difficulty of explaining the collapse of building 7, assuming that it is not permissible to mention controlled demolition---has been recognized by the official bodies. The report prepared under FEMAs supervision came up with a scenario employing the diesel fuel, then admitted that this scenario had only a low probability of occurrence.  Even that statement is generous, because the probability that some version of the official story of building 7 is true is the same as it is for the towers, essentially zero, because it would violate several laws of physics. In any case, the 9/11 Commission, perhaps because of this admission by FEMA, avoided the problem by simply* not even mentioning the fact that this building collapsed.*_

_Some defenders of the official story have claimed, to be sure, that the diesel fuel stored in this building somehow caught fire and created a towering inferno. But if building 7 had become engulfed in flames, why did none of the many photographers and TV camera crews on the scene capture this sight?_

_And it certainly would not explain the particular nature of the collapse---that the building imploded and fell straight down rather than falling over in some direction, as purportedly expected by those who gave the order to create a large collapse zone. Battalion Chief John Norman, for example, said: We expected it to fall to the south (Norman 2002). Nor would the damage-plus-fire theory explain this buildings collapse at virtually free-fall speed or the creation of an enormous amount of dustadditional features of the collapses that are typically ignored by defenders of the official account._
_
It is, in any case, already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by domestic terrorists. *Foreign terrorists could not have gotten access to the buildings to plant the explosives. They probably would not have had the courtesy to make sure that the buildings collapsed straight down, rather than falling over onto surrounding buildings. And they could not have orchestrated a cover-up, from the quick disposal of the steel to the FEMA Report to The 9/11 Commission Report to the NIST Report. All of these things could have been orchestrated only by forces within our own government.*

The number of contradictions in the official version of . . . 9/11 is so overwhelming that . . . it simply cannot be believed. Yet . . . the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of X-Files proportions and insidiousness.

The implications are indeed disturbing. Many people who know or at least suspect the truth about 9/11 probably believe that revealing it would be so disturbing to the American psyche, the American form of government, and global stability that it is better to pretend to believe the official version. I would suggest, however, that any merit this argument may have had earlier has been overcome by more recent events and realizations. Far more devastating to the American psyche, the American form of government, and the world as a whole will be the continued rule of those who brought us 9/11, because the values reflected in that horrendous event have been reflected in the Bush administrations lies to justify the attack on Iraq, its disregard for environmental science and the Bill of Rights, its criminal negligence both before and after Katrina, and now its apparent plan not only to weaponize space but also to authorize the use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike._

The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account of 911 Cannot Be True


----------



## daws101 (Aug 20, 2012)

Freewill said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...


hey freewill  if you hadn't noticed by now, eots ,sister Jones et al have a major problem, all of what they claim to be evidence has been debunked. 
it is based on the false premise that the government was "in on it!"  
in the nearly 11 years since 911 not one of there many claims  have turned out to be true.
even the so called leaders of the twoofer movement have stopped backing those claims.
all you are left with is the dregs.


----------



## eots (Aug 20, 2012)

daws101 said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



This simpleton Freewill is in constant contradiction with the NIST report and the official theory he claims to support


----------



## daws101 (Aug 20, 2012)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...


LOL! look who's calling others simpleton! stfu...


----------



## Freewill (Aug 20, 2012)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Not to worry, being called names means I win and I wear their smear as a badge of honor.

See the poster does what all "truthers" do, the make a statement not based on any fact then expect people to believe it.  Like the "pull it" BS.  They said it as if "pull it" ever meant to implode the building and they ran with that BS line.  Mostly because they web sites they visit implied that is what it meant.  I doubt they ever came out and said that it meant to implode the building.  Then when shown that pull it does not mean what they imply the names start coming out.  Same with the claim that I am defending the NIST, I am not.  I am not claiming to have ever read the report everything I post is basically playing against their BS.  So when they say that the NIST is lying about the building falling in 5.4 seconds but when the video is run it is clearly falling in more then 5 seconds one has to wonder about these people.  What I saw with the debate between Popular Science and Loose Change was educated men going against pretenders.  Pretenders that are good at posting links and making innuendo but not so good with rational logical thinking.


----------



## Freewill (Aug 20, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > WTC 7 burned for 7 hours, the chances are it was fed by pressurized diesel fuel that was there to supply generators.  It is in the video.
> ...



Here is one video of WTC 7 burning.

fires in WTC7

Here is an independent report:

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Finally a discussion on the fires at WTC 7

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/conspiracistsmisrepresentwtc7'scondition


----------



## eots (Aug 20, 2012)

Freewill said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You are in constant contradiction with the NIST report..you do not even have the most basic grasp of the NIST report as you clearly have never read it..your entire opinion is based on popular mechanics type sources...this is just a fact


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 21, 2012)

Freewill said:


> Not to worry, being called names means I win and I wear their smear as a badge of honor.
> 
> See the poster does what all "truthers" do, the make a statement not based on any fact then expect people to believe it.


 Wrong, the facts countering the ludicrous claims of NIST and the OCT, have been linked for you to read and observe to better understand why such views and hypothesis exists. It is you who are choosing to dismiss them without putting them to proper or honest testing. If you did you would post something within the facts presented that you disagree with, instead it is clear you are ignoring the work required to seriously engage in this topic.




> Like the "pull it" BS.  They said it as if "pull it" ever meant to implode the building and they ran with that BS line.  Mostly because they web sites they visit implied that is what it meant.  I doubt they ever came out and said that it meant to implode the building.  Then when shown that pull it does not mean what they imply the names start coming out.


 There is more to Silverstein then this pull it statement. The fact is tho, that he did say this, and was asking his insurance company for permission to implode his building, according to a witness on the scene. So putting these 2 statements together, from him, and the reporter, what do you expect people to conclude?
 But, this is another instance of you ignoring something you have no answer for.



> Same with the claim that I am defending the NIST, I am not.  I am not claiming to have ever read the report everything I post is basically playing against their BS.


 It is obvious you really don't care what the NIST report says, or how they manipulated the data to come to the preconceived fire only outcome.
What you are posting in rebuttal to the facts laid out by the credible people against the OCT, has already been thoroughly spanked and dismissed.



> So when they say that the NIST is lying about the building falling in 5.4 seconds but when the video is run it is clearly falling in more then 5 seconds one has to wonder about these people.


 Look, even NIST changed their report to include the 2.25 secs. of free fall. If you disagree and staunchly believe they are wrong (wouldn't be the first time) perhaps you can provide them with your data and calculations, otherwise stop trying to further muddy the discussion by interjecting your BS uneducated opinions in a debate that is supposed to be based on facts.




> What I saw with the debate between Popular Science and Loose Change was educated men going against pretenders.  Pretenders that are good at posting links and making innuendo but not so good with rational logical thinking.


 The people of Loose Change are not the only ones who showed up Popular Mechanics and their faulty explanation of anything 9-11.
Popular Mechanics didn't touch any of the important things others have pointed out in their critic of their article.
_Popular Mechanics seeking to debunk what it calls some of the most prevalent myths about 9-11 fabricated by &#8220;conspiracy theorists,&#8221; completely ignores the suddenness, vertical, rapidity, and totality of the collapses and also fails to mention the testimonies about molten steel, demolition rings, and the sounds of explosions. _They leave these important facts out of the discussion.

They set out to disprove 'wild conspiracies" IE: by stating that the truthers said no way steel could melt with the temps sited in the buildings. This is true, steel can't melt, however they say that steel only needed to "weaken" and so according according to Pop Mech., the truthers are attacking a strawman to solidify their argument.

What they don't mention however is the idea that the towers collapsed because their steel _melted _was put into the public consciousness by some early defenders of the official theory in the first place!
 For critics of the OCT theory to show the absurdity of this claim is not, therefore, to attack a straw man. The idea that the official theory is based on this absurd claim is, in any case, not one of &#8220;the most prevalent claims&#8221; of those who reject the official theory.

Popular Mechanics, NIST and people like yourselves also ignore the fact that The fire theory is rendered even more unlikely when considering that for fire to have induced a collapse that began suddenly and was entirely _symmetrical_, so that it went straight down, the fires would have needed to cause all the crucial parts of the building to _fail simultaneously_, even though the fires were not spread evenly throughout the buildings. All support columns would have to have *weakened to the point of collapse *at the same instant, with the fires heat and intensity a constant on these critical points.

Popular Mechanics also falsely stated that 
_&#8220;In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999."_
The truth is that the FAA reported in a news release on Aug. 9, 2002, that it had scrambled fighters 67 times between September 2000 and June 2001, and the Calgary Herald (Oct. 13, 2001) reported that NORAD scrambled fighters 129 times in 2000.

_Major Mike Snyder, a NORAD spokesperson, reportedly told the Boston Globe a few days after 9/11 that &#8220;[NORAD&#8217;S] fighters routinely intercept aircraft.._

The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account of 911 Cannot Be True

_As to why Popular Mechanics would have published such a bad article, one clue is perhaps provided by the fact that the article&#8217;s &#8220;senior researcher&#8221; was 25-year old Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new head of the Department of Homeland Security..._

_Another relevant fact is that this article was published shortly after a coup at this Hearst-owned magazine, in which the editor-in-chief was replaced..._

_Young Chertoff&#8217;s debunking article has itself been effectively debunked by many genuine 9/11 researchers, such as Jim Hoffman, &#8220;Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth,&#8221; Global Outlook 10 (Spring-Summer 2005), 21-42 (which was based on Hoffman, &#8220;Popular Mechanics&#8217; Deceptive Smear Against 9/11 Truth,&#8221; 911Review.com, February 15, 2005 [http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html]), and Peter Meyer, &#8220;Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11,&#8221; Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11. To be sure, these articles by Hoffman and Meyer, while agreeing on many points, take different approaches in response to some of the issues raised. But both articles demonstrate that Popular Mechanics owes its readers an apology for publishing such a massively flawed article on such an important subject._

Using Popular Mechanics to come here and engage in a debate of the 9-11 collapses and attack shows that you are, behind the timeline and severely misinformed.
Try addressing the facts in peoples posts instead of  embracing other willfully ignorant and misinformed characters one liner opinions and evasive tactics. Posting what you don't agree with and why with links would also advance the discussion.


----------



## paulitician (Aug 21, 2012)

What the Hell's wrong with you people? Big Brother never lies. And to state otherwise makes you a CRAZY UN-AMERICAN TERRORIST!! Shame on you.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 21, 2012)

Yes these people are seriously fucked up..War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength, in their twisted minds.
For an explanation of this behavior, look no further than the psychological theory of cognitive dissonance. This theory holds that when people are presented with information that contradicts preexisting beliefs, they try to relieve the cognitive tension one way or another. They process and respond to information defensively, for instance: their belief challenged by fact, they ignore the latter. They also accept and seek out confirming information but ignore, discredit the source of, or argue against contrary information.

The preexisting belief that they live in a society that is run by a form of government that is the one and only benevolent entity in existence and that would never harm its own peoples is the biggest and wide spread illusion that these folks live with. When presented with facts that counter these indoctrinated beliefs, and all the instances of them throughout history, it is akin to finding out that their "Uncle Sam" has been the one involved in the rash of killings, robberies and lies that have taken place and since they think they know him best, he could NEVER be the guilty one, and how dare anyone even accuse him of such atrocities, despite the overwhelming evidence against him.

It is past the time that Americans to face reality and quit being lazy and allow themselves to be coddled by evil and greedy liars and think for themselves, and stop ignoring what is being done to them. 
It is also like beaten wife syndrome, where the victim keeps going back to the source of their abuse, in hopes that "he'll change" with just a little more time...
This is a serious mental illness combined with the reality of having to actually do something about it, that leads to the cowardice behavior of taking more abuse, even if it negatively affects their own children. It is unacceptable.


----------



## paulitician (Aug 21, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> Yes these people are seriously fucked up..War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength, in their twisted minds.
> For an explanation of this behavior, look no further than the psychological theory of cognitive dissonance. This theory holds that when people are presented with information that contradicts preexisting beliefs, they try to relieve the cognitive tension one way or another. They process and respond to information defensively, for instance: their belief challenged by fact, they ignore the latter. They also accept and seek out confirming information but ignore, discredit the source of, or argue against contrary information.
> 
> The preexisting belief that they live in a society that is run by a form of government that is the one and only benevolent entity in existence and that would never harm its own peoples is the biggest and wide spread illusion that these folks live with. When presented with facts that counter these indoctrinated beliefs, and all the instances of them throughout history, it is akin to finding out that their "Uncle Sam" has been the one involved in the rash of killings, robberies and lies that have taken place and since they think they know him best, he could NEVER be the guilty one, and how dare anyone even accuse him of such atrocities, despite the overwhelming evidence against him.
> ...



Well said. Thanks.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 21, 2012)

paulitician said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Yes these people are seriously fucked up..War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength, in their twisted minds.
> ...



Still waiting on anything with any semblance of intelligence from the resident trolls that backs up their positions. How anyone can ignore the facts presented to them, that counter the official fairytale of the OCT, from such credible people in the relevant fields of study is beyond comprehension.
If they are so adamant in their beliefs, that what is being said and has been studied that goes against the OCT and NIST and the government, why wont they just lay it out instead of dodging and ignoring what is posted, or by trying to "debunk" it with old shit that has already been analyzed, dissected and proven to be BS lies??


----------



## daws101 (Aug 21, 2012)

eots said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


popular mechanics agrees with the nist report and you disagree with both so there is no contradiction.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 21, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


hey sister jones none of what you've posted in post #166 ,168 and 170 is evidence. none of the people you mention are credible.

cognitive dissonance! hahahahahahaha you are a living example cognitive bias:

 A cognitive bias is a pattern of deviation in judgment that occurs in particular situations, leading to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality.[1][2][3] Implicit in the concept of a "pattern of deviation" is a standard of comparison with what is normatively expected; this may be the judgment of people outside those particular situations, or may be a set of independently verifiable facts. A continually evolving list of cognitive biases has been identified over the last six decades of research on human judgment and decision-making in cognitive science, social psychology, and behavioral economics.

Cognitive biases are instances of evolved mental behavior. Some are presumably adaptive, for example, because they lead to more effective actions in given contexts or enable faster decisions when faster decisions are of greater value (heuristics). Others presumably result from a lack of appropriate mental mechanisms (bounded rationality), or simply from mental noise and distortions.


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2012)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > freewill said:
> ...



The popular mechanics book came out before the final NIST report and is full of contradictions falsehoods


----------



## daws101 (Aug 22, 2012)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


wrong again...


 The Conspiracy Industry: Afterword to PM Expanded Investigation
Afterword to Popular Mechanics magazine's book, Debunking 9/11 Myths, by editor-in-chief James B. Meigs, analyzing the nature of conspiracies theories related to September 11. The fully revised and updated 2011 edition of the book is now on sale.
By James B. Meigs 

On February 7, 2005, I became a member of the Bush/Halliburton/Zionist/CIA/New World Order/ Illuminati conspiracy for global domination. It was on that day the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics, with its cover story debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, hit newsstands. Within hours, the online community of 9/11 conspiracy buffs--which calls itself the "9/11 Truth Movement"--was aflame with wild fantasies about me and my staff, the magazine I edit, and the article we had published. 

The Web site 9-11 Research: An Independent Investigation of the 9-11-2001 Attack, an organization that claims that questioning the "official" story of 9/11 is "an act of responsible citizenship," fired one of the first salvos: "Popular Mechanics Attacks Its 9/11 LIES Straw Man," read the headline of a piece by a leading conspiracy theorist named Jim Hoffman. 

We had begun our plunge down the rabbit hole. Within hours, a post on www.portland.indymedia.org, which claims to be dedicated to "radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth," called me "James Meigs the Coward and Traitor." Not long afterward, another prominent conspiracy theorist produced an analysis that concluded that Popular Mechanics is a CIA front organization. Invective and threats soon clogged the comments section of our Web site and poured in by e-mail: 
I was amused at your attempts to prove the conspirator theorists wrong by your interviewing people who work for the government. Face it: The U.S. government planned this attack to further its own agenda in the Middle East. 

Rest assured, puppet boys . . . when the hammer comes down about the biggest crime ever perpetrated in the history of man--AND IT WILL--it will be VERY easy to identify the co-conspirators by their flimsy, awkwardly ignorant of reality magazine articles. Keep that in mind the next time you align yourself with evil scum. 

YOU HAVE DECLARD YOURSELF ENEMY OF AMERICANS AND FRIEND OF THE MOSSAD!

I shouldn't have been surprised. In researching the article we'd spent enough time studying the conspiracy movement to get a feel for its style: the tone of outraged patriotism, the apocalyptic rhetoric, the casual use of invective. A common refrain in conspiracy circles is the claim that "We're just asking questions." One would think that at least some quarters of the conspiracy movement might welcome a mainstream publication's serious, nonideological attempt to answer those questions. One would be wrong. 

It was only a matter of time before the Nazis got dragged in. Christopher Bollyn, a prominent conspiracy theorist affiliated with the far-right American Free Press, weighed in a few weeks later with a piece titled "The Hidden Hand of the CIA, 911 And Popular Mechanics." The article begins with a brief history of Hitler's consolidation of power following the Reichstag fire in 1933. "Like Nazi Germany of 1933," Bollyn wrote, "American newsstands today carry a mainstream magazine dedicated to pushing the government's truth of 9/11 while viciously smearing independent researchers as extremists who peddle fantasies and make poisonous claims." 

In a few short weeks, Popular Mechanics had gone from being a 100-year-old journal about science, engineering, car maintenance, and home improvement to being a pivotal player in a global conspiracy on a par with Nazi Germany. 

Not all the responses were negative, of course. One visitor to our Web site, after plowing through dozens of angry comments, left a supportive post that included this astute observation: 
Some people are open to any possibility, and honestly examine all evidence in a rational manner to come to a conclusion, followed by a moral evaluation. Others start with a desire for a specific moral evaluation, and then work backwards assembling any fact that supports them, and dismissing any fact that does not.

Author Chip Berlet, who is an analyst for the liberal think tank Political Research Associates, employs the awkward but useful term "conspiracism" to describe this mindset. "Populist conspiracism sees secret plots by tiny cabals of evildoers as the major motor powering important historical events," he writes on the think tank's Web site. Berlet has spent more than two decades studying far-right and authoritarian movements in the United States. "Every major traumatic event in U.S. history generates a new round of speculation about conspiracies," he writes. "The attacks on 9/11/01 are no exception." 

As the hate mail poured in and articles claiming to have debunked the magazine's analysis proliferated online, we soon learned to identify the key techniques that give conspiracy theorists their illusion of coherence. 


Marginalization of Opposing Views
The 9/11 Truth Movement invariably describes the mainstream account of 9/11 as the "government version" or "the official version." In fact, the generally accepted account of 9/11 is made up of a multitude of sources: thousands of newspaper, TV, and radio reports produced by journalists from all over the world; investigations conducted by independent organizations and institutions, including the American Society of Civil Engineers, Purdue University, Northwestern University, Columbia University, the National Fire Protection Association, and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.; eyewitness testimony from literally thousands of people; recordings and transcripts of phone calls, air traffic control transmissions, and other communications; thousands of photographs; thousands of feet of video footage; and, let's not forget the words of Osama bin Laden, who discussed the operation in detail on more than one occasion, including in an audio recording released in May 2006 that said: "I am responsible for assigning the roles of the 19 brothers to conduct these conquests . . ." 

The mainstream view of 9/11 is, in other words, a vast consensus. By presenting it instead as the product of a small coterie of insiders, conspiracists are able to ignore facts they find inconvenient and demonize people with whom they disagree. 




Read more: The Conspiracy Industry: Afterword to PM Expanded Investigation - Popular Mechanics The Conspiracy Industry: Afterword to PM Expanded Investigation - Popular Mechanics


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2012)

I am not wrong...so the book *updated* was in 2011...no one is buying or reading their book any more...all the bullshit they told in the first publication is constantly repeated by debwunkers as fact still..all their bullshit videos are still out there


----------



## daws101 (Aug 22, 2012)

eots said:


> I am not wrong...so the book *updated* was in 2011...no one is buying or reading their book any more...all the bullshit they told in the first publication is constantly repeated by debwunkers as fact still..all their bullshit videos are still out there


of course you are wrong ....you've never been right.
who is no one? you and your 5 twoofers buddies?
since you've never presented any credible evidence to prove the pm report to be inaccurate.
then your claim of bullshit is also inaccurate and subjective.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 22, 2012)

Argument by Anomaly
In an article about the Popular Mechanics 9/11 report, Scientific American columnist Michael Shermer makes an important observation about the conspiracist method: "The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the `evidence' for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy." 

A successful scientific theory organizes masses of information into a coherent, well-tested narrative. When a theory has managed to explain the real world accurately enough for long enough, it becomes accepted as fact. Conspiracy theorists, Shermer points out, generally ignore the mass of evidence that supports the mainstream view and focus strictly on tiny anomalies. But, in a complex and messy world, the fact that there might be a few details we don't yet understand should not be surprising. 

A good example is the conspiracist fascination with the collapse of 7 World Trade Center. Since the 47-story tower was not hit by an airplane, only by the debris of the North Tower, investigators weren't sure at first just how or why it collapsed hours after the attacks. A scientist (or for that matter, a journalist or historian) might see that gap in our knowledge as an opportunity for further research (see "WTC 7: Fire and Debris Damage," page 53). In the conspiracy world, however, even a hint of uncertainty is a chance to set a trap. If researchers can't "prove" exactly how the building fell, they say, then there is only one other possible conclusion: Someone blew it up. 


Slipshod Handling of Facts
There are hundreds of books--and hundreds of thousands of Web pages--devoted to 9/11 conspiracy theories, many bristling with footnotes, citations, and technical jargon. But despite the appearance of scholarly rigor, few of these documents handle factual material with enough care to pass muster at a high-school newspaper, much less at a scholarly journal. Some mistakes are mere sloppiness; others show deliberate disregard for the truth. 

Journalism is never perfect. Early accounts of any major event are studded with minor errors and omissions. As Washington Post publisher Philip Graham famously noted, "Journalism is the first draft of history." In future drafts, errors are corrected, so anyone honestly attempting to understand an event relies more heavily on later investigations. Conspiracy theorists tend to do just the opposite. For example, the conspiracy Web site TOTAL 911 INFO includes the headline "Video: CNN reported no plane hit pentagon." The item includes a clip from the morning of the attack, in which reporter Jamie McIntyre says, "There's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon." 

Today, we know why very little wreckage was visible from McIntyre's vantage point: Flight 77 didn't crash near the Pentagon. It crashed into the Pentagon. Traveling at 780 feet per second, it struck with such force that virtually the entire aircraft and its contents continued into the building. Investigators recovered the shredded remnants of the plane, including the black box, and established exactly how Flight 77 struck the building. Through forensics they have identified all but five of the 64 passengers and crew and Pentagon fatalities. (All five hijackers were positively identified.) Though a few conspiracy theorists attempt to reckon with that vast accretion of evidence, many more prefer to turn back the clock to the earliest possible moment, when hard facts were at a minimum. 

Some errors are so simple they are almost laughable. After the Popular Mechanics report was published, numerous critics wrote to object to our explanation of why NORAD was poorly prepared to intercept off-course commercial aircraft (see "Military Intercepts," page 22). Many pointed to the 1999 case of golfer Payne Stewart's private jet, which was intercepted and followed after losing pressurization and failing to respond to radio calls. "Within less than 20 minutes fighter planes were alongside Stewart's plane," one letter claimed. In fact, the widespread idea that a fighter was able to reach Stewart's aircraft within minutes is based on a convenient misreading of the flight records. According to the National Transportation Safety Board report on the incident, controllers lost contact with Stewart's jet at 9:30 a.m. eastern daylight time; the flight was intercepted at 9:52 a.m. central daylight time--that is, the intercept took an hour and 22 minutes, not 22 minutes. (Not surprisingly, such errors always seem to break in favor of the conspiracists' views and never the other way around.) 


Repetition
The Web site rense.com, which is edited by conspiracy oriented radio talk-show host Jeff Rense, includes an article by Bollyn discussing the seismic data recorded by Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at the time the two towers fell. "These unexplained `spikes' in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses," Bollyn concludes. This claim, which originally appeared in the American Free Press, was decisively debunked in the Popular Mechanics magazine article (and is addressed here in "Seismic Spikes" in Chapter 2, "The World Trade Center"). The truth on this issue isn't hard to find: Lamont-Doherty's research is available to the public. Nonetheless, this claim from Bollyn's piece is repeated verbatim on more than 50 conspiracy sites today. 

In the early days of the Internet, some commentators worried that material posted online would be ephemeral. In fact, the opposite is true. On the Internet, errors can last forever--repeated, cross-referenced, and passed from site to site in an endless daisy chain. The essentially nonchronological nature of the Internet contributes to this phenomenon. Many postings don't have dates, so it is difficult for readers to see what information has been disproven or superseded. Mainstream journalism makes at least an attempt to correct mistakes and prevent them from being repeated in later stories. The conspiracy movement prefers a see-what-sticks approach: Throw everything against the wall, and keep throwing. 


Circular Reasoning
In archaeology, researchers are often reminded that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In the world of 9/11 denial, even the tiniest gaps in the evidence record are seen as proof that the mainstream view is incorrect. Case in point: the widespread claim that the government was hiding incriminating evidence because it refused to release video footage from security cameras outside the Pentagon. The footage had been entered into evidence at the trial of Al Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, who pleaded guilty in May 2006. Later that month the government released the material in response to a Freedom of Information request by the conservative watchdog organization Judicial Watch. The footage from two of those cameras, however, didn't show the cruise missile or small aircraft predicted by author Thierry Meyssan and others. Nor did it show a Boeing 757 streaking toward impact. In fact, the security cameras in question recorded data at the glacial rate of one frame per second. The odds of picking up a clear image of a jet moving at 780 feet per second were slim indeed. But that didn't stop an online commentator from concluding: "There's no plane at the Pentagon at 9/11, plain and simple." 

But among 9/11 theorists, the presence of evidence supporting the mainstream view is also taken as proof of conspiracy. One forum posting that has multiplied across the Internet includes a long list of the physical evidence linking the 19 hijackers to the crime: the rental car left behind at Boston's Logan airport, Mohamed Atta's suitcase, passports recovered at the crash sites, and so on. "HOW CONVENIENT!" the author notes after each citation. In the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose logic of conspiracism, there is no piece of information that cannot be incorporated into one's pet theory. Like doctrinaire Marxists or certain religious extremists, conspiracists enjoy a worldview that is immune to refutation. 

Jim Hoffman sums up this worldview nicely in one of his pieces attacking the original Popular Mechanics investigation of conspiracy theories. "[The article] purports to debunk conspiracy theorists' physical-evidence-based claims without even acknowledging that there are other grounds on which to question the official story," he writes. "Indeed many 9/11 researchers don't even address the physical evidence, preferring instead to focus on who had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attack." This is a stunning burst of honesty: Since we've already decided who's to blame, Hoffman is saying, evidence is optional. 


Demonization
The 9/11 conspiracy theorists have an eternal problem: In every field where they make claims, the leading experts disagree with them. The only solution is to attack these authorities early and often. 

Van Romero, an explosives expert from New Mexico who was quoted in the Albuquerque Journal on September 11, 2001, as saying that it looked like explosives brought down the World Trade Center towers, saw this firsthand. Eleven days later, the Journal ran a follow-up story stating his opinion that "fire is what caused the buildings to fail." Predictably, conspiracists view that clarification as proof that somebody "got to" Romero. "Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement," claimed The Emperor's New Clothes. 

It is in the nature of conspiracy theories that they must constantly expand as they try to absorb and neutralize conflicting information. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, a conspiracy theorist might have imagined a compact plot involving a corrupt White House and a few renegade military officers. But as the months went by, committees were organized by Congress, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and others. News organizations conducted detailed investigations. Reports and studies piled up, none of them helpful to the conspiracist viewpoint. For conspiracy theorists there was only one answer: All of these people must be in on the plot, too. 

One of the chilling things about 9/11 denial is how blithely its adherents are able to accuse their fellow citizens of complicity in evil. They think nothing of suggesting that Romero would keep silent about an enormous crime, that hundreds of researchers involved in 9/11 investigations were participants in a cover-up, or that journalists from Popular Mechanics, The Nation, the New York Times and hundreds of other publications would willingly hide such a plot. Many critics of Popular Mechanics complained that some of the sources we quoted work for the U.S. government. The assumption--explicitly stated by many--was that anyone connected with the government should be seen as implicated. Point of reference: Not including the U.S. Post Office, the federal government has more than 1.9 million employees. 



Read more: The Conspiracy Industry: Afterword to PM Expanded Investigation - Popular Mechanics


----------



## Freewill (Aug 22, 2012)

I am done,  it is starting to feel like pulling the wings off of flys;

The last thing i will address is that acuasation that there was nothing posted to counter the truther BS.  These are the links I provided:

According to this site WTC 5 did partially collaspe. (tried to find an independent source)

Hughes Associates, Inc. 

Here is a video of another buidling falling due to fire: 
building collapses due to fire - YouTube 
building collapses due to fire - YouTube  



Here is an article that you may or may not find interesting: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - First Time In History 

Here is one video of WTC 7 burning.

fires in WTC7

Here is an independent report:

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf

Finally a discussion on the fires at WTC 7

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...#39;scondition 

Here is a site that directly addresses the video in the OP.

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

Here is another: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Pentagon - Flight 93 - Popular Mechanics


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 22, 2012)

daws101 said:


> hey sister jones none of what you've posted in post #166 ,168 and 170 is evidence. none of the people you mention are credible.


It is evidence of more rational theories that explain the 9-11 attacks and make more sense then the shit you subscribe to. Tell us why you don't consider this evidence of this fact, or why the people who draw their counter conclusions are not credible instead of just typing your opinion and running away to paste some shit about cognizant dissonance that fits you perfectly.
Fact is the people and agencies that you side with have been shown to be liars, have been caught fucking up the data and changing it to fit a ludicrous fire only scenario, whereas the folks that are not government affiliated have not bullshitted there way through insane fire only scenarios that don't make sense.

You've yet to rationally point anything out in the counter theories that advance NIST or your boneheaded beliefs and only post your asinine opinions, again with nothing of substance to back it up.

But that is how you operate, by denying any counter proof of credible evidence, and by saying the people are not credible, which is the the first rule of engaging cognizant dissonance.

So come on quit ignoring it and pretending things don't exist, and try to point out what it is that you are having a problem with instead.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 22, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > hey sister jones none of what you've posted in post #166 ,168 and 170 is evidence. none of the people you mention are credible.
> ...


lol lol! yep cognitive bias at work.

as I've said before  if you twoofs were right about 911 then there would have been only two possible outcomes.
bush and co would be waiting on death row or already executed.     

                                     OR

WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION  AS ALL THE TWOOFERS WOULD BE AWAITING THE SAME FATE AS BUSH AND CO.

instead you get to amuse people with you lunatic ravings!

          ain't  freedom of speech great!


----------



## eots (Aug 22, 2012)

Freewill said:


> I am done,  it is starting to feel like pulling the wings off of flys;



Good...you are as dumb as a sack of hammers...


----------



## paulitician (Aug 23, 2012)

Questioning the State is very unpopular these days. And now with the Patriot Act & NDAA, it's quite dangerous too. But fairy tales aren't real, and the Government's story on 9/11 is a fairy tale.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 23, 2012)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Bush was sent a clear message when his plane was threatened. He was selected to be president as a way to get the Israeli neo cons in place for the operation.

You really think death row or execution would be a real option? You have no understanding of the power and long reaching tentacles of the criminals allegedly involved.
The majority of the people who could have done something about the 9-11 are silenced by either being paid off, blackmailed or are friendly to their cause like many Federal judges.
Another example is the Fed Reserve scheme and how long it's been in operation, what 100 years almost. It's a scam, and unconstitutional. Citizens are a trusting sort and would expect their lawmakers to nip shit like that in the bud, instead it is ignored and those charged with protecting the constitution and America/ns get paid off, or threatened and become part of the problem and it continues. Part of the reasoning for doing nothing is thought to be a fear of total chaos and SHTF scenarios which would disrupt everything and knock the wheels off their money cart.

I used to think like you and could never imagine America tolerating such atrocities, but looking deeper into things it's true. Denying things is no way to go through life, and even though things may not change for the better in my lifetime, I'd rather be aware of the BS and at least be prepared for drastic changes or measures then to be caught off guard.
In other words it is not being a lunatic as you say or being in a state of paranoia, but a state of awareness of what actually happened in the past that got us to this point and is actually happening now.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 23, 2012)

eots said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > I am done,  it is starting to feel like pulling the wings off of flys;
> ...



Pulling wings off of fly's must be a whole lot easier then actually using your brain to address things like the science and physics of the "collapses" and dig deeper to find out just why there is opposition to the coup de tat that culminated  on 9-11.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 24, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


instead you get to amuse people with you lunatic ravings!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 24, 2012)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


What's so "lunatic" about the information being presented. Details and some intelligent counter rebuttal from you would be nice for once, instead of opinion based on nothing.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 24, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


my pov is based on everything you don't have like evidence and credibilty.


----------



## eots (Aug 24, 2012)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



what evidence do you have or can you present that Proves the NIST theory is correct ?? or even plausible or probably for that matter


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 25, 2012)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


 He'll just post some debunked NIST shit from the "report", which we'll then post who what and why it was debunked with links, proving valid, counter more rational hypothesis, from credible, reputable people and sources.
Then he'll come back and say it isn't proof, or it is invalid, without specifically pointing anything out, or mentioning anything in the counter hypothesis he disagrees with, while also stating that the sources aren't credible, without mentioning why as well.
It's a circular argument with this asshole, who wont go into details about why his opinion is the way it is....just that it is because he says so.  Rendering him a loser in this debate.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 25, 2012)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Your POV should be based on what you DO have, which you have failed to show anything of.
Sorry ass excuses are no exception for rational debate and discussion. You fail to prove your case and advance the OCT and the destruction of the WTC buildings according to NIST.
You lose loser.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 27, 2012)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


asked and answered on many threads on this site and many others.
it's asinine to endlessly rehash the bullshit you dream is evidence.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 27, 2012)

someone farted in here.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 27, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


really you've never posted anything that's even come close to debunking the nist report....if in actuality you had then there would be no need for you to keep posting the same hypothetical  false premise shit you've been posting since before I got here..
I don't need or care to go in to the nonsense you call details....what part of everything you post is wrong due to false premise,willful ignorance and cognitive bias don't you understand?

the people and sources you claim are credible have already been proven not to be by their own peers .


----------



## daws101 (Aug 27, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


 LOL! you're even more ignorant then I thought ....do you have any Idea what inference is?
the post you answered infers what I've already proven. 
as stated before... There is no rational reason to rehash your shit.
as to loser ...how can I lose if I'm not competing .


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 27, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



You dont seem to realise  that Dawgshit is a paid disinformation agent troll.He isnt like many of the others here just misguided and in denial such as Toto,Elvis,Dunceman or Californai Girl.Now those posters for an example,are just clueless about their government and ignorantly believe they live in a free country.

Dawgshit on the other hand  KNOWS perfectly as well as me and you do that 9/11 was an inside job and all about the federal reserve system,the kennedy assassination,waco and other government autrocities as well.He has just been sent here by his handlers to try and derail 9/11 truth discussions.

Only the most dedicated paid trolls like him keep coming back constantly for their constant ass beatings like they do cause they are paid.Those others I mentioned you can tell are just in denial,they dont come here everyday posting nonstop lies and bullshit like he does.Thats because they would never do it for free.they are not paid to have their asses handed to them on a platter like he is so unlike dawgshit, they dont post here very often.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 27, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


right ! if I'm on Ignore then why the fuck don't you ignore me...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 27, 2012)

someone farted in here.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 27, 2012)

He's never once posted anything that backs up his opinions, or accusations. He always refers to someone else having answered shit for him somewhere in these threads, but that is just a way of doing nothing while spewing his BS opinions that are baseless.
Folks who do use their God given intelligence and reasoning skills know better then to believe
the shit he does, and the things he says. He's just an idiot with no life, and nothing intelligent to say about anything that is posted in here. He can't back up his opinions with anything of his own, and is too scared to get into any details, proving he is nothing but a coward troll. A castrated one with no balls at that.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 28, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> He's never once posted anything that backs up his opinions, or accusations. He always refers to someone else having answered shit for him somewhere in these threads, but that is just a way of doing nothing while spewing his BS opinions that are baseless.
> Folks who do use their God given intelligence and reasoning skills know better then to believe
> the shit he does, and the things he says. He's just an idiot with no life, and nothing intelligent to say about anything that is posted in here. He can't back up his opinions with anything of his own, and is too scared to get into any details, proving he is nothing but a coward troll. A castrated one with no balls at that.


wrong as always! all of what I post is my pov or a pov I agree with, for all practical purposes they are on in the same.
  you have never shown any originality (an indicator of intelligence) in your thinking or opinion, making it the best evidence of your lack of reasoning skills.
it's ironic that you use the word "believe" in the negative as it's the only argument you have.LOL!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 28, 2012)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > He's never once posted anything that backs up his opinions, or accusations. He always refers to someone else having answered shit for him somewhere in these threads, but that is just a way of doing nothing while spewing his BS opinions that are baseless.
> ...


All of what you post is based on BS and a POV that has no solid basis for being. The fact that you do not offer anything as a rational explanation as to why you hold such POV's is proof  you can't offer any, and the fact that you don't even try to defend your positions or views with anything of intelligent substance substantiates the opinion that you are a coward with no cojones.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 28, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> He's never once posted anything that backs up his opinions, or accusations. He always refers to someone else having answered shit for him somewhere in these threads, but that is just a way of doing nothing while spewing his BS opinions that are baseless.
> Folks who do use their God given intelligence and reasoning skills know better then to believe
> the shit he does, and the things he says. He's just an idiot with no life, and nothing intelligent to say about anything that is posted in here. He can't back up his opinions with anything of his own, and is too scared to get into any details, proving he is nothing but a coward troll. A castrated one with no balls at that.



Yeah I know.trolls like him and other 9/11 offical conspiray theory aopogists who constantly troll here everyday and  ignore the laws of physics that every junior high school kid learns at that age I dont ever bother with anymore.

The 9/11 apologists ALWAYS run away from challenges you issue them.For instance I will refer them to david ray griffins book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING,an answer to popular mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory.any serious researcher will look at an opposing view.That book  shreads to pieces the official version. I ask them to read it and debunk it explaining whats wrong with it,they run away from that challenge EVERYTIME never saying they will read it and take me up on that challenge.

Or since thats too much of a strain on their brain to do so I will ask them to then watch this video and explain how the official version is still true after that.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...911-conspiracy-theory-in-under-5-minutes.html

They never even will take five minutes to even try to debunk the information in that video either. Trolls like Dawgshit have no debating skills whatsoever.NO matter how many times I repeat this to trolls like Toto for instance,the biggest coward of them all I know of to watch a video or read a book and debunk it,he always runs off like a chickenshit coward trying to laugh off his miserable pathetic debating skills he has saying cowardly shit like- as usual,9/11 is showing his videos and crap like that.People like Toto and Dawgshit,if they ever tried to debate in a debating hall like they do here,they would be laughed out of the debating hall in a split second.

Dumbfuck trolls like them clearly dont know how to debate.I know when I get into a debate like this if someone refers me to a book to read and try to debunk it,i read that book EVERYTIME and address the flaws of that book and how it holds no water or how the information in a video holds no water either.

These trolls dont.They just run off like chickenshit cowards and never even try. How bout you,I assume you do the same thing,that if someone shows you a video or refers you to a book to read and explain whats wrong with that information in it,I assume you as well take them up on that challange and dont run away from it right? I know your answer is yes Im sure because they are too easy to debunk.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 28, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


really !LOL! so no planes hit the towers or the pentagon or crashed in shanks ville hummmm..seems kinda irrational to me....
everything I post has been proven to be fact, so how is that no solid basis for being (what ever the fuck that's supposed to mean)?
you on the other hand post page after page of paranoid nonsense.
this post for example is the INTERNET version of a tantrum because I will not play your game.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 28, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > He's never once posted anything that backs up his opinions, or accusations. He always refers to someone else having answered shit for him somewhere in these threads, but that is just a way of doing nothing while spewing his BS opinions that are baseless.
> ...


The Conspiracy Theory Detector
How to tell the difference between true and false conspiracy theories

1.Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of connecting the dots between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connectionsor to randomnessthe conspiracy theory is likely to be false.
2.The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. People are usually not nearly so powerful as we think they are.
3.The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.
4.Similarly, the conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets. The more people involved, the less realistic it becomes.
5.The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.
6.The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events.
7.The conspiracy theory assigns portentous, sinister meanings to what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events.
8.The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.
9.The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.
10.The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.



.
The Conspiracy Theory Detector: Scientific American


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 28, 2012)

two farts in a row from you DAWGSHIT.

Wow your handlers sure pay you well for the way you constantly come back for your ass beatings  to get your ass handed to you on a platter showing off what a dumbfuck troll you are.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 29, 2012)

daws101 said:


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



The 9-11 fabrication you believe in and defend is, itself a conspiracy theory that requires exaggerations, that connect dots that point to a boogeyman headquartered in a cave, with followers that were supposed to be devout Islamic fanatics that did coke and frequented strip bars, and also possessed expert flying skills that superseded even the best American fighter pilots. They also were in possession of indestructible fireproof passports. Sounds like you found a link to a description of the OCT.  Oh, and they were able to also knock down 3 massive highrises with 2 planes and destroy them with jet fuel and making them implode at or near freefall acceleration for 2 and 2.25 seconds of actual freefall for another.
But somehow you are so stupid that you allow this to be logical, rational and totally acceptable.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...


 well it does have the luxury of actual evidence and credible corroboration.....something your fairytale sorely lacks.
btw you might want to look up implosion ( Definition of IMPLOSION
1: the inrush of air in forming a suction stop) 
    none of the wtc buildings did that.
also this: "2 and 2.25 seconds of actual freefall for another."-sisterjones 
 is total bullshit 


The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

&#8226;Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
&#8226;Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
&#8226;Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time&#8212;compared to the 3.9 second free fall time&#8212;was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
don't know what twoofer bullshit you were reading but the acual and only free fall time is 2.25 sec  not 4.25. 
basic math too complicated for you.
 btw it's obvious that you don't have any trade skills or worked any where but 711..


sister jones's bio: The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.
10.The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Aug 29, 2012)




----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


>


quite a son you have there! looks like you got him on the mac Donald's diet ...


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Aug 29, 2012)

Boring day?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Aug 29, 2012)

Are you on the governmeny dole?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Boring day?


must be for you, you're here.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Are you on the governmeny dole?


 does your wife / girlfriend /boy friend /kids support you?


----------



## paulitician (Aug 29, 2012)

Questioning is good. Always question Big Brother. Otherwise, you'll become just another braindead loyal Goose Stepper. And we already have far too many of them in this country.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 30, 2012)

> well it does have the luxury of actual evidence and credible corroboration.....something your fairytale sorely lacks.
> btw you might want to look up implosion ( Definition of IMPLOSION
> 1: the inrush of air in forming a suction stop)
> none of the wtc buildings did that.
> ...


NIST finally admits to freefall. Is this not a true and accurate statement?



> The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
> 
> Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
> Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
> ...


 NIST finnally admits to freefall in WTC 7. 2.25 SECONDS. This means that all the support columns and massive steel structure and concrete had to be removed so as no to impede the falling structure. This is blamed on sporadic fires, that had to have reached the intense temps, at all the support points, for the required length of time to overcome the properties of steel. I don't know the fuck you talk about WTC 7 collapsing in stages and speak of north wall, south wall as if it came down in actual stages and in a staggered manner. Looking at the videos this is not at all the actual case, but it is what should have transpired.
NIST computer models and the data they used have never been replicated. They wont allow it. So they have put together a fire only theory based on a computer simulation that does not at all look like the recorded and witnessed event, fraudulent data, some of it being kept a secret. Maybe they should have talked to Larry Silverstein and asked him what his talk with the insurance company was all about on 9-11.



> btw it's obvious that you don't have any trade skills or worked any where but 711..


 Sure dream on. I've worked with steel and metals, and torches and mig welders, unlike you who probably have only worked around spaghetti and pasta at the Olive Garden, so naturally this is why you have no idea how steel should perform.
Try an experiment..light a fire with whatever you have handy and put a piece of steel channel directly over it, go ahead and put 100lbs of weight on top of it too, and come back when it "weakens" and is overcome by the heat. But asking you to do your own experiments or even asking someone who would know like a welder is the same as asking you to do your own research. You wont do it. You'll make a pasta salad instead.



> sister jones's bio: The theorist is indiscriminately *suspicious of all government agencies or private groups,* which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.


 You mean like all Muslims are boogeymen?



> 10.*The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence *and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.


 You mean like all the evidence that reasonably counters the lies you believe in?

You are yourself a conspiracy theorist, as you believe the most insane one of them all, and the only facts you have to back it up are the day, time ,place and the number of planes used. 2 planes to destroy 3 fortified hirises, using jet fuel and gravity  Physics that rationally dispute your conspiracy theory are -


			
				daws101 said:
			
		

> 10.*The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence *and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.




You describe yourself perfectly.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 30, 2012)

daws101 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Are you on the governmeny dole?
> ...


Seriously, what does this have to do with anything, and why do you insist on bringing people's families into the discussion?
I guarantee, that you wouldn't have the nerve to act this way if confronted in person. You are a classless pussy.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 30, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Thats Dawgshit troll for ya.Everytime he is losing an argument getting his ass handed to him on a platter he refers to comments like this.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 30, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> Sure dream on. I've worked with steel and metals, and torches and mig welders, unlike you who probably have only worked around spaghetti and pasta at the Olive Garden, so naturally this is why you have no idea how steel should perform.
> Try an experiment..light a fire with whatever you have handy and put a piece of steel channel directly over it, go ahead and put 100lbs of weight on top of it too, and come back when it "weakens" and is overcome by the heat. But asking you to do your own experiments or even asking someone who would know like a welder is the same as asking you to do your own research. You wont do it. You'll make a pasta salad instead.
> 
> 
> ...



thats the understatment of the century.He is the biggest conspiracy theorist of them all.He defends the governments THEORY to no end ignoring the laws of physics every junior high school kid learns at that age.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 30, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> > well it does have the luxury of actual evidence and credible corroboration.....something your fairytale sorely lacks.
> > btw you might want to look up implosion ( Definition of IMPLOSION
> > 1: the inrush of air in forming a suction stop)
> > none of the wtc buildings did that.
> ...


blah blahblah blah...you've proven nothing...you just reguritated  nearly 11 years of twoofer bullshit ... 
NIST finnally admits to freefall in WTC 7. 2.25 SECONDS. This means that all the support columns and massive steel structure and concrete had to be removed so as no to impede the falling structure.
yeah and....

you have no proof that the nist explanition: "the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above.."   is not correct .
you are unsuccessfully attempting infer that something other than fire or thermal expansion made the outer columns buckle...that is conjecture with no basis in fact.


You mean like all the evidence that reasonably counters the lies you believe in?-sister jones 

how often to you tell yourself that lie?
fact is you have no evidence at all.
what you do have is specious speculation and by defintion it's no wher elose to reasonable 

Try an experiment..light a fire with whatever you have handy and put a piece of steel channel directly over it, go ahead and put 100lbs of weight on top of it too, and come back when it "weakens" and is overcome by the heat....sister jones 

would slotted steel do or rebar and at what thickness?
to recreate the wtc7 collapse accurately I would have to build a to scale mock up.
using the same materials as the original.
then build a scale mock up of the north tower and make sure it fell in just the right way to damage my wtc7 mock up in just the same way it did on 911.
then depending on the size of the mock up I  would have to find a way to keep the fires burning for the equivalent of the length of time wtc7  burned before it fell..

the point is  what you call an experiment is not even close to an explanation or an actual experiment.
besides I've seen the "experiment"on you tube for years and it never works ..


----------



## daws101 (Aug 30, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...


then you'd be in for a big fucking suprise..
here's and experiment for you let'say you and I go out and talk to the public about this subject.
and find who really is classless.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 30, 2012)

two farts in a row from you Dawgshit.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 30, 2012)

Freewill said:


> I am done,  it is starting to feel like pulling the wings off of flys;
> 
> The last thing i will address is that acuasation that there was nothing posted to counter the truther BS.  These are the links I provided:
> 
> ...



I hate to burst your bubble but  like Dawgshit,you have provided ZERO evidence that it wasnt a controlled demolition.Excellent job of debunking them posting links that dont work and non existing videos you claim to have. 

oh and hate to break your heart but that  one link you did post that actually works,that DEBWUNKER link of popular mechanics has been debunked as well.The book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING,AN ANSWER TO POPULAR MECHANICS AND OTHER DEFENDERS OF THE OFFICAL CONSPIRACY THEORY debunks your ramblings.you might actually try and read the book.You wont because you are in denial and afraid of the truth but here is the book that debunks your insane ramblings.

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/dp/156656686X/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=9070405041&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=16281883991318715977&hvpone=12.45&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&ref=pd_sl_94qmjw76c1_b[/ame]

Also watch this video.If you say the governments version is STILL correct,you are either one drugs or in complete denial.

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/dp/156656686X/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=9070405041&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=16281883991318715977&hvpone=12.45&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&ref=pd_sl_94qmjw76c1_b[/ame]

you might also take a look at the information at this site cause it debunks all your pitiful ramblings as well.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

http://www.911expertsspeakout.org/the_trailer.html

oh and these are the REAL 9/11 myths that have been debunked by Griffins book.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/634-debunking-the-real-911-myths.html

you obviously have not read any of Mr Jones posts either because he has addressed all your ramblings and why do you even mention Obama,this thread is about 9/11? get with the program and stop being afraid of the truth.

you sir just like Dawgshit gets here everyday,have been taken to school and have had your ass handed to you on a platter.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Aug 30, 2012)

eots said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...






This guy was such a miserable failure he ran off with his tail between his legs after getting his ass handed to him on a platter just like dawgshit always does.

This guy is so ignorant he doesnt even realise he just helped prove the case of the truthers in his OWN post with his OWN video in the fact that that inferiour building to the towers shows that it only PARTIALLY fell.the entire structure did not fall like the towers or building 7.Miserable fail this poster is.No wonder he ran away scared after humilating himself with that pathetic video.He knew he got his ass handed to him on a platter and only proved our case for us with his own video.Comedy gold.I love it.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 30, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > I am done,  it is starting to feel like pulling the wings off of flys;
> ...


 the rambling of an idiot .
only in your delusions is any of what you just posted real....


----------



## mamooth (Aug 31, 2012)

daws101 said:


> Try an experiment..light a fire with whatever you have handy and put a piece of steel channel directly over it, go ahead and put 100lbs of weight on top of it too, and come back when it "weakens" and is overcome by the heat.



I've done exactly that. When the fire gets hot enough, the steel weakens and collapses under the weight it's holding. The key is getting the fire hot enough. A simple wood bonfire isn't hot enough, but a big wood bonfire with a 20 mph wind constantly fanning it is hot enough.

Why on earth are you basing your whole arguement on denying something that can be so easily demonstrated? The fact that you deny steel softens under heat makes it difficult to believe you possess even the slightest knowledge of metalworking.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 31, 2012)

mamooth said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Try an experiment..light a fire with whatever you have handy and put a piece of steel channel directly over it, go ahead and put 100lbs of weight on top of it too, and come back when it "weakens" and is overcome by the heat.
> ...


 the post you've quoted is from mr jones not me...post #214..
but to answer  I've accidentally done that too at the beach in the fire pits..
also I've shaped metal using heat on the sets I've built...


----------



## mamooth (Aug 31, 2012)

daws101 said:


> the post you've quoted is from mr jones not me...post #214..



Ack. You are correct. I screwed up the attributions, and I apologize for that.

Please assume my light mockery was directed at Mr. Jones.


----------



## eots (Aug 31, 2012)

mamooth said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Try an experiment..light a fire with whatever you have handy and put a piece of steel channel directly over it, go ahead and put 100lbs of weight on top of it too, and come back when it "weakens" and is overcome by the heat.
> ...



so if you had a steel grill over a wood fire with a twenty mph wind in would soften and fail....lol


----------



## eots (Aug 31, 2012)

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

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


----------



## daws101 (Aug 31, 2012)

mamooth said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > the post you've quoted is from mr jones not me...post #214..
> ...


not a problem...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 31, 2012)

eots said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


 ignorant as ever ... how do you think steel was heated before gas or electricity ?
wood or charcoal (essentially the same thing )and air 
20mph is about the same speed as a bellows.

 fuck me!.... you're stupid.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 31, 2012)

eots said:


> so if you had a steel grill over a wood fire with a twenty mph wind in would soften and fail....lol



Yep. Provided it's a bigass bonfire, the kind where if the wind suddenly shifts directions, you lose your eyebrows. And the steel grill needs to be down low in the fire, and you've got to have more wood loaded on top of the steel grill. I know it will happen, because I did it. Quite accidentally. I was just trying to burn some big hunks of a dead tree quickly.


----------



## eots (Sep 1, 2012)

mamooth said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > so if you had a steel grill over a wood fire with a twenty mph wind in would soften and fail....lol
> ...



so how do you explain the wood burning stove ???

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZCqB-S5kjQ]Defra approved Bohemia X 30 Woodburning stove for smoke control areas by Pevex Enterprises Ltd - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mr. Jones (Sep 1, 2012)

mamooth said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Try an experiment..light a fire with whatever you have handy and put a piece of steel channel directly over it, go ahead and put 100lbs of weight on top of it too, and come back when it "weakens" and is overcome by the heat.
> ...



I've manipulated steel and metals with torches myself, and I can tell you, the massive beams and columns of the WTC would not under normal office fire temps have let go simultaneously at all the critical support points having the same heat and intensity. It is impossible to pinpoint the needed energy at all those points for the same time, as fire moves and steel dissipates the heat and moves it away from the source spreading throughout the connecting steel structure.

That is why you can't find another building with even more intense infernos collapsing at or near free fall speeds anywhere. That is why the questioning of the fire only scenario has undergone so much scrutiny.

Sure you morons can take a coat hanger or smaller piece of steel and bend it, but it wont turn into noodles and let go instantly either. It is a gradual process and with the massive steel beams and columns used in skyscrapers, if this would happen, it would take its time in weakening and the collapses would have been much slower, and staggered.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Sep 1, 2012)

mamooth said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > so if you had a steel grill over a wood fire with a twenty mph wind in would soften and fail....lol
> ...



Assuming You are correct, this would have had to of happened at all of the critical support structure points in the Wtc buildings, not once but 3 times, in the history of modern steel hirise
buildings. There were tons of steel in those buildings and the heat spreads to the cooler parts, meaning the critical points that instantly let go and is being blamed for the collapses, had to have been subjected to a constant and intense amount of heat, at the same time. NIST has provided no evidence of this and the samples they did recover showed significantly lower temps. Even in their testing with the help of UL the mocked up structures they used did not fail when subjected to even more heat, for longer times then the WTC underwent.

If the WTC experienced the intense heat at the critical points, there had to be something else other then office materials and left over "jet fuel" doing it. This is where the questioning of the intense heat in the rubble piles comes in, they lasted for 3 months and even with thousands of gallons of Pyro-Cool, they could not be extinguished until December.
Again I ask you to consider the report from someone who was on the scene and was reporting on the demise of WTC 7, when he said he was told that Silverstein was on the phone with his insurance company asking for permission to destroy his building CD style.

_Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me 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  since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall._

_A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the buildings imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.
_

Shame On Jesse Ventura! | Fox News

There was no way that building could have been rigged for a CD in such short time, therefore one can conclude it was rigged prior to the 9-11 attacks.

Any of you ever use an oxy acetylene torch to cut long steel channel? You have to use a very hot intense flame point, on the specific part you want to cut, and if you were to use another accelerant like natural gas it would take a shit load longer time to even start cutting through it. Jet fuel is kerosene, and it burns cooler. NIST even agrees that most of it was consumed in the initial impacts of the planes.
 Combining this fuel with the massive steel, and taking steels ability to dissipate the heat, those buildings should not have come down with all the characteristics of a CD, if "jet fuel" and office materials were the accelerant and fuel used.

Then getting into the demise of WTC 7 were it wasn't hit by a plane with accelerants and
but came down in a CD style....well there is no getting around the fact that something ans someone else was involved in making that happen, it Al Qaeda and Islamic fanatics couldn't have been the only ones to do such a precise and well executed attack on the US.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 1, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> I've manipulated steel and metals with torches myself, and I can tell you, the massive beams and columns of the WTC would not under normal office fire temps have let go simultaneously at all the critical support points having the same heat and intensity.



But they didn't need to let go simultaneously and have the same heat and intensity. A bunch of beams gradually weakened to various degrees. Nothing needed to be "simultaneous". And it certainly wasn't a normal office fire, as the showers of molten aluminum demonstrated. Temps that can melt aluminum can also soften steel.



> That is why you can't find another building with even more intense infernos collapsing at or near free fall speeds anywhere.



There are many examples of steel-framed buildings collapsing from fire alone. So much for the "but steel conducts heat away!" theory. And when they do collapse, it's at 'near free fall' speeds.



> Again I ask you to consider the report from someone who was on the scene and was reporting on the demise of WTC 7, when he said he was told that Silverstein was on the phone with his insurance company asking for permission to destroy his building CD style.



I consider it, and find it to be meaningless unsupported rumors. And it doesn't even make sense as a conspiracy theory. What, the government planted the explosives, but wouldn't finish the job until they got Silverstein's approval?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Sep 2, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > I've manipulated steel and metals with torches myself, and I can tell you, the massive beams and columns of the WTC would not under normal office fire temps have let go simultaneously at all the critical support points having the same heat and intensity.
> ...


----------



## eots (Sep 2, 2012)

mamooth said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > so if you had a steel grill over a wood fire with a twenty mph wind in would soften and fail....lol
> ...



I the case of wtc 7 we are talking about industrial steel rated for high temperatures and covered with fireproofing and subjected to scattered fires...and yet it fell like a house of cards in secs


----------



## Mr. Jones (Sep 3, 2012)

eots said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


Some people can't get that through their heads, and a lack of knowledge of fire and steels properties, combined with an unwillingness to research these things is why they end up treating this unprecedented disaster as if the WTC was made out of wood, or pasta.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 3, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> They critical support structure, in order for the collapse to be initiated seemingly at once,  all of a sudden going from stable to violent collapse mode, and continue to descend downward, at or near FF speeds in the symmetrical manner witnessed, all of these support points below the collapsing upper parts had to lose their resistance simultaneously.



Totally wrong. For starters, it wasn't a symmetrical collapse. The collapse begins with the top section tipping sideways towards the damaged section.



> If like you assume they did not have to, then indeed we would have witnessed the staggered, slower collapse and descent the physicists who studied the demise of the buildings concluded would have occurred.



Structural engineers say the exact opposite of these few "physicists" that someone cherrypicked. As does common sense.



> Even NIST initially said this publicly, especially when discussing WTC 7, then changed their story and report to include the 2.25 secs. of FF.



Why would I believe the wild claims about NIST, when I can simply look at the report myself?



> Clearly there was some sort of accelerant that was used to achieve the high temps



Clearly there's zero evidence for such a bizarre unsupported claim. And again, it doesn't even make sense as a conspiracy.



> Lets compare apples to apples shall we? We are talking about massive fortified skyscrapers, not toy factories in third world countries.Please post any valid comparisons as no one has ever been able to. You would be the first.



And so the conspiracy theory is made unfalsifiable. Any steel building that collapses from a fire isn't a valid comparison, as it's not "fortified". Unless someone builds an exact twin of WTC1 and burns it down, it's not a "valid comparison".



> The point here is that it was reported, he said it and was swept under the rug. This was reported to explain why the building came down in a CD fashion, and how Silverstein "saved" lives for initiating it.


 
Since the buildings came down in a way that didn't resemble any CD, Siiverstein's comment about pulling the fire teams seems entirely innocent and not at all newsworthy.



> Some people can't get that through their heads, and a lack of knowledge of fire and steels properties, combined with an unwillingness to research these things is why they end up treating this unprecedented disaster as if the WTC was made out of wood, or pasta.



I think I'm looking at Dunning-Kruger effect in action here. That is, a couple of people too incompetent to ever understand how incompetent they are.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Sep 4, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > They critical support structure, in order for the collapse to be initiated seemingly at once,  all of a sudden going from stable to violent collapse mode, and continue to descend downward, at or near FF speeds in the symmetrical manner witnessed, all of these support points below the collapsing upper parts had to lose their resistance simultaneously.
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Sep 4, 2012)

eots said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


bahahahahahahahahahaha! wood buring stoves are for the most part cast iron.
more inportantly they don't hold enough fuel to heat them to weaking point. to do that  you would have to bury the stove in wood  and  make sure it had enough air to get the fire hot enough.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 4, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Sep 4, 2012)

> hey mamooth.. if you had'nt noticed sister Jone's posts  get longer the more he rationalizes ....keep in mind Jones and people like him (other twoofers) have no actual evidence to back up their bullshit.


BS, there's proof and evidence to support that proof, the problem with dolts like you is you DON'T know how to look at anything that counters your dogma, with any rational mindset. It is you and the believers of the OCT that can't back up shit, and don't have any solid proof that it was 19 Jihadists led by a cave dwelling dialysis patient that really were responsible for the 9-11 attacks.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 4, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> > hey mamooth.. if you had'nt noticed sister Jone's posts  get longer the more he rationalizes ....keep in mind Jones and people like him (other twoofers) have no actual evidence to back up their bullshit.
> 
> 
> BS, there's proof and evidence to support that proof, the problem with dolts like you is you DON'T know how to look at anything that counters your dogma, with any rational mindset. It is you and the believers of the OCT that can't back up shit, and don't have any solid proof that it was 19 Jihadists led by a cave dwelling dialysis patient that really were responsible for the 9-11 attacks.


thanks for the example of your  argument by anomaly...
there is "no how to look" at evidence either it confirms your pov or it does not.
in your case you have none (evidence)
it's a hoot to watch you go batshit 
all the actual  evidence says they did.
all you have for proof is speculation.
where is your hard evidence proving another and larger conspiracy?
you have none


----------



## Mr. Jones (Sep 5, 2012)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > hey mamooth.. if you had'nt noticed sister Jone's posts  get longer the more he rationalizes ....keep in mind Jones and people like him (other twoofers) have no actual evidence to back up their bullshit.
> ...



Proof by Lack of Evidence

This one is big in the conspiracy theory world: The lack of evidence that would support their "official conspiracy theory" is proof that it is true. Thus, the lack of evidence for the conspiracy is, in and of itself, evidence of the conspiracy. This is further rationalized because the lack of proof and evidence comes from an "official" authority.

    Bombo: "The planes that hit the WTC were hijacked a group of radical Muslim terrorists who used fake ID's but their real passports, seized control of three flights in the U.S. Armed only with box-cutters the hijackers then carried out an audacious plot that had been meticulously planned and directed from a cave in Afghanistan. With only limited pilot training and absolutely no experience flying large passenger jets, the intrepid hijackers managed to elude the air defense systems of the most advanced nation on earth. Finally arriving at their target destination they slammed the airliners into the World Trade Center twin towers, a symbolic act of defiance that triggered the War on Terror and the invasion of Afghanistan. Without any precedent in history, World Trade Center towers one and two then collapsed While World Trade Center tower 7 collapsed without even having been struck by an airliner. "
    Starling: "But there's no evidence of that."
    Bombo: "Exactly, but the government told us this is so That's how we know it for a fact."

There are certainly things in the world that are true but for which no evidence exists, but these are in the minority. If you want to be right more often than not, stick with what we can actually *learn*. If instead your standard is that anything that can't be disproven must therefore be true, like Russell's Teapot, you're one step away from delusional paranoia. 

I changed a few things around in the above paragraph to be sure, to show you how your
thinking can be turned around on you. However, the OCT, and the NIST report have been shown to be bunk, and have a high probability to be unsubstantiated, and therefore, untrue.

The conspiracy theory you hold as true, is based on unsound scientific evidence, fudged data, hidden data, opinions, and guesses, but because they originate from authoritative people and agencies, you deem them credible, _Authority has a reputation for being corrupt and inflexible, and this stereotype has been leveraged by some who assert that their own lack of authority somehow makes them a better authority._
_The idea that not knowing what you're talking about somehow makes you more reliable is incorrect. More likely, your lack of expertise simply makes you wrong._

It's a hoot to watch you make an ass out of yourself.
Where's your actual evidence that confirms your dogmatic beliefs?
All you have for proof is speculation, and hypothesis from authority, based on BS data that doesn't make sense, that you have failed to rationally be able to confirm. You don't even try..
The evidence I present resoundingly refutes the sources of your beliefs, it has been presented, linked and can be verified
Where is your hard evidence of this vast Jihadist 9-11, OCT theory?. That can melt massive steel structures with jet fuel and Allah?
You have none.
There is "no how to look" at evidence that confirms your pov.
If there is the by all means, post it so it can be refuted. I dare ya pussy..


----------



## daws101 (Sep 5, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


got a link ?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Sep 5, 2012)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



To what? This?
http://www.nextag.com/serv/main/buy...search=wood+stoves+sale&m=7669591185132873380


----------



## eots (Sep 5, 2012)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



*
Fuck you are stupid...*


high carbon steel with melting temperature ranging from *1425-1540°C* *(2600-2800°F)*

Cast iron tends to be brittle, except for malleable cast irons. With a relatively low melting point usually ranging from *1,150 to 1,200 °C* *(2,102 to 2,192 °F),* which is about 300 °C (572 °F) lower than the melting point of pure iron.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 6, 2012)

eots said:


> "although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have *no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings" *
> 
> OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation



Mammoth and dawgshit troll gets their ass handed to them on a platter.Dawgshit loves his ass beating she gets and his handlers keep paying him well for his humiliation he suffers.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 6, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



exactly,they can only fail miserably in their posts like that one troll who only proved our case for us posting a video of a  building that only partially collpased with PARTS of it falling down but the entire structure itself remaining standing. He ran off after suffering that humiliation. these guys are so much in denial they ignore those facts that the collapse would have been much slower.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 6, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 6, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



they can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are.all of that stuff you mention isnt neccessary Jones.all you got to show them is this video.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...911-conspiracy-theory-in-under-5-minutes.html

and like clockwork,they run off like the trolls they are refusing to try and counter these facts.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 6, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


really? so you're not gonna credit whomever you plagerized?


but still it's just I know you are but what am I bullshit.
BTW I don't need to try reality is self explanatory...unlike  your delusion that swims in denial of fact and inflating bullshit or just making shit up as in this statement :"The evidence I present resoundingly refutes the sources of your beliefs, it has been presented, linked and can be verified"- sister jones..

lol.....since your "evidence" is made up of rumor, argument by anomaly,pseudoscience, willful ignorance, lies,  false premises,  zero quantifiable proof cognitive bias, fear stupidity.
the only link it has is to sites that spew the same shit you do.
there is no EVIDENTIARY linkage to other real and supposed conspiracies.
it refutes nothing.
the only thing verifiable about is that it is not credible and has been proven to by erroneous.
it presentation is on par with two 6 year olds playing with daddy's handi cam.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 6, 2012)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


your point ....that's right you have none.....and it's no proof that wtc7 was a cd...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 6, 2012)

two farts in a row from your Dawgshit. Your handlers sure sent you here quickly to get your ass handed to you on a platter.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 7, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> WTC 7 had all the characteristics of a CD, complete with the crimp in the middle of the roof,



You mean except for that slow buckling at the bottom that was nothing like a CD? Or the 37 seconds of partial crumbling that preceeded the full collapse, also nothing like a CD?



> then fell symmetrically



You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.



> down achieving 2.25 seconds of free fall



Things being pulled down by gravity do tend to move at free fall speed.



> that NIST initially denied.



Anything you say about NIST is assumed to be a rather creative flight of fancy, unless you can show original sources with full context.



> The towers fell straight down much the same way through the path of most resistance, just short of free fall acceleration. Totally wrong? How so? What ya got?



I have the fact that gravity pulls straight down, as opposed to your peculiar world where gravity is apparently supposed to pull things sideways.

Your ignorance would be curable, if you were willing to learn. You're not. Therefore, you're comic relief.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 7, 2012)

Still doing the circle jerk?


----------



## eots (Sep 7, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Still doing the circle jerk?



why do you ask...are you cursing for a circle jerk ?...try the YMCA


----------



## eots (Sep 7, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > WTC 7 had all the characteristics of a CD, complete with the crimp in the middle of the roof,
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Sep 8, 2012)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Once again you describe the OCT and all the descriptions required to believe in it. Why don't you provide a source that backs up how you arrived at your decision to be so fucking ignorant? You never do therefore all you have is your opinion which your posting history shows isn't worth a shit.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 8, 2012)

I see mammoth is in denial about the facts that never in the history of mankind has a building collapsed due to fire.someone obviously slept through junior high school science classes.If he did not,he would know that buildings dont collapse at freefall speed due to fires and the governments version of events ignores the laws of physics that scientists  have gone by for thousands of years.


I expect Dawgshit to do that,he is just a sad troll seeking attention.but come on Mammoth,stop ignoring reality.

You going to keep doing the ignorant thing ignoring what architects,scientists and egineers say but instead listen to our corrupt government institutions and the corporate media which is nothing but a tool for the government instead even though they have a long history of corruption and being in bed together?

oh something else you and nobody else has ever been able to get around and they always ignore is the collapse of bld 7,the smoking gun of 9/11.That bld was not hit by debris and  there were next door neighbors of the towers right next to it and other buildings that had FAR MOR EXTENSIVE fires and FAR MORE EXTENSIVE damage done to them but all those buildings remained standing. only trolls like Dawgshit ignore that fact all the time.they cant get around it,neither can you.

You got to be one wacky coincidence theorist to believe the governments theory because that is one incredible coincidence only a fool would swallow that the only three buildings that collapsed that day were all owned by Larry Silverstein.None of the others collapse since they were not owned by him. 

Troll agent Dawgshit knows it was an inside job so its a waste of time with him,he lies to try and save face in his posts.are you going to be a troll as well and ignore all this instead of being mature and admitting your wrong? from the past history of net people,I have an idea that answer is yes.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 8, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> I see mammoth is in denial about the facts that never in the history of mankind has a building collapsed due to fire.someone obviously slept through junior high school science classes.If he did not,he would know that buildings dont collapse at freefall speed due to fires and the governments version of events ignores the laws of physics that scientists  have gone by for thousands of years.
> 
> 
> I expect Dawgshit to do that,he is just a sad troll seeking attention.but come on Mammoth,stop ignoring reality.
> ...



You might want to edit that first line, I don't think that's what you meant to say.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 8, 2012)

Montrovant said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > I see mammoth is in denial about the facts that never in the history of mankind has a building collapsed due to fire.someone obviously slept through junior high school science classes.If he did not,he would know that buildings dont collapse at freefall speed due to fires and the governments version of events ignores the laws of physics that scientists  have gone by for thousands of years.
> ...



well the only thing i got wrong I see is that his name is spelled with just one m instead of two.


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 8, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


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



So you really mean to say that never, in the history of all mankind, has a single building collapsed due to fire?  

Or did you mean collapsed at free-fall speed?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 9, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


 I have provided many sources many times  there is no rational reason to rehash them again....
I could ask to provide your sources but that is unnecessary as they have been proven to be bullshit...


----------



## eots (Sep 9, 2012)

Montrovant said:


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



It is in the final NIST REPORT...wtc 7 is the first and only steel framed highrise to collapse due to fire


----------



## eots (Sep 9, 2012)

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 report 

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse


----------



## Montrovant (Sep 9, 2012)

eots said:


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



And if he had written that, I wouldn't have commented....


----------



## eots (Sep 10, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ySUrEiVFIM&feature=g-vrec]9/11 Theories: Expert vs. Expert - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Sep 10, 2012)

eots said:


> 9/11 Theories: Expert vs. Expert - YouTube


once again eots post an amateurish completely bias piece of shit!


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 10, 2012)

eots said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Still doing the circle jerk?
> ...



No. I just find it comical that you guys bother run each other in circles over something that doesn't even matter anymore.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Sep 10, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I was watching this video from the BBC talking about building 7 collapsing but when they were talking about it they showed it still standing even though they said it has collapsed. How can that be?
> 
> If This Does Not Get Thru To You; Nothing Will!!! - YouTube



Was she reporting from europe in front of one of those "background" televisions like they have on most news programs?   Maybe it was just running other footage and not live footage in the window?

Just my first thoughts.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 10, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


 here's the long a waited list of my sources that prove the government did it conspiracy is complete shit.


911 Truth Statement - 911truth.org 


Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

pilotsfor911truth.org/ 

David Ray Griffin 


9/11 - Hard Facts, Hard Truth | Too Grand a Conspiracy?

911Grassroots


Steven e Jones

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

pl911truth.com


Richard Gage


patriotsquestion911.com

Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas

David Chandler 


Rosie ODonnell, Charlie Sheen, and Ed Asner,  Alex Jones 


Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!


just to name a few ...

so sister jones you now have my sources ..... if you are a man of your word  refute them.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 10, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > I was watching this video from the BBC talking about building 7 collapsing but when they were talking about it they showed it still standing even though they said it has collapsed. How can that be?
> ...


as anyone not looking for boogie men under every bed will will tell you.. first reports from any source are almost all ways wrong ...wtc7 is no exception.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 10, 2012)

When you want to belive it, it's true. When you don't they a e wrong.

"Every news organization has only its credibility and reputation to rely on."


----------



## daws101 (Sep 10, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> When you want to belive it, it's true. When you don't they a e wrong.
> 
> "Every news organization has only its credibility and reputation to rely on."


How did I know you say that.... besides why do you bother with some thing that doesn't mean anything anymore?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Sep 10, 2012)

daws101 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



makes sense.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 10, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...


 check this out: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

it explains the wtc7 report screw up in detail ..


----------



## eots (Sep 10, 2012)

daws101 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


*
from your bogus site*


Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both* impacted by the collapsing tower *and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the *substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed."
* - Chief Cruthers


This proves there was a big hole on the south side of the building. From the photographic evidence and these quotes which aren't meant to be technical, I suspect there was a large hole in the center of the building which may have gone up 10 stories connected to a large rip on the left side of the building which continued up another 10 or more stories. Together they would make "a hole 20 stories tall".

*From the NIST report*

the progressive collapse&#8212;would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column&#8217;s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

Investigation team&#8217;s major findings and recommendations, *which include identification of fire as the primary cause for the building&#8217;s failure.
*
*clearly your site is junk and in direct contradiction with the NIST report...and btw ..you are a moron*


----------



## daws101 (Sep 10, 2012)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...


once again wrong ....it was before the final nist report was published...

 but then again....But the building doesn't look like it fell over, it fell "in its own foot print" you might say. That's because it is impossible for a 47 story steel building to fall over like that. It's not a small steel reinforced concrete building like the ones shown as *Examples* of buildings which fell over. Building 7 is more like the towers, made up of many pieces put together. It's not so much a solid block as those steel reinforced concrete buildings. 

This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.



why does eots use the nist report as proof ....when he's spews the most shit about it being false?


----------



## eots (Sep 10, 2012)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 10, 2012)

daws101 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > When you want to belive it, it's true. When you don't they a e wrong.
> ...



You're not as dumb as you appear to be? Just a guess. Either way, don't worry. I wont nose grind on this subject again. It's pointless.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 10, 2012)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Sep 10, 2012)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Sep 11, 2012)

daws101 said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


 Well then, your statement is reason enough to question the 9-11 attacks, as within 30 minutes after the planes hit the towers, the scripted story of OBL, as the culprit, and the "failing of the buildings structure due to the intense heat" bullshit was already being put out to the public by the MSM.

The 9 11 Solution RESTORED - YouTube


----------



## Mr. Jones (Sep 11, 2012)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You have linked to sources that provide information against the OCT, you asswipe. You are an unabashed pussy, who has run away from a challenge.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 11, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...


yes dear...


----------



## daws101 (Sep 11, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


wrong... what they support is a false premise with no hard evidence....as i said they are all the evidence needed to prove your version of 911 is fiction ....
what challenge? 
all I see is a bunch of whiners attempting to bullshit their way around the fact that this world is chaotic, and dangerous.
you on the other hand believe yourselves to be gifted with insight.
well you're not, the truth is you're frightened little boys in the bodies of men ,who desperately cling to a fantasy where you kill the dragon.
the only problem is there is no dragon..


----------



## daws101 (Sep 11, 2012)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Sep 11, 2012)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Sep 11, 2012)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 11, 2012)

four farts in a row from you Dawgshit.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 11, 2012)

These are questions Dawgshit troll cant answer or get around.

What Really Happened on 9/11?  Why All the Secrecy?


----------

