# 9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: Names, Connections, Details Exposed...



## paulitician (Nov 28, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_fp5kaVYhk#]9/11 Conspiracy Solved: Names, Connections, & Details Exposed! - YouTube[/ame]!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 29, 2012)

Oh its definetely been solved.the evidence is overwhelming that it was a joint CIA/MOSSAD operation and the paid trolls on this site cant debunk this information here below in these four videos that prove it along with that great video of yours as well.





and here in this short 10 minute video below,the movers,shakers and orchestraters of behind 9/11 which even names names are involved.They along with Clinton and the neocons in the Bush administration all belong behind bars and should be imprisoned for life but our INJUSTICE department of course,wont go after them.


btw PAUL,CHECK YOUR PM BOX.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Nov 29, 2012)

Nice story.


----------



## whitehall (Nov 29, 2012)

We saw the planes hit the Towers. We know that the Clinton administration prevented the CIA from sharing information with the FBI. Stranger things have happened. Could the democrat party have engineered the biggest October surprise in history?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 29, 2012)

whitehall said:


> We saw the planes hit the Towers. We know that the Clinton administration prevented the CIA from sharing information with the FBI. Stranger things have happened. Could the democrat party have engineered the biggest October surprise in history?



as alwaus,you evade the evidencer and dont look at it and only look at what the title of the thread says. agent troll Gomer Pyle Ollie and his handlers  lovesyou for being afraid as well.


----------



## Politico (Nov 29, 2012)

No.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Nov 30, 2012)

paulitician said:


> 9/11 Conspiracy Solved: Names, Connections, & Details Exposed! - YouTube!



Interesting indeed thanks for the post.


----------



## eots (Dec 2, 2012)

Seismic Evidence Implies Controlled Demolition on 9/11
Posted on December 1, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog
Yet Another Line of Evidence Shows Demolition

André Rousseau is a Doctor of Geophysics and Geology, a former researcher in the French National Center of Scientific Research (CNRS), who has published 50 papers on the relationships between the characteristics of progressive mechanical waves and geology.

Dr. Rousseau is an expert on measurement of acoustic waves.

Rousseau says that the seismic waves measured on September 11th proves that the 3 buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. Specifically, in a new scientific article published by the Journal of 9/11 Studies, Rosseau writes:

The seismic signals propagating from New York on September 11, 2001, recorded at Palisades (34 km) and published by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University (LDEO), have here been subjected to a new critical study concerning their sources. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that the nature of the waves, their velocities, frequencies, and magnitudes invalidate the official  explanations which imply as sources the percussion of the twin towers by planes and the collapses of the three buildings, WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.

Seismic Evidence Implies Controlled Demolition on 9/11 - Washington's Blog


----------



## creativedreams (Dec 2, 2012)

Likely Mossad lured willing terrorists to the planes and remote control developed just before 9/11 to be able to take over passenger planes in the event they were hijacked, turned them into perfect scapegoats.

Play with the emotions of the masses and you can get world support to do anything.

Now let the internet disinfo agents begin to chime in...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 2, 2012)

eots said:


> Seismic Evidence Implies Controlled Demolition on 9/11
> Posted on December 1, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog
> Yet Another Line of Evidence Shows Demolition
> 
> ...



So you found someone who disagreed with the people who did the measuring......And?
http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf


----------



## whitehall (Dec 2, 2012)

We saw the freaking planes hit the towers. 9-11 tin foil hats like to quote soil samples and sismo graphs but they never theorize why or how the fuk America would conspire to blow up the WTC. The American intelligence community is just not that smart where they could place explosives in the WTC and time the detonation to the whims of a bunch of jihad terrorists. Why would Americans do that? Nobody knew that Bush would get congressional approval for a military operation in Iraq. Do lefties really want to implicate Clinton in a plot to blow up the WTC? He would have to be involved because the planning went on for years.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 2, 2012)

whitehall said:


> We saw the freaking planes hit the towers. 9-11 tin foil hats like to quote soil samples and sismo graphs but they never theorize why or how the fuk America would conspire to blow up the WTC. The American intelligence community is just not that smart where they could place explosives in the WTC and time the detonation to the whims of a bunch of jihad terrorists. Why would Americans do that? Nobody knew that Bush would get congressional approval for a military operation in Iraq. Do lefties really want to implicate Clinton in a plot to blow up the WTC? He would have to be involved because the planning went on for years.



Don't forget that the Bush administration couldn't even keep some wiretaps secret let alone an operation this big.....


----------



## Rozman (Dec 2, 2012)

This just in...
The Cylons look like us now...
They could have been sleeper Cylon agents that flew those planes into the buildings....

I have heard this theory before but wanted to confirm the part about the Cylons looking like humans I am watching video on it now.Some show that was on one of the cable channels.
Very interesting...I will post updates as this story develops...
Hang in there people.We will get to the truth.


----------



## whitehall (Dec 2, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > We saw the freaking planes hit the towers. 9-11 tin foil hats like to quote soil samples and sismo graphs but they never theorize why or how the fuk America would conspire to blow up the WTC. The American intelligence community is just not that smart where they could place explosives in the WTC and time the detonation to the whims of a bunch of jihad terrorists. Why would Americans do that? Nobody knew that Bush would get congressional approval for a military operation in Iraq. Do lefties really want to implicate Clinton in a plot to blow up the WTC? He would have to be involved because the planning went on for years.
> ...



That's right. Bush thought he was doing the right thing by keeping dumb assed Clinton appointees  in Justice and the CIA and maybe it didn't make any difference in the long run but the conspiracy theory doesn't stack up in a political, ideological or forensic sense. It's crazy.


----------



## eots (Dec 2, 2012)

*Raymond L. McGovern &#8211; 27-year CIA veteran. Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates (NIE), the consensus reports of all U.S. intelligence agencies. According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, NIE's "are the Intelligence Community&#8217;s most authoritative written judgments on national security issues." Responsible for preparing and presenting the President&#8217; Daily Brief (PDB) to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and for providing intelligence briefing to their Vice Presidents, *Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials.  Upon retirement in 1990, McGovern was awarded the CIA&#8217;s Intelligence Commendation Medallion and received a letter of appreciation from then-President George H. W. Bush. Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.
Endorsement of 9/11 and American Empire (Vol I) &#8211; Intellectuals Speak Out: 

"It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with compelling evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the Downing Street memos show, that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a lie. It is also the case that the whole 'war on terror' was based on a prior deception. This book hence confronts the American people---indeed the people of the world as a whole---with an issue second to none in importance and urgency. I give this book, which in no way can be dismissed as the ravings of &#8216;paranoid conspiracy theorists,&#8217; my highest possible recommendation." http://www.interlinkbooks.com


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


Video 7/22/06:  "I think at simplest terms, there&#8217;s a cover-up.  The 9/11 report is a joke.  The question is: What&#8217;s being covered up?  Is it gross malfeasance, gross negligence, misfeasance? &#8230; Now there are a whole bunch of unanswered questions.  And the reason they&#8217;re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions. &#8230; I just want to reassert, what Scott [Ritter, former Major in the U.S. Marines Corps, former Chief Weapons Inspector for the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq] said and this is the bottom line for me, just as Hitler in 1933 cynically exploited the burning of the parliament building, the Reichstag, this is exactly what our President did in exploiting 9/11.  The cynical way in which he played on our trauma, used it to justify attacking, making a war of aggression on a country that he knew had nothing to do with 9/11.  That suffices for me, I think Scott is exactly right, that&#8217;s certainly an impeachable offense." YouTube


Bio: Ray McGovern - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## eots (Dec 2, 2012)

*
William Christison (1928 - 2010) &#8211; Joined the CIA in 1950, and served on the analysis side of the Agency for 28 years. From the early 1970s he served as National Intelligence Officer (principal adviser to the Director of Central Intelligence on certain areas) for, at various times, Southeast Asia, South Asia and Africa. Before he retired in 1979 he was Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, a 250-person unit *responsible for political analysis of every country and region in the world.
Endorsement of Debunking 9/11 Debunking 3/30/07:  

"David Ray Griffin&#8217;s Debunking 9/11 Debunking is a superb compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies.  Tragically, the entire course of U.S. foreign and domestic policies since that date has grown out of these almost certain falsehoods.  This single book could (and should) provide the basis for the United Nations&#8218; International Court of Justice, or some specially constituted global body (independent of the U.S.) to investigate with highest priority, and publicly report its findings about, the charge that unknown elements within the U.S. Government, and possibly some individuals elsewhere closely allied to the U.S., caused or contributed to causing the events of September 11 to happen.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/


----------



## whitehall (Dec 2, 2012)

eots said:


> *Raymond L. McGovern  27-year CIA veteran. Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates (NIE), the consensus reports of all U.S. intelligence agencies. According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, NIE's "are the Intelligence Communitys most authoritative written judgments on national security issues." Responsible for preparing and presenting the President Daily Brief (PDB) to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and for providing intelligence briefing to their Vice Presidents, *Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials.  Upon retirement in 1990, McGovern was awarded the CIAs Intelligence Commendation Medallion and received a letter of appreciation from then-President George H. W. Bush. Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.
> Endorsement of 9/11 and American Empire (Vol I)  Intellectuals Speak Out:
> 
> "It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with compelling evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the Downing Street memos show, that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a lie. It is also the case that the whole 'war on terror' was based on a prior deception. This book hence confronts the American people---indeed the people of the world as a whole---with an issue second to none in importance and urgency. I give this book, which in no way can be dismissed as the ravings of paranoid conspiracy theorists, my highest possible recommendation." Interlink Books
> ...



Don't you tinfoil hats understand that the CIA guy is giving you a typical line of BS? It doesn't matter if a 27 year CIA veteran considers that the Bush/Chaney administration "cynically exploited" the attacks. What happened after the attack has nothing to do with the conspiracy that went on before 9-11 and during the Clinton administration.


----------



## eots (Dec 2, 2012)

whitehall said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *raymond l. Mcgovern  27-year cia veteran. Former chairman, national intelligence estimates (nie), the consensus reports of all u.s. Intelligence agencies. According to the office of the director of national intelligence, nie's "are the intelligence communitys most authoritative written judgments on national security issues." responsible for preparing and presenting the president daily brief (pdb) to presidents ronald reagan and george h.w. Bush and for providing intelligence briefing to their vice presidents, *secretaries of state, the joint chiefs of staff, and many other senior government officials.  Upon retirement in 1990, mcgovern was awarded the cias intelligence commendation medallion and received a letter of appreciation from then-president george h. W. Bush. Former u.s. Army intelligence officer.
> ...



you call people tinfoil hats then write this gibberish ?


----------



## eots (Dec 2, 2012)

*Alan N. Sabrosky, PhD &#8211; Former Director of Studies, Strategic Studies Institute and holder of the General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research, U.S. Army War College.* A Marine Corps Vietnam veteran with 10 years of service. Graduate of the U.S. *Army War College. Teaching and research appointments have included the United States Military Academy, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Middlebury College and Catholic University. While in government service, he held concurrent adjunct professorships at Georgetown University and the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). Writer and consultant specializing in national and international security affairs, *lecturing widely on defense and foreign affairs in the United States and abroad. His published work includes thirteen books or monographs and over one hundred forty articles, chapters and book reviews. Author, co-author, or editor of Prisoners of War: Nation States in the Modern Era (1990), The Recourse to War: An Appraisal of the "Weinberger Doctrine" (1988), Alliances in U.S. Foreign Policy (1988), The Strategic Dimension of Military Manpower (1987), Polarity and War: The Changing Structure of International Conflict (1985), Great Power Games: The Sino American Power Transition (1982).
Essay "Treason, Betrayal and Deceit: 9/11 and Beyond" 9/10/09: 

"The official 9/11 Commission's work and report were at best an incomplete exercise. Many people dismiss the findings of the Commission, and that includes its co-chairs [ Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton ]. Many others who utterly distrust the 9/11 Commission report, dismiss the US Government&#8217;s explanation of it, and point to both an official cover-up and an &#8220;inside job,&#8221; include veteran fighter pilots, EMTs (Emergency Medical Technicians), air defense experts, experienced commercial pilots, demolition experts, architects and civil engineers &#8211; none of them professions that inherently attract and retain the gullible and credulous. 

Several things are very clear to me from a careful assessment of both official and critical evaluations of the 9/11 attacks. First, the striking aircraft alone simply could not have brought down either of the two buildings in the manner in which they fell, much less a third building which was not hit by a plane (I expect the one intended to do that as a "cover" had ended up in that Pennsylvania field), given the available physical evidence and a wealth of expert testimony. This means the attackers had assistance on the ground, and it had to have been active before the attacks occurred: preparing buildings for controlled demolition is not something done haphazardly in the midst of chaos.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/


----------



## whitehall (Dec 2, 2012)

eots said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



It's ironic to note that the 9-11 tinfoil theorists quote selective sound bites from CIA veterans that don't really make a difference in the discussion. The big conspiracy is that Bill Clinton might have authorized the 9-11 attack. I'm up for it if you are willing to take him into custody .


----------



## eots (Dec 2, 2012)

whitehall said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



selective sound bites ? I think they have made their opinions very 
clear


----------



## whitehall (Dec 2, 2012)

eots said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Bottom line...are you honest concerned 9-11 conspiracy citizens willing to take Bill Clinton into custody?


----------



## eots (Dec 2, 2012)

whitehall said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



No that would be mental..if their were ever to any kind of justice there would need to be a fact driven investigation with full disclose , wittiness protection and  Subpoena powers


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 3, 2012)

> This means the attackers had assistance on the ground, and it had to have been active before the attacks occurred: preparing buildings for controlled demolition is not something done haphazardly in the midst of chaos.



And neither is it done in plain site of thousands of people without someone noticing and asking questions. How many months would this have taken?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 3, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> > This means the attackers had assistance on the ground, and it had to have been active before the attacks occurred: preparing buildings for controlled demolition is not something done haphazardly in the midst of chaos.
> 
> 
> 
> And neither is it done in plain site of thousands of people without someone noticing and asking questions. How many months would this have taken?



Probably as long as it took to perform the various many elevator, and wiring projects the buildings underwent shortly before the attacks. When you have control of security, you can let anyone in your building. Do you think a nefarious project of this nature would leave out such a necessary detail? These people weren't amateurs, and it's obvious it was done, all one has to do is study the nature of the "collapses" to figure out these were not fire only events, and stop with the plane damage as it was also obvious the buildings withstood the initial impacts like they were intended to.

The obvious is there when you understand  the basic  physics and science that was involved. The bigger questions are who was behind the false flag attacks, and one need look at who had positions of authority and their relation to one another.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 3, 2012)

So this was planned and executed in 9 months or less? Or more than one administration kept this gigantic secret. And not one whistle blower has yet to come forward.... Maybe they put everyone who knew on the planes? You guys are funny.............


----------



## BecauseIKnow (Dec 3, 2012)

Do you people remember when that Air Force veteran came on TV and told us its impossible for someone to hit the tower that accurately into the gas tank.....this is a complete inside job......

My father met one of the security guards for JFK and my Dad asked him who killed JFK....he answered and said 9 people were caught. He was a hundred percent sure of it, but he says he doesn't know anything about what happened to those 9 people. No one knew....

These wars were made to profit off of, the CIA is a evil organization, only God knows what these governments are planning for us....they know literally everything we are doing now.....

This is getting crazy....God is the only one to have our backs....we praise you Lord and you will defeat the antichrist and we will give our lives to defeat these satanic globalist criminals.....

People don't fall for this divide and conquer strategy the NWO has for us, they want to keep us fighting against each other....please turn your anger against the governments....find the truth....

I swear my father also met a Iraqi man who said drivers get stopped at checkpoints and they are told to say where they are going, and if it is a Shia market, they will put a bomb under their car and the driver has no clue about it....

This sick shit is so sad, wtf is wrong with this world.....c'mon Americans wake up, don't be stupid....this stuff doesn't make sense.


----------



## blastoff (Dec 4, 2012)

BecauseIKnow said:


> Do you people remember when that Air Force veteran came on TV and told us its impossible for someone to hit the tower that accurately into the gas tank.....this is a complete inside job......
> 
> My father met one of the security guards for JFK and my Dad asked him who killed JFK....he answered and said 9 people were caught. He was a hundred percent sure of it, but he says he doesn't know anything about what happened to those 9 people. No one knew....



Oh, c'mon.  I've got a friend whose cousin is married to a woman who has an aunt who knows a guy who knows a guy who's got a brother involved with someone who used to be married to a Dallas Cowboy cheerleader who had an affair with some lesbian whose father hung out at Jack Ruby's strip club and knew the bouncer real well and he told him that those 9 people were a made up story just to confuse the conspiracy nitwits.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 4, 2012)

eots said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...





thats whitehall troll for you.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 4, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > > This means the attackers had assistance on the ground, and it had to have been active before the attacks occurred: preparing buildings for controlled demolition is not something done haphazardly in the midst of chaos.
> ...



as always,Gomer Ollie gets his ass handed to him on a platter.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 4, 2012)

blastoff said:


> BecauseIKnow said:
> 
> 
> > Do you people remember when that Air Force veteran came on TV and told us its impossible for someone to hit the tower that accurately into the gas tank.....this is a complete inside job......
> ...



If your denying the CIA was behind the JFK assassination you are living in denial.During the house select committe on assassinations investigation in the 70's,even they concluded the warren commission was wrong,that his assassination was the result of a conspiracy.

when that investigation was winding down two CIA men came forward and said-we did it,where do you want to go with this investigation? and of course the committe did not pursue that lead and thats why a senator on that commission resigned in disgust because anything that pointed towards government involvement,they ignored and did not pursue.

that investigation just like the warren commission investigation was a joke of one for those reasons. The HSCA concluded that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK involving the mob but were unable to locate the second shooter.The mob was the new patsy in the jfk assassination since the public was no longer swallowing the lies of the warren commission anymore that oswald was the lone assassin.

oh and that second video I posted in my opening post on this thread  is overwhelming evidence as well that the CIA orchestrated 9/11 as well. same thing that happened in the JFK case happened with 9/11 as well.people who gave versions of explosions bringing down the towers died in very mysterious deaths same way many did that gave testimony to the warren commission that told what they saw.If it did not go along with the governments version of events,they ended up dying very mysteriously.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 4, 2012)




----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 4, 2012)

someone farted in here.


----------



## BecauseIKnow (Dec 7, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> > BecauseIKnow said:
> ...



That's the problem with people these days, never like before, they don't question anything or have any suspicions to anything, they are unaware of what's going on behind closed doors and think that if they're in good wealth everything is good. It's a dumb mentality.


----------



## BecauseIKnow (Dec 7, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> Oh its definetely been solved.the evidence is overwhelming that it was a joint CIA/MOSSAD operation and the paid trolls on this site cant debunk this information here below in these four videos that prove it along with that great video of yours as well.
> 
> 
> 9/11 - Missing Links ( full movie ) - YouTube
> ...



Interesting vids...


----------



## emilynghiem (Dec 7, 2012)

Can someone please explain
if the US govt or Israel operatives were behind the 9/11 attacks:

Then why didn't all the enemies of the US
JUMP on this opportunity to
come out in droves to expose the Jews and Zionists for this?

Wouldn't all the wealthy Terrorist supporters
have funded tons of research and media campaigns
EXPOSING all this conspiracy blamed on the wrong people???

Why instead would terrorists claim credit
instead of fomenting complete division and downfall of the US govt?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 7, 2012)

emilynghiem said:


> Can someone please explain
> if the US govt or Israel operatives were behind the 9/11 attacks:
> 
> Then why didn't all the enemies of the US
> ...




These clowns believe it was all about oil.....You know, the oil we never got.....


----------



## BecauseIKnow (Dec 7, 2012)

emilynghiem said:


> Can someone please explain
> if the US govt or Israel operatives were behind the 9/11 attacks:
> 
> Then why didn't all the enemies of the US
> ...



Not everyone in the US government and maybe a few from the Israeli government. Mostly a business thing for many corporations and companies, GE stocks went sky high after the Iraq war, weapon contractors, etc. it's a huge money gain of people's lives, don't be lied to about the excuses for unjustified wars. Some confidential people we don't know about and nothing will be released about it. Also a fight with Russia, this 9/11 attack sounds planned for a long time. 

There's no such thing as a man in a cave planning such an attack, Osama bin laden was just pist off at America in the Middle East and randomly claimed responsibility. He had zero to do with it. Trust me, a little militant group is not at all capable. And the 6 months flight training was a piece of crap. You can't learn that in 6 months, while also hitting the gas tank in the towers that accurately. 

The story was very fishy. And many firefighters heard bombs exploding from the bottom, look it up yourself. Even if the story is supposed to be believed, the US military has satilettes everywhere, and radar, etc. They know where every plane is heading, they could have shot it down or evacuated it easily. We have a huge Air force and capabilities to do that. 

So it's either an inside job or they let it happen.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 8, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone please explain
> ...



The Petro Dollar more specifically asshat.


			
				emilynghiem said:
			
		

> Why instead would terrorists claim credit...


 OBL DID NOT CLAIM RESPONSIBILITY FOR 9-11.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 8, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



agent Gomer Pyle Ollie always ignores that fact and apparently that Bush loyal dupe  isnt aware of this fact below 

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/11/26/the-osama-bin-laden-myth-2/


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 8, 2012)

And in November 2001 UBL told a Pakistani Newspaper that his Kidneys were fine......

So try again...........


----------



## Wyld Kard (Dec 10, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



On March 29, 2006 - VP Dick Cheney said that they NEVER made the case nor argued the case that somehow Osama Bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11.

Osama Bin Laden has NEVER been indicted nor had he claimed responsibility for what happened on 9/11.  That's because OBL had nothing to do with 9/11, as the American people were led to believe with the spoon-fed garbage by the corrupt lying US Government and media.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 10, 2012)

OK Nutjob

Spokesmen for Al Qaeda or bin Laden were eventually crowing over their victory. When bin Laden was questioned about his involvement he has been quoted as saying: &#8220;I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people."

In stark contrast to such a public statement, when bin Laden was privately shown the video clips of the horrific attacks, he reportedly remarked that the acts of terror were &#8220;spectacular&#8221; and when he eventually came out of the closet and admitted complicity in the incident, he praised the hijackers as freedom fighters exhibiting &#8220;defiant spirits&#8221; in a fight against an evil oppressive empire.  The reason for killing Americans was because of the &#8220;jihad&#8221; or religious war against the infidel and the suicide squad of 19 who carried out the lethal plans were acting in the name of freedom.

One other objective bin Laden referred when he explained the purpose of the attacks was that he wanted the American people to rise up against their corrupt government.

Read more: 9/11 and Osama bin Laden
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter


----------



## Wyld Kard (Dec 10, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> OK Nutjob
> 
> Spokesmen for Al Qaeda or bin Laden were eventually crowing over their victory. When bin Laden was questioned about his involvement he has been quoted as saying: I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people."
> 
> ...



OK Puppet!

Wow, what you have posted is really affecting the needle on the Bullshit Amplifer Detector.  Could it be that once again you are telling another bullshit lie?  






[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFVm5vPsYM4]Osama Bin Laden Assures He Did Not Plan 9/11 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 10, 2012)

DUH, my link pointed this out that at first he denied involvement. Do try reading sometime. All knowledge is not on youtube....


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 11, 2012)

Wildcard said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > OK Nutjob
> ...



agent Gomer Pyle Ollie as always get his ass handed to him on a platter not only by you but me here as well.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...roberts-exposes-the-osama-bin-laden-myth.html

He can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey troll he is. and the shit all over the floor here everyday as well in defeat. this is gomer,bullshit alert.

yeah that paid puppet gets paid well by his handlers to post his lies and b.s.thats why he comes back for his constant ass beatings he gets here everyday for the money.he would never do it for free as you already know.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 11, 2012)

You couldn't find your own ass with both hands and a map.

Some day, if you ever have any proof that will stand up in court, we might take you seriously.......


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 11, 2012)

someone farted in here.

that means your a troll who talks to himself ready for the nuthouse agent  Gomer.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Dec 11, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> Oh its definetely been solved.the evidence is overwhelming that it was a joint CIA/MOSSAD operation and the paid trolls on this site cant debunk this information here below in these four videos that prove it along with that great video of yours as well.
> 
> 
> 9/11 - Missing Links ( full movie ) - YouTube
> ...



Great post 9/11 ISJ, at least someone around here knows what they are talking about.  Unlike Gomer Ollie, Dawgshit, Moron-in-the-Hat


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 11, 2012)

Wildcard said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Oh its definetely been solved.the evidence is overwhelming that it was a joint CIA/MOSSAD operation and the paid trolls on this site cant debunk this information here below in these four videos that prove it along with that great video of yours as well.
> ...



And yet you cannot disprove that the DNA, bodies and plane wreckage at the pentagon existed, was there, and could not have been planted....

Keep on talking shit with both your names nutjob........


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 11, 2012)

Whitehall, take the 40 minutes to watch the video in the OP, you won't sound nearly as uninformed afterwards...


----------



## Wyld Kard (Dec 12, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


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



Hey fucking moron you're,


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 12, 2012)

So you admit you can't explain it....

Didn't think so.....

Carry on nut job......


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 13, 2012)

Wildcard said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Oh its definetely been solved.the evidence is overwhelming that it was a joint CIA/MOSSAD operation and the paid trolls on this site cant debunk this information here below in these four videos that prove it along with that great video of yours as well.
> ...



 Cheers. lifts up glass. Hey check it out,someone else joined us that isnt an agent troll or a frady cat Bush dupe in denial like whitehall,Guy.

Guy is another one who actually knows what he is talking about as well.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 13, 2012)

Wildcard said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



Gomer as always get shias ass handed to him on aplatter,this troll Gomer already knows that the alleged airliner that hit there that the people interviewed who make those airliners came out and said immediately that the wreackage of that airliner was not that of that particulare airliner,that none of it matched that airliner.as always,Gomer  gets his ass handed to him on a plattter.like clockwork. explain that to him wildcard. fucking moron  is right.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 13, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> Whitehall, take the 40 minutes to watch the video in the OP, you won't sound nearly as uninformed afterwards...



excellent post Guy but trust me,your wasting your breath,whitehall troll when he is confronted with these kinds of facts in videos,he runs off EVERYTIME and never takes you up on the challenge to watch a video.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 13, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Whitehall, take the 40 minutes to watch the video in the OP, you won't sound nearly as uninformed afterwards...
> ...



It's denial. It's very hard for people who have spent their entire lives believing in the 'goodness of government' to wrap their minds around the idea that this kind of thing could happen here in the good old US of A. Unfortunately, these are the people the conspirators count on the most.

We're talking about TRILLIONS of dollars that have been looted from the citizens and some of the most unConstitutional laws ever CONCEIVED in the minds of power-hungry Globalists.

Most folks don't want to know how deep the rabbit hole goes...


----------



## eots (Dec 13, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


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



there where no bodies or body parts except that of pentagon employees
and to me seems highly suspect that you could identify each passengers DNA  as claimed under these conditions and with the cross contamination that must of occurred...jus sayin


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 14, 2012)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



You have proof of this? You know verifiable proof? not some conspiracy log but an official coroners report or something?

Something like this:



by Christopher C. Kelly
Public Affairs, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology

What some experts have called "the most comprehensive forensic investigation in U.S. history" ended Nov. 16 with the identification of 184 of the 189 who died in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon.

A multidisciplinary team of more than 50 forensic specialists, scientists and support personnel from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology played a major role in Operation Nobel Eagle investigations, officials said. AFIP is an executive agency of the Army surgeon general.

Many of the Pentagon casualties were badly burned and difficult to identify, an official said. Of the 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were passengers on American Airlines Flight 77. Only one of those who died made it to the hospital; the rest were killed on site. For some victims, only pieces of tissue could be found.

AFIP's team of forensic pathologists, odontologists, a forensic anthropologist, DNA experts, investigators and support personnel worked for more than two weeks in the mortuary at Dover Air Force Base, Del., and for weeks at the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory in Rockville, Md., to identify victims of the attack.

Experts ID 184 Pentagon Fatalities - Forensic Pathology DNA 9/11


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 15, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> You couldn't find your own ass with both hands and a map.
> 
> Some day, if you ever have any proof that will stand up in court, we might take you seriously.......



You still continue to think that the bastards in control give a shit about courts? They torture people to obtain false confessions, and the men recently in charge of your nation are war criminals. People have been disappeared (killed) threatened and disposed of...and you fucking think someone can just waltz over to the AT or the court system and all the bad guys will be jailed?? You are one naive dumbfuck..


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 15, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


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



Yeah they were so meticulous and respectful, they dumped remains in a landfill. How can a plane melt due to the "extreme" heat, yet not have any effect on human remains?

BTW, did you know that DNA can be fabricated? Ironically by Israel?

_You can just engineer a crime scene, said Dan Frumkin, lead author of the paper, which has been published online by the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics. Any biology undergraduate could perform this._ 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html?_r=0

Perhaps you should grow the fuck up already, be a man and see the world as it really is
and stop living in a made up fairy tale existence of denial.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 15, 2012)

Tell me, why haven't you and yours been picked up by the black helicopters yet?

Why havn't the leaders (you know, the guys like the other Mr Jones who is making a fortune on this) been picked up and made to disappear?

Almost funny........


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 15, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> Tell me, why haven't you and yours been picked up by the black helicopters yet?
> 
> Why havn't the leaders (you know, the guys like the other Mr Jones who is making a fortune on this) been picked up and made to disappear?
> 
> Almost funny........



I'll bet he comes back with the fable that's running around.

They claim Korry Rowe was framed for selling heroin in New York to shut him up about the inside jobbity-job-job.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 15, 2012)

two farts in a row from the agent trolls.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 15, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


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



Thats how you can tell the ones that are just in denial and afraid like whitehall and all these paid trolls like gomer ollie and moron in the hat.Whitehall runs off anytime someone challenges him to watch the video.Gomer Ollie and Moron In the hat,they just evade it and change the subject and lie and come back everyday doing the same old dance all the time.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 15, 2012)

It was Chaos theory. A butterfly flapped it's wings a certain way and led ultimately to groups of terrorists to fly planes into the twin towers.

Simple really.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 15, 2012)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



Gomer needs to start a comedy club.He isnt familiar with the governments version that even they said the bodies werent there because they  vaporized along with all the other parts of an airliner that should have been there but are not yet like the troll he is,says they could still have got the DNA off them. any rational person would laught thier ass off at Gomer.works for maybe a steven king novel but not in the real world.


----------



## paulitician (Dec 17, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> Tell me, why haven't you and yours been picked up by the black helicopters yet?
> 
> Why havn't the leaders (you know, the guys like the other Mr Jones who is making a fortune on this) been picked up and made to disappear?
> 
> Almost funny........



I got news for ya, the Black Helicopters are here and have always been very real. However, Drones are now beginning to replace them. It still amazes me that you and so many still believe Black Helicopters were just a 'Silly Conspiracy Theory.' They were actually very real all along. And next, i suppose you guys will be claiming Domestic Spy Drones are just a 'Silly Conspiracy Theory' too. I mean, this stuff has been and still is right in front of your faces. I just don't get the denial thing. I guess i never will. And btw, your Government can make anyone disappear. They can erase anyone anytime. They have that much power & control. That's reality.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 17, 2012)

Yet you are still here..........


----------



## Capstone (Dec 17, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> Yet you are still here..........



With no shortage of people like you to cast aspersions over the psychological well-being of anyone _crazy enough_ to point out the Emperor's nudity, why should any of the Empire's agencies waste the time, effort, and resources on rounding up a bunch of nutters?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 18, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> Tell me, why haven't you and yours been picked up by the black helicopters yet?
> 
> Why havn't the leaders (you know, the guys like the other Mr Jones who is making a fortune on this) been picked up and made to disappear?
> 
> Almost funny........


 Oh I see, because we're still here, that means what we've been saying about 9-11, our rights etc HAVE to be false? You silly little fool....You think with the capacity of a little child...Fucking simpleton.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 18, 2012)

Really now, there's no call to be so harsh on yourself.....

It's not your fault you can't think about anything except that your government is evil and out to get you....

Just go back to your basement, everything will be alright....

Trust me..........


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 18, 2012)

Gomer Ollie just farted in here again.

He keeps shitting all over the floor  stinking up your thread Paul.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 18, 2012)

paulitician said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me, why haven't you and yours been picked up by the black helicopters yet?
> ...



Ypu dont understand Paul.Gomer knows that 9/11 was an inside job,he knows all about black helicopters but he doesnt care cause this dumbfuck thinks he is safe from them as long as he trolls for them and posts his bullshit.Its all good to him as long as they keep paying him to troll message boards all the time.

But the idiot troll doesnt get it that if they have their way and are able to get rid of all of us like they want to,that after they are done with us,they wont have any need for him anymore and they will then get rid of him if their is no revolution in the future which we are long overdue by decades now. and after this government operation of killing kids at that elementary school now,you got to believe that will be the thing that gets them to disarm us now and ban guns.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 18, 2012)

Capstone said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Yet you are still here..........
> ...



what Gomer ignores is that there is an awakening going on and right now they are not concerned about citizens like us,they are worried about the whistleblowers telling the truth like Alex Jones,Art Bell,Michael Savage,and George whats his name from coast to coast getting the truth out.they are more worried about  people that are an immediate threat to them like them and independent news sources out there like american free press than us.

 they cant kill those people off like they want to because if they do,that just reinforces everything they been saying about them and that  opens up a can of worms  if they start killing them all off one by one like they want to so they are doing the next thing they do in in the CIA and other government covert operations,when they cant kill you,they try and discredit you and they are doing just  that with those people night and day trying to do that to them.

Right NOW were still here,but If Obama and the establishment has itss way and they are able to shut down the internet and take away our guns like they want to,eventually we wont be here.But again like i said,they will go after the Jones's and those others I mentioned first before they come for us and thats the problem,they cant kill those people off without opening a can of worms right now.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 18, 2012)

I see that 911 inside joke still has no facts.....Nothing new here...........


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 18, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> I see that 911 inside joke still has no facts.....Nothing new here...........



I think the 'facts', as you call them, were presented in the OP.

I see you have no refutation of them.... Nothing new here......


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 18, 2012)

I'm sorry, but fact is not made up of coincidences and opinion.......

Keep trying............


----------



## Capstone (Dec 18, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> So this was planned and executed in 9 months or less? Or more than one administration kept this gigantic secret. And not one whistle blower has yet to come forward.... Maybe they put everyone who knew on the planes? You guys are funny.............



It's worse than you think, Ollie. One of the disgruntled 9/11 Commissioners, Bob Kerrey, referred to 9/11 as a "30-year conspiracy".

But here' s an informative site for you.



> When losing a discussion on the facts of 9/11, a so-called 9/11 "debunker" will often rely on an old canard to "prove" that 9/11 could not have been an inside job: "So many people want their quarter hour of fame that even the Men in Black couldn't squelch the squealers from spilling the beans," write self-satisfied defenders of the government story. According to the logic of this argument, if there are no 9/11 whistleblowers then 9/11 was not an inside job.
> 
> So what if there are 9/11 whistleblowers? What if these whistleblowers come from every level of government and private industry, individuals who have even had their cases vindicated by internal government reports? As you are about to see, there are numerous such whistleblowers and each one is a thorn in the side of those who want to pretend that the 9/11 Commission represents the sum total of knowledge on the 9/11 attacks.
> 
> That is precisely why these whistleblowers are not lauded by legislators or trumpeted by the media, but actively suppressed by government officials and the corporate media alike. These courageous insiders have been sidelined, gagged, hounded from their positions and ignored to the point where their stories are virtually unknown among the general public. And that is exactly why it is vital for the alternative media to make these stories known by bypassing the filters and control of the establishment media. [...]



Just because you haven't heard them personally ...doesn't mean the whistles haven't been blown.


----------



## Capstone (Dec 18, 2012)

Here's a video link to Robert Wright's testimony:

[ame=http://youtu.be/7CvnwQZfugk]3x8) 9-11 FBI Whistleblower Robert Wright Testimony - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 19, 2012)

Disgruntled FBI agent who started by saying that what he was going to say was his own OPINION. then did nothing but bash the FBI for 10 minutes...

Was there a point to this?


----------



## Capstone (Dec 19, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> Disgruntled FBI agent who started by saying that what he was going to say was his own OPINION. then did nothing but bash the FBI for 10 minutes...
> 
> Was there a point to this?



Well, the point of my posting the video here was to offset the disappearance of the video that had been linked to Wright's story on the webpage I cited in my previous post.

One of the major points of Wright's testimony is the implicit reach of his findings WRT Yassin Al-Qadi, the infamous financier of global terrorism on the one hand ...and of risk management software used by the FBI, the DoD, the US Treasury, the IRS, the US Navy, and the White House itself on the other. Al-Qadi had a pretty diversified portfolio, you see: a fact that only became clear in the light of the corroborating testimonies of people like Robert Wright and Indira Singh.

Try to keep up.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 19, 2012)

Capstone said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > So this was planned and executed in 9 months or less? Or more than one administration kept this gigantic secret. And not one whistle blower has yet to come forward.... Maybe they put everyone who knew on the planes? You guys are funny.............
> ...



Notice how Gomer Ollie conveintly ignores how many FBI agents went to and had David Schippers represent them because their superiours told them to back off when they told them they had information of upcoming terrorists attacks telling them not to pursue the lead and according to Schippers,when he went to John Ashcroft with this information,he tried many times to get him to look into it but Ashcroft ignored him,Yep no whistleblowers there. 
Gomer also ignores how it was planned back in 93 under Clinton when an FBI informer fearing he was being set up,secretly recorded the FBI and found out they were going to use REAL bombs for the drill instead of fakes like they told him. they failed and came back to succeed this time.

and of course as we already know,he wont read that article there since it destroys his ramblings.


----------



## Capstone (Dec 19, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> [...] and of course as we already know,*he wont read that article* there since it destroys his ramblings. [emphasis Capstone's]



I think you're right.

Somehow I doubt his apparent reluctance to look at the "facts" will hamper his enthusiasm to keep calling for them.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 19, 2012)

Actually I spent about 30 minutes of my valuable time looking at your link.

Mostly a bunch of used to be's who offer little and when you follow the links within the links most end up in some Blog....

Some have been debunked in other articles I have seen. Others are obvious BS. But you go on believing......


----------



## Capstone (Dec 19, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> Some have been debunked in other articles I have seen.



For example?



SFC Ollie said:


> [...]Others are obvious BS. [...]



Translation: you haven't seen them "debunked" in other articles?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 19, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> Actually I spent about 30 minutes of my valuable time looking at your link.
> 
> Mostly a bunch of used to be's who offer little and when you follow the links within the links most end up in some Blog....
> 
> Some have been debunked in other articles I have seen. Others are obvious BS. But you go on believing......



It is you and your bullshit that has been debunked for the stooge troll that you are. There are plenty of whistle blowers and proof that the state is lying, and your postings are proof that you are as well. You offer nothing, and back up your opinions with nothing, and you hide behind your "service". If you were real, you'd at least acknowledge the brave men and women and their attempts at shedding light on the situation, but you're a fucking phoney, and a coward who does his part in toeing the state party line, and discredits them with out having any substantial reason as to why, only that the things they reveal are against your indoctrinated dogma, and prove you are wrong. You're just a gump with no balls with not even an ounce of integrity or credibility.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 19, 2012)

For example Barry Jennings, the guy he was with told a similar story yet he placed the explosions after or as the towers fell, not before....  But you go on believing.................


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 19, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Actually I spent about 30 minutes of my valuable time looking at your link.
> ...



Bring me one of the experts who wired the explosives, even the guy who delivered them....

Bring me the witnesses who saw the people from the plan that didn't hit the pentagon....

You know, real whistle blowers, people who would actually know something instead of offering more opinion....There must be thousands of them out there that were directly involved in either the attack, planning or cover up............


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 19, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> For example Barry Jennings, the guy he was with told a similar story yet he placed the explosions after or as the towers fell, not before....  But you go on believing.................



Fuck you ya fucking gump. You go on believing the obvious BS the state feeds you, and doesn't make sense. Any word on the the rest of the lies they said, the freefall of WTC 7? 
Your belief that  massive steel components beams and columns were falling and not capable of causing any distortion to the rest of the building, even though these massive parts were attached to it, is so fucking ignorant and stupid it's hilarious. How's that NIST computer simulation compared to the real word video taped decent we all can see of the WTC 7 coming along moron? Still believe what they tell you you saw instead of what you actually look at?


----------



## Capstone (Dec 19, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> For example Barry Jennings, the guy he was with told a similar story yet he placed the explosions after or as the towers fell, not before....  But you go on believing.................



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n4XUj1xNSY]oringinally confirmed[/ame] 

Michael Hess originally confirmed Jenning's account that "an explosion" (as opposed to falling debris from one of the other buildings) had trapped them on the 8th floor of WTC7. He later changed his story to match the official account (we can only speculate as to why).

Barry Jennings was consistent from day one. And now he's dead.

But you said "some" (as in plural) had been debunked, so what else have you got, Ollie?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 19, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


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


See asshole, that will never happen. They covered their tracks up, but what you should know you ignorant fuck, is that there are clues, and people pointing you to them, the rest is up to you.
The first clue is the way the buildings fell is NOT conducive to the laws of physics. You shouldn't need to have a written confession to know they are lying to you.It should be obvious that after researching this stuff , SOMETHING isn't right and it doesn't add up or make sense.
You shouldn't have to have a detailed written confession or road map to at least figure out your being lied to. You are asking for answers that the investigations should have provided but didn't, hell the writers of the 9-11 commission tell you that much at least.
You are a simpleton bone headed idiot that can't logically put these things in order and your lack of brain and intellectual capacity needs a complete road map and you need people to hold your hand like a fucking 1st grade kid to put 2 and 2 together.

I thought you needed at least SOME fucking schooling to be in the military?
 People have taken the time to do this for you for years man, and it's too bad you don't at least have the sharpness of a dull butter knife to make sense of what these people are telling you and showing you..Even a simple car crash analogy or example of mass hitting mass is useless to you.

Bottom line is you don't read anything with any capacity to understanding it or with any objectivity, or fairness and dismiss all that you don't understand, and place your faith in the entity that was supposed to clarify things but instead, knows that people like you can't or wont take the time or put in the effort to educate yourself, and instead leads you on the path of lies as you go down it, merrily waving your flag and makes a fool out of you.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 19, 2012)

Capstone said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > For example Barry Jennings, the guy he was with told a similar story yet he placed the explosions after or as the towers fell, not before....  But you go on believing.................
> ...


Nothin...According to him, he trains others to be as stupid as himself.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 19, 2012)

9/11 solved? 
Of course it's solved. 
Groups of Islamic Terrorists hijacked 4 planes and flew them into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 19, 2012)

PredFan said:


> 9/11 solved?
> Of course it's solved.
> Groups of Islamic Terrorists hijacked 4 planes and flew them into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.



Prove it.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 19, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > For example Barry Jennings, the guy he was with told a similar story yet he placed the explosions after or as the towers fell, not before....  But you go on believing.................
> ...



Gt any proof besides Jennings that anyone heard a bomb in WTC7 before the planes hit? Or before the towers fell? Seems amazing that no one else heard or felt or even measured these explosions....


----------



## PredFan (Dec 19, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 solved?
> ...



Prove it?

What are you a moron?

Wait, I forgot, you ARE a moron. Here ya go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

http://www.rememberingseptember11.com/tower_attack.htm

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/terroris1/p/wtc_September11.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0911.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ges-burning-Twin-Towers-taken-space-9-11.html

http://www.history.com/interactives/witness-to-911


----------



## paulitician (Dec 19, 2012)

Yup, our Government told us the truth about 9/11. Sure they did. 

This may help explain why so many are so loyal to Big Brother.


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


----------



## paulitician (Dec 19, 2012)

Unfortunately, there just aren't enough Americans like the man at the end of the video.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 19, 2012)

Gee we went to public schools and we came out differently...You know like individuals............

Your video is full of BS.........


----------



## paulitician (Dec 19, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> Gee we went to public schools and we came out differently...You know like individuals............
> 
> Your video is full of BS.........



Did we?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 19, 2012)

Most of us........Some of us didn't go to school at all......... Are you one of those?


----------



## daws101 (Dec 19, 2012)

a quick check of this thread confirms  that eots is still using the gibberish line when his ass is handed to him (on a nearly daily basis I might add !)
sister jones, as always is chasing imaginary demons.
hand job is .....well, handjob.
as for the rest of the twoofer club , I just hope there's enough Reynolds wrap to go around!


----------



## paulitician (Dec 19, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> Most of us........Some of us didn't go to school at all......... Are you one of those?



lol! Nice. You're very loyal to Big Brother. I seriously doubt you'll ever wake up. It's probably way too late for you. I think the Country is changing though. More & more People are waking up. Our Government lies. It's just what it does. Big Brother is on a real roll. His Police State is upon us. Hopefully, one day Americans will grow weary of the Police State and stand up for change. I'm an optimist, so i still have hope. But i guess we'll see.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 19, 2012)

Look people, it's quite simple. Just because the government's version of what happened has gaps in it, does not mean that your version is correct. I would be VERY suspicious if the government gave us a report that covered all bases, left no holes and answered everything. Since the government had NOTHING to do with the attacks, and was just as surprised as we were, they had to piece it together from the videos, forensic investigation, and experts in the field. Since they DID NOT do this, the goverment does not have all of the answers and the report is their best guess.

Poke all the holes in the report you want to. You'll never convince any sensible person that your wild ass theories are even remotely correct. The best and most accurate thing you can say is that the government's report isn't 100% accurate.


----------



## paulitician (Dec 19, 2012)

PredFan said:


> Look people, it's quite simple. Just because the government's version of what happened has gaps in it, does not mean that your version is correct. I would be VERY suspicious if the government gave us a report that covered all bases, left no holes and answered everything. Since the government had NOTHING to do with the attacks, and was just as surprised as we were, they had to piece it together from the videos, forensic investigation, and experts in the field. Since they DID NOT do this, the goverment does not have all of the answers and the report is their best guess.
> 
> Poke all the holes in the report you want to. You'll never convince any sensible person that your wild ass theories are even remotely correct. The best and most accurate thing you can say is that the government's report isn't 100% accurate.



That's a somewhat fair assessment. However, i still can't completely agree with it. The 9/11 Commission was an awful travesty. They did not conduct a credible investigation. And unfortunately, our Government investigating itself, will never result in a credible investigation. Too many holes and lies in their 9/11 story. They have not been honest. Therefore, it is a cover-up in my opinion. We deserve truth, and we haven't gotten it. And there's nothing wrong with demanding that truth. We owe it to the 9/11 victims and their families.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 19, 2012)

paulitician said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Look people, it's quite simple. Just because the government's version of what happened has gaps in it, does not mean that your version is correct. I would be VERY suspicious if the government gave us a report that covered all bases, left no holes and answered everything. Since the government had NOTHING to do with the attacks, and was just as surprised as we were, they had to piece it together from the videos, forensic investigation, and experts in the field. Since they DID NOT do this, the goverment does not have all of the answers and the report is their best guess.
> ...



Why would you need more than the report states? The terrorists flew the planes into the buildings, we all saw the planes hit, the report makes sense, matches what we know so what is the minutia going to tell us?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 19, 2012)

Why would you need more than the report states? The terrorists flew the planes into the buildings, we all saw the planes hit, the report makes sense, matches what we know so what is the minutia going to tell us?[/QUOTE]

The panelist of the 9-11 commission itself doubt they were told the truth, suspecting they were lied to even contemplated criminal charges, that's why. There is no solid proof of any of what you believe they told you is correct. Proof that doubting the original narrative is warranted is vast and comes from many credible sources, and if you include the 9-11 commission as a credible source, then their doubts about its accuracy also should be taken seriously, and given merit.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 19, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> Why would you need more than the report states? The terrorists flew the planes into the buildings, we all saw the planes hit, the report makes sense, matches what we know so what is the minutia going to tell us?
> 
> The panelist of the 9-11 commission itself doubt they were told the truth, suspecting they were lied to even contemplated criminal charges, that's why. There is no solid proof of any of what you believe they told you is correct. Proof that doubting the original narrative is warranted is vast and comes from many credible sources, and if you include the 9-11 commission as a credible source, then their doubts about its accuracy also should be taken seriously, and given merit.



Not true. The report states that a group of Islamic terrorists flew the planes into the buildings. We saw the planes hit the buildings. We saw video of the terrorists boarding the planes, we heard the cell phone calls of the people on the plane that crashed. We watched the buildings come down, we see the wreckage. It all fits. So the story has holes in it. That's because the government doesn't know everything. They are giving us their best guess. Which is all anyone can do since the people who did it are all dead.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 19, 2012)

Anyone that believes 3 steel-framed buildings can collapse at freefall speed INTO THEIR OWN FOOTPRINT, WITHOUT the aid of explosive demolition, is an idiot or a tool.

It's NEVER happened in history, even when buildings suffered much greater damage for much longer periods of time.

Deal...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 19, 2012)

Once again, please tell us specifically what the 011 Commissions Report writers think is wrong with the report...What is it they think is false.........They certainly don't believe there was an inside joke er Job.......


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 19, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> Anyone that believes 3 steel-framed buildings can collapse at freefall speed INTO THEIR OWN FOOTPRINT, WITHOUT the aid of explosive demolition, is an idiot or a tool.
> 
> It's NEVER happened in history, even when buildings suffered much greater damage for much longer periods of time.
> 
> Deal...



They neither fell at free fall nor collapsed into their own footprint.... Please play again........


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 19, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone that believes 3 steel-framed buildings can collapse at freefall speed INTO THEIR OWN FOOTPRINT, WITHOUT the aid of explosive demolition, is an idiot or a tool.
> ...



Gawd, you really are a tool, Gomer. You're wrong on both counts, yet you continue to parrot your lies.

I hope those gov't checks are worth it for you...


----------



## daws101 (Dec 19, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> Why would you need more than the report states? The terrorists flew the planes into the buildings, we all saw the planes hit, the report makes sense, matches what we know so what is the minutia going to tell us?



The panelist of the 9-11 commission itself doubt they were told the truth, suspecting they were lied to even contemplated criminal charges, that's why. There is no solid proof of any of what you believe they told you is correct. Proof that doubting the original narrative is warranted is vast and comes from many credible sources, and if you include the 9-11 commission as a credible source, then their doubts about its accuracy also should be taken seriously, and given merit.[/QUOTE]


merit isn't given...an event,report, story etc.. either has it or it does not....asshat.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 19, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Ah insidejoke, I thought it was you.........

Now dumb ass, watch a video of the towers as they fell, The parts that were falling outside the direct path to the ground hit about 16 seconds before the entire building stopped falling.... And if they had fallen into their own footprint then buildings hundreds of feet away from them would not have been hit with debris....

You do have much to learn......


----------



## daws101 (Dec 19, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> Anyone that believes 3 steel-framed buildings can collapse at freefall speed INTO THEIR OWN FOOTPRINT, WITHOUT the aid of explosive demolition, is an idiot or a tool.
> 
> It's NEVER happened in history, even when buildings suffered much greater damage for much longer periods of time.
> 
> Deal...


not this lame inaccurate steaming pile again! 


9/11 Theories: Fell Into Its Own Footprint
Posted on October 24, 2010 by curiousplumber88 The twin towers did not fall into their own footprints and neither did WTC7. This is not a matter of opinion, but a stone-cold factand I like facts.

So what exactly does it mean for a building to fall into its own footprint? Well its a demolition term which describes creating an implosion to destroy a building so it does not damage other buildings surrounding it. Many truthers are fond of calling the destruction of the two towers implosions and claiming that the two buildings fell into their own footprint. Yet, in the same breath they will claim that it is impossible for much of the debris to be ejected out from the collapse without the aid of explosives. So which is it? An implosion or an explosion? Apparently its both, and when a person holds an irrational belief, accepting two contrary ideas is incredibly easy.

9/11 Theories: &#8220;Fell Into Its Own Footprint&#8221; | Mr. Rational


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 19, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Look, dumbass, the VAST majority of debris, called "The Pile", was IN THE FOOTPRINT. NONE of those 110 stories fell over sideways, what debris that was blown a few hundred feet was just that, BLOWN there. You can't drop a building of that height without a LITTLE 'spillage'.

And usually when you want someone to watch a video you post the fucking link, Einstein.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 19, 2012)

Oh hell you can pick and chose just about any of the hundreds of videos and see it...If you are Honest.

Here's a good one...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4]9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## paulitician (Dec 19, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> Anyone that believes 3 steel-framed buildings can collapse at freefall speed INTO THEIR OWN FOOTPRINT, WITHOUT the aid of explosive demolition, is an idiot or a tool.
> 
> It's NEVER happened in history, even when buildings suffered much greater damage for much longer periods of time.
> 
> Deal...



Yup.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 19, 2012)

PredFan said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > *Why would you need more than the report states? The terrorists flew the planes into the buildings, we all saw the planes hit, the report makes sense, matches what we know so what is the minutia going to tell us?*
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 19, 2012)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Why would you need more than the report states? The terrorists flew the planes into the buildings, we all saw the planes hit, the report makes sense, matches what we know so what is the minutia going to tell us?
> ...




merit isn't given...an event,report, story etc.. either has it or it does not....asshat.[/QUOTE]

Learn to use the quote function asshole and proof read your shit before posting you miserable piece of shit.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 19, 2012)

> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Why would you need more than the report states?
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 19, 2012)

Bull Shit..........


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 19, 2012)

I notice no one has anything to say about the youtube video showing the false claim of free fall......

As expected....


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 19, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> Once again, please tell us specifically what the 011 Commissions Report writers think is wrong with the report...What is it they think is false.........They certainly don't believe there was an inside joke er Job.......



Once again here you go you lazy fuck.

Farmer states..._*at some level of the government, at some point in timethere was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described . The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.

The 9/11 Commission head, Thomas Kean, was the Republican governor of New Jersey. He had the following to say... We to this day dont know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth.

In 2006, The Washington Post reported..."Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission..."

What do we know? We know the conjecture about 9/11 still stands but for certain, we know we were lied to, not in a minor way, but systematically as part of a plot covering up government involvement at nearly every level, perhaps gross negligence, perhaps something with darker intent.

Are we willing to live with another lie to go with the Warren Report, Iran Contra and so many others? Has the sacrifice of thousands more Americans, killed, wounded or irreparably damaged by a war knowingly built on the same lies from the same liars who misled the 9/11 Commission pushed us beyond willingness to confront the truth?

Have we yet found where the lies have begun and ended? There is no evidence of this, only evidence to the contrary. The lies live on and the truth will never be sought. The courage for that task has not been found.

Can anyone call themselves an American if they don't demand, even with the last drop of their blood, that the truth be found?
*_
_*How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?*_

This will have absolutely no impact on you. You are not an American with any sort of conscious. You do not have the intellect or the honest sincerity to be effected by this. You ignore it instead like a little child that wont admit when they are wrong, but instead continue to deny and hide from what the rest of us has to face and accept.


----------



## paulitician (Dec 19, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> I notice no one has anything to say about the youtube video showing the false claim of free fall......
> 
> As expected....



Look, no one's ever gonna change your mind. You're all-in on that Goose Stepping thing. We all know that. So why do you still hang around on a Conspiracy Theory Forum? Unless you're being paid, it makes no sense. You obey and believe everything Big Brother tells you. We get it. So why are you still here?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 19, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> I notice no one has anything to say about the youtube video showing the false claim of free fall......
> 
> As expected....



Impatient old fucker, ain'tcha?

What the video you posted showed was 2 buildings collapsing in an incredibly short amount of time. While the term 'free fall' is inaccurate, it is not hard to see IN YOUR VIDEO the puffs of explosions on lower floors that aided in the buildings' total vertical collapse. 

So you win one on semantics, you old fool.

Now tell me about that molten steel under the piles and how it got there...


----------



## paulitician (Dec 19, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I notice no one has anything to say about the youtube video showing the false claim of free fall......
> ...



You're wasting your time on that one. Him and a couple others here are in a permanent state of Goose Stepper Bliss. Big Brother can do no wrong. I'm not sure why they still hang around on a Conspiracy Theory Forum. Some here have suggested they're paid Government Message Board Trolls. But i don't know. It could just be that they worship Big Brother so much, they feel they must show up routinely to defend him. Anyway, don't waste too much more of your time. You'll get nowhere with the Goose Steppers. It is what it is.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Dec 19, 2012)

Looka guys, I'm no fan of big gubmint.. but all I hear is a YouTube video.  If someone can give me a link to a written transcript, complete with links and citations, all I hear is a guy prattling off all kinds of shit that frankly, is quite difficult to keep track of. Did hear this guy mention that GWB ate Belgian waffles?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 19, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> I notice no one has anything to say about the youtube video showing the false claim of free fall......
> 
> As expected....



14.75 seconds according to your video. I've driven my 1994 Mustang GT when she was stock, down the 1/4 mile in 14.52 seconds with nothing but air as resistance. The WTC were massive and had plenty of resistence to give.
 BTW you made sure to include someone who happens to NOT be scientist or a physics expert like NIST is supposed to be consisted of. Nice strawman there gump.

Let's assume your reasoning that the 9-11 commission report is correct t like you claim it is..
In the report they mention that the towers came down in about 10 seconds...Look it up yourself.
10 seconds is closer to freefall then 14.75, so you just proved by yourself the commission is wrong in this instance. 
You further do not understand that the towers should have taken closer to 1 minute to fully collapse rather then 9.22 which is free fall, or 14.75.
 All of that steel structure, you know the part of the hirise that is built with thicker more robust steel at the bottoms...Did not provide any resistance to the collapsing wall.NIST even mentions this but doesn't even think about explaining.. Why not?

And how the hell is the inner core going to just disintegrate and poof away into a cloud of dust, and dissapear? Jet fuel fires certainly can't do that. As a matter of fact nano thermite can't either. So what do you think can bring down such a massive steel hirise, 1250 feet tall, in a time span that is ..according to your video possibly only 4-5 seconds LESS then a free fall collapse? Of course the video is less then scientific and accurate but still way faster then should be physically expected.

Keep in mind that this happened to BOTH towers, and then again albeit in a different manner to WTC 7 that DID experience free fall, and free fall acceleration..

Your video tries to show that -1) Rosie Donnell is no physics expert but still smarter then you . 2) the tower came down just a little bit short of free fall speed. 3) the massive inner core disintegrated into a fine dust that glorified kerosene could not possibly have been hot enough to achieve.

So now we need to try to figure out and explain what the hell made the massive core disintegrate?
 And how such a massive hirise could fall so fast,  the same way, on 2 occasions in the same day?

What ever caused these things to be destroyed, it for sure was NOT jet fuel kerosene, and this should be enough proof that something else, that we may not totally understand yet, was involved.
It matters not how it was planted, or how it all was facilitated, who kept quiet etc.. the fact remains this mystery is not best explained by jet fuel fires, and this has been my point all along.

Here's another video showing the dissapearing parts of the building from another angle.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI]9/11 WTC North Tower Core, HAVE YOU SEEN IT? - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Capstone (Dec 20, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> Actually I spent about 30 minutes of my valuable time looking at your link.[...]



Yes, I realize your time _must_ be valuable (you've only managed to post around 21,000 times over the past 3 years, after all).

Still, I hope you'll be kind enough to support the following claim regarding Corbett's guide to some of the 9/11 whistle-blowers: 



SFC Ollie said:


> *Some* have been debunked in other articles I have seen...[emphasis Capstone's]



While the inconsistent testimony of Michael Hess certainly does NOT "debunk" the unwavering account given by Barry Jennings, it's still only one example of so-called "debunking".

So, *again*, what else have ya' got, Ollie?


----------



## PredFan (Dec 20, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> Anyone that believes 3 steel-framed buildings can collapse at freefall speed INTO THEIR OWN FOOTPRINT, WITHOUT the aid of explosive demolition, is an idiot or a tool.
> 
> It's NEVER happened in history, even when buildings suffered much greater damage for much longer periods of time.
> 
> Deal...



Anyone who believes that a demolition team can rig two office buildings to come down without anyone in the office buildings knowing about it is a much bigger idiot and/or tool.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 20, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



The day he learns....POOF.....there goes the conspiracy.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 20, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> I notice no one has anything to say about the youtube video showing the false claim of free fall......
> 
> As expected....



Of course not.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 20, 2012)

In the end, you truthers are wasting your time. No one will ever swallow your nonsense, history will forever show that the towers were brought down by Islamic Terrorists, and the Pentagon Building was hit by members of the same group. No government conspiracy, no invisible demolition teams, no fake planes, no George Bush pre-knowledge.

The best you can hope for is that a footnote in history will state that there was a contingent of nut jobs who thought differently.


----------



## paulitician (Dec 20, 2012)

Big Brother's 9/11 story just isn't believable.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThLaswlmDSQ]9/11: A Conspiracy Theory - Everything you ever wanted to know about 9/11 in under 5 minutes - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Capstone (Dec 20, 2012)

PredFan said:


> Anyone who believes that a demolition team can rig two office buildings to come down without anyone in the office buildings knowing about it is a much bigger idiot and/or tool.



Don't you mean three office buildings?

You _do_ realize that *three* skyscrapers collapsed in a matter of seconds in NYC on 9/11, even though one of them hadn't been hit by an airplane or even a significant amount of debris from the other two, right?

Don't tell me you haven't heard the incredible tale of Building 7?!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 20, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, please tell us specifically what the 011 Commissions Report writers think is wrong with the report...What is it they think is false.........They certainly don't believe there was an inside joke er Job.......
> ...



And not once does anyone tell us what the lies were.........How very odd..........


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 20, 2012)

paulitician said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I notice no one has anything to say about the youtube video showing the false claim of free fall......
> ...



Because you cannot disprove the facts.....There was no free fall.... You can see it I can see it , the world saw it....

The clock does not lie.....no way to make 15 seconds and 20+ seconds into 9 seconds......


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 20, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I notice no one has anything to say about the youtube video showing the false claim of free fall......
> ...



Show me the molten steel. Just because someone says they saw it does not mean that is what it was, Could have been lead from the batteries on the 81st floor, Probably was aluminum which was prevalent in the construction, and all through the offices. But there is no proof that it was steel, what happened to it when it cooled? where are the pictures of it?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 20, 2012)

paulitician said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Got to keep spreading the truth. By the way, our government has done plenty wrong, but I won't go into other topics......


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 20, 2012)

Do you know the best way to tell that the Truth Movement is totally insignificant in this country?


Big Bird was a factor in the election, and they weren't.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 20, 2012)

Capstone said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who believes that a demolition team can rig two office buildings to come down without anyone in the office buildings knowing about it is a much bigger idiot and/or tool.
> ...



And several others were so damaged that they had to be demolished afterward. One of them was even "PULLED"...... How about that shit, they Pulled building 6...... Notice they did not "Pull" building 7.....


----------



## Capstone (Dec 20, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> And several others were so damaged that they had to be demolished afterward. [...]



And?

Only three high-rise office buildings (WTC 1, 2, and 7) collapsed in a matter of seconds on Tuesday, 9/11/01.

Did you miss my other posts, BTW?

Your silence is deafening.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 20, 2012)

Capstone said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who believes that a demolition team can rig two office buildings to come down without anyone in the office buildings knowing about it is a much bigger idiot and/or tool.
> ...



I'm sorry, I stand corrected. 
Anyone who believes that a demolition team can rig three office buildings to come down without anyone in the office buildings knowing about it is a much bigger idiot and/or tool.


----------



## Capstone (Dec 20, 2012)

PredFan said:


> I'm sorry, I stand corrected.
> Anyone who believes that a demolition team can rig three office buildings to come down without anyone in the office buildings knowing about it is a much bigger idiot and/or tool.



No need to apologize.

As to how the demolition teams got around security and escaped detection by the daily occupants of the three fallen towers, we can only speculate.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 20, 2012)

Capstone said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry, I stand corrected.
> ...



All you have is speculation..........


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 20, 2012)

paulitician said:


> 9/11 Conspiracy Solved: Names, Connections, & Details Exposed! - YouTube!



Jeezzus do all Ron Paul supporters have to be such losers. Damn Paulitician, I actually thought you were one of the good ones. Actually make great points a lot of the time.  However, it you buy in 9/11 troofer, then that negates anything positive you say!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 20, 2012)

BTW, Most accesses to roofs of office type buildings are locked.....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 20, 2012)

GHook93 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 Conspiracy Solved: Names, Connections, & Details Exposed! - YouTube!
> ...



One of the reasons RP never got close.......


----------



## Capstone (Dec 20, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> All you have is speculation..........



That's not really fair, Ollie; even _you_ have admitted that we also have some interesting '_coincidences_'. 

Sometimes I wonder, when will the MOUNTAIN of _coincidences_ become too tall for even the stubbornest advocates of the _Official Conspiracy Theory_ to overcome. Maybe only time will tell.


----------



## creativedreams (Dec 20, 2012)

Capstone said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry, I stand corrected.
> ...



All three World Trade Center buildings that collapsed within their own footprint underwent many months of construction renovations....some of which actually included work on the vertical steel support columns...

The company that did the many months of construction renovations on the WTC Buildings up to the very day of 9/11 just happened to of had its CEO appointed by Bush to the President's Commission on White House Fellows shortly after 9/11

Here is a copy of another post made in a different thread that seems to fit here...


Funny how the "debunking" propaganda focused on *HORIZONTAL* trusses and completely ignored the many *VERTICAL* steel  support columns that were fastened and welded from bedrock all the way up to the top floor, virtually making them one length of steel. 

Somehow all these *VERTICAL* steel support columns removed themselves *ALL THE WAY DOWN* fast enough so that if a bowling ball were dropped right beside, the top floor still hit the ground almost as fast...even though it had to crush its way *ALL THE WAY DOWN * through the many *VERTICAL* steel support columns that were fastened and welded all the way down

Love how the bought and paid for "debunking" propaganda to sway the masses focused on the *HORIZONTAL* trusses and ignored the real issue of the many *VERTICAL* steel support columns

http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/102766-history-channel-and-popular-mechanics-hijacked-no-pun-intended.html

Building 7 which just happened to have some type of reinforced sky bunker, tree fort, or what ever you wish to call it built into the 23rd floor just before 9/11...was a block long building
The block long World Trade Center 7 just happened to have its *VERTICAL* steel support colums at each end of the building a block apart fail at the exact same time...also having its top floor hit the ground almost as fast as a bowling ball would...even though the top floor had to crush its way *ALL THE WAY DOWN * through the many *VERTICAL* steel support columns that were fastened and welded all the way up


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 20, 2012)

PredFan said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone that believes 3 steel-framed buildings can collapse at freefall speed INTO THEIR OWN FOOTPRINT, WITHOUT the aid of explosive demolition, is an idiot or a tool.
> ...



When the work can be done over several months under the cover of 'upgrading the broadband' and the crews can work 24/7 with continual 'power downs' and security lapses please tell me how it can be that hard?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 20, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



According to Silverstein, the building OWNER, that's EXACTLY what they did...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk]Larry Silverstein admits WTC7 was pulled down on 9/11 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 20, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgCvesfSjaI]9/11 Molten Metal Proof - Inside Job.flv - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 20, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...



Do you have any clue what the word Pull means in demolition?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 20, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



This is proof? People talking? The closest thing here that comes to proof of molten steel is the meteorite and it has rebar stuffed all through it. Rebar!!!.....Something that would melt long before steel.....


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 20, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I know it has nothing to do with cables and winches, wiseass. It's a term that has been around controlled demolition for decades.

And if that's what Silverstein meant, why do we not see cables and winches attached to Bldg. 7?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 20, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Rebar IS steel, moron... and I see NO evidence of ANY rebar "stuffed all through it". 

Care to point it out?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 20, 2012)

That is exactly what it means and that is how they pulled Bldg 6 dumbass..... Cables.....

Damn you must be 911insidejoke you're about as dense as he/she /it is.......


----------



## creativedreams (Dec 20, 2012)

Here is a thread started that seems to fit this discussion:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/104497-new-yorks-ungrateful-ny-firefighters-never-thanked-larry-silverstein.html

I'd like to pay tribute to Larry Silverstein who is a hero who displayed his firefighting genius when faced with a tough firefighting strategy decision while sitting in his office at his desk when called and asked what strategy to fight the fire with by the NY Firefighter Commander over the phone.

When the NY Firefighter Commander was at wits end on how to battle the fire in Building #7 he made a Command decision to call Larry Silverstein and ask for his expertise on the situation. Larry Silverstein showed his brilliance over the phone when he uttered the words "pull it" to the NY Firefighter Chief that led to the evacuation of Building #7 saving the lives of many NY Firefighters.

Perhaps every NY Firechief should have a hot-line directly to Larry Silverstein when faced with a tough firefighting strategy decision?

Perhaps at Ground Zero there should be a statue of Larry Silverstein sitting at his desk on the phone.... commemorating the very moment he uttered the words "pull it" to the NY Firefighting commander at wits end on what firefighting strategy decision to make?

If we can get the Larry Silverstein statue at Ground Zero we should have a TV monitor next to the engraving with a button to push that plays this commemorating video.

The statue should double as a radio tower to transfer a direct signal from Larry Silverstein to every NY Firefighting Commander. When the NY Firefighting Commanders are at wits end and think they may not be able to contain a fire they should be able to contact Larry Silverstein at any time at his office desk.

Watch the video I just posted and Larry Silverstein himself tells the compelling story of the NY Firefighting commander calling him saying he may not be able to contain the fire and Larry gives him the advice.

Larry Silverstein is a humble man who looks for no credit but I say we give credit where credit is due.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk]Larry Silverstein admits WTC7 was pulled down on 9/11 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 20, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Nope, What you see is what is there, maybe you should look closer.

Yes rebar is steel, but not the same steel as a girder would be. But it is stuck in your meteorite without melting, so I guess there goes your molten steel out the window again.......


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 20, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> That is exactly what it means and that is how they pulled Bldg 6 dumbass..... Cables.....
> 
> Damn you must be 911insidejoke you're about as dense as he/she /it is.......



If you are correct we should be able to see the cables and winches attached to Bldg. 7 prior to it's destruction. 

That's what Silverstein was referring to, is it not?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 20, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > That is exactly what it means and that is how they pulled Bldg 6 dumbass..... Cables.....
> ...



no dumbass, he was referring to pulling the teams that were trying to fight the fires.

This is Pulling.....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v2yud3aCGQ]WTC 9/11 building 6 pull it - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 20, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Not hardly, dumbass. Rebar not totally inundated by the molten steel wouldn't get hot enough to melt, that's why you can see it on the OUTSIDE of the mass. 

It would probably take x-rays to prove it, but I'm fairly certain that in the middle of that mass you wouldn't be able to distinguish rebar from the rest of it.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 20, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Lying tool, he said "Pull IT", not "pull THEM"...

Go watch it again if you don't believe me...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 20, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



The rest of it being mostly concrete and office debris........


----------



## creativedreams (Dec 20, 2012)

Here is a thread started that seems to fit this discussion...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/104497-new-yorks-ungrateful-ny-firefighters-never-thanked-larry-silverstein.html

I'd like to pay tribute to Larry Silverstein who is a hero who displayed his firefighting genius when faced with a tough firefighting strategy decision while sitting in his office at his desk when called and asked what strategy to fight the fire with by the NY Firefighter Commander over the phone.

When the NY Firefighter Commander was at wits end on how to battle the fire in Building #7 he made a Command decision to call Larry Silverstein and ask for his expertise on the situation. Larry Silverstein showed his brilliance over the phone when he uttered the words "pull it" to the NY Firefighter Chief that led to the evacuation of Building #7 saving the lives of many NY Firefighters.

Perhaps every NY Firechief should have a hot-line directly to Larry Silverstein when faced with a tough firefighting strategy decision?

Perhaps at Ground Zero there should be a statue of Larry Silverstein sitting at his desk on the phone.... commemorating the very moment he uttered the words "pull it" to the NY Firefighting commander at wits end on what firefighting strategy decision to make?

If we can get the Larry Silverstein statue at Ground Zero we should have a TV monitor next to the engraving with a button to push that plays this commemorating video.

The statue should double as a radio tower to transfer a direct signal from Larry Silverstein to every NY Firefighting Commander. When the NY Firefighting Commanders are at wits end and think they may not be able to contain a fire they should be able to contact Larry Silverstein at any time at his office desk.

Watch the video I just posted and Larry Silverstein himself tells the compelling story of the NY Firefighting commander calling him saying he may not be able to contain the fire and Larry gives him the advice.

Larry Silverstein is a humble man who looks for no credit but I say we give credit where credit is due.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk]Larry Silverstein admits WTC7 was pulled down on 9/11 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 20, 2012)

Fucking idiot.............


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 20, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> Fucking idiot.............



Yes, yes you are...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 20, 2012)




----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 20, 2012)

While you're yawning, Gomer, tell us what Silverstein said in that interview.

IT or THEM?


----------



## Capstone (Dec 20, 2012)

Back to the Twins...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o]Firemen Explosion Testimony - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdoBiSb_KbI]9/11 The FBI Believes There Were Explosions In The Buildings When The Planes Hit - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsUvQLkmVqA]9/11 FDNY Chief of Safety, Albert Turi Describes Bombs And Secondary Explosions Killing Responders - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Capstone (Dec 20, 2012)

Who could forget about this WTC7 classic:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53n6exShLx0]9/11 WTC 7 May Collapse or Has Collapsed CNN 4:20pm - YouTube[/ame]

That's CNN telling us WTC 7 has collapsed or is going to collapse an hour before it actually happened.


----------



## Capstone (Dec 20, 2012)

Bookmark this page, People. 

Videos like these tend to disappear.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 21, 2012)

Your videos have been around forever they will not disappear, Because they prove nothing, just TV correspondents talking and reporting before the facts are known, or getting the story wrong. As they tend to do when trying to get the exclusive first report on something.... Look at the recent shooting in Sandy Hook, there was more shit put out by the media that wasn't true we still can't tell fact from fiction...

Which is your problem with 9-11


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 21, 2012)

So CNN said building 7 MAY collapse after watching the Twin Towers collapse.

Well, that convinces me. Definitely an inside jobbity-job-job.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 21, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> While you're yawning, Gomer, tell us what Silverstein said in that interview.
> 
> IT or THEM?



He said pull IT. "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from WTC 7 for safety reasons." 

There were no firefighters in the building to "pull".

Besides-
"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 &#8211; since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall."

Shame On Jesse Ventura! | Fox News

..but the US Department of State contends that Silverstein's "pull it" statement refers to withdrawing firefighters from WTC 7. If this was the case then firefighters should have received a message which said something like "World Trade 7 is unsafe. Abandon the building and withdraw from the area."

Okay, let's have a look at the language used by firefighters withdrawing from the area of WTC 7:

"It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."


How could he ask permission to CD WTC 7, when according to both sides of this issue, it would take months to prep such a huge structure?

Most of three other buildings in the complex, 4, 5 and 6 World Trade, stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire.

CRAIG BARTMER NYPD: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw..."

All that aside...Just looking at the way it fell in on itself should be enough to cause suspicion that sporadic and moving fires did not cause this building to "collapse" with all the trade marks of a professional CD. But idiots ignore their own eyes and common sense, simply because no one saw a CD crew? As if they would make something like this so fucking obvious...


----------



## paulitician (Dec 21, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I still don't get why you hang around on a Conspiracy Theory Forum. Big Brother can do no wrong as far as you're concerned. You've made your point. Probably time for you to move on now.


----------



## paulitician (Dec 21, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



 Government and Truth? Now that's hilarious. Man, you really are in a permanent state of Goose Stepper Bliss. Big Brother lies to you on a daily basis. So there is nothing surprising about him lying about 9/11. But hey, enjoy your delusional bliss i guess.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 21, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> Your videos have been around forever they will not disappear, Because they prove nothing, just TV correspondents talking and reporting before the facts are known, or getting the story wrong. As they tend to do when trying to get the exclusive first report on something.... Look at the recent shooting in Sandy Hook, there was more shit put out by the media that wasn't true we still can't tell fact from fiction...
> 
> Which is your problem with 9-11



Yes we can.
FACT- kerosene does not burn with the constant heat needed to melt or weaken steel like spaghetti noodles.

FICTION-Is believing that it does.

FACT- It was reported many times that WTC 7 was going to be coming down after Silverstein said "pull it"

FACT- No other massive steel structured hi rise has ever experienced a total global collapse due to fire----EVER.

FICTION-Is believing that this happened 3 times in one day due to fire.

FACT- Physics laws state and prove that momentum of a falling object IF met with resistance BY A STATIONARY OBJECT, will alter the movement and speed of the falling structure/object.

 FACT- NIST stated that free fall would be impossible regarding WTC 7 because there would be RESISTANCE.

FACT- NIST stated that the buildings fell with minimal resistance.

FACT- NIST then changed their story and stated that indeed WTC 7 experienced free fall, which means it had a period of free fall that included 8 stories that fell WITH NO RESISTANCE.

FACT- The mass of those 8 stories did not move out of the way of the collapsing upper stories all by themselves.

FACT- Fire can not and never has caused, and never will again, be capable of doing this.
unless the supporting points within the steel structure are subjected to temps capable of overcoming the steels properties, at the same time and duration.

FICTION-What NIST has said caused the collapses of all 3 buildings.

FACT-Those that disregard physics and science, and the many instances that NIST has back tracked and changed their reports to fit a fire only scenario, are fucking idiots.


----------



## creativedreams (Dec 21, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > While you're yawning, Gomer, tell us what Silverstein said in that interview.
> ...



Excellent post...sadly he will ignore this and keep spewing his bullshit

How about those Israeli Mossad arrested on 9/11 near the World Trade Centers in vans that triggered bomb sniffing dogs etc with evidence of explosives...held in jail for awhile...only to be released and deported by the top of America's pyramid scheme...

Not to mention dancing Israeli's dressed up to frame Muslims filming in front of the World Trade Centers on 9/11...likely to be used as some type of propaganda video if they hadn't been seen and arrested under suspicion...

Hope you don't mind if I repeat this...

Building 7 which just happened to have some type of reinforced sky bunker, tree fort, or what ever you wish to call it built into the 23rd floor just before 9/11...was a block long building

The block long World Trade Center 7 just happened to have its *VERTICAL* steel support colums at each end of the building a block apart fail at the exact same time...also having its top floor hit the ground almost as fast as a bowling ball would...even though the top floor had to crush its way *ALL THE WAY DOWN * through the many *VERTICAL* steel support columns that were fastened and welded all the way up


All three World Trade Center buildings that collapsed within their own footprint underwent many months of construction renovations....some of which actually included work on the vertical steel support columns...

The company that did the many months of construction renovations on the WTC Buildings up to the very day of 9/11 just happened to of had its CEO appointed by Bush to the President's Commission on White House Fellows shortly after 9/11

Here is a copy of another post made in a different thread that seems to fit here...


Funny how the "debunking" propaganda focused on *HORIZONTAL* trusses and completely ignored the many *VERTICAL* steel  support columns that were fastened and welded from bedrock all the way up to the top floor, virtually making them one length of steel. 

Somehow all these *VERTICAL* steel support columns removed themselves *ALL THE WAY DOWN* fast enough so that if a bowling ball were dropped right beside, the top floor still hit the ground almost as fast...even though it had to crush its way *ALL THE WAY DOWN * through the many *VERTICAL* steel support columns that were fastened and welded all the way down

Love how the bought and paid for "debunking" propaganda to sway the masses focused on the *HORIZONTAL* trusses and ignored the real issue of the many *VERTICAL* steel support columns

http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/102766-history-channel-and-popular-mechanics-hijacked-no-pun-intended.html


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 21, 2012)

> The block long World Trade Center 7 just happened to have its VERTICAL steel support colums at each end of the building a block apart fail at the exact same time...also having its top floor hit the ground almost as fast as a bowling ball would...even though the top floor had to crush its way ALL THE WAY DOWN through the many VERTICAL steel support columns that were fastened and welded all the way up



Anyone who honestly watches the videos, that is the complete videos of the fall of WTC7 can see that it was a progressive collapse. Both ends did not fall at the same time. One of the penthouses fell into the center of the building first, then the rest followed from that end to the other with the exception of the facade which somehow remained for a few seconds...

But no one expects truthers to be honest about much.........


----------



## daws101 (Dec 21, 2012)

Capstone said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who believes that a demolition team can rig two office buildings to come down without anyone in the office buildings knowing about it is a much bigger idiot and/or tool.
> ...


cue buzzer ! 
wtc7 was hit by a huge amount of debris :What caused the fires in WTC 7?
Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors-7 through 9 and 11 through 13-burned out of control. These lower-floor fires-which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed-were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation
if not for the planes crashing into the towers there would have been no fires in wtc7
so when you make this statement :"even though one of them hadn't been hit by an airplane"--capstone.
it's inaccurate!


----------



## daws101 (Dec 21, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


[ame=http://youtu.be/1uxlrcQL5Dk]WTC 7 - Pull means pull with cables - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 21, 2012)

2012 Presidential election topics.

Big Bird - Check
Horses and bayonets - Check
Binders full of women - Check
Flexibility - Check
New 9/11 investigation - Buzzzzz, wrong answer



9/11 Truth, faded away into obscurity for over 11 years.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 21, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Your videos have been around forever they will not disappear, Because they prove nothing, just TV correspondents talking and reporting before the facts are known, or getting the story wrong. As they tend to do when trying to get the exclusive first report on something.... Look at the recent shooting in Sandy Hook, there was more shit put out by the media that wasn't true we still can't tell fact from fiction...
> ...


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 21, 2012)

daws101 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Funny thing, I didn't see the FIRST cable or pulley attached to Bldg. 7, DID YOU??


----------



## daws101 (Dec 21, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



that's because there wasn't one ..as a matter of fact there was no one in wtc7 when it fell ...there were no reports of ant death or injuries associated with it either.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 21, 2012)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Then why use the term? Unless, of course, it is commonly understood to mean 'controlled demolition'...



> ..as a matter of fact there was no one in wtc7 when it fell ...there were no reports of ant death or injuries associated with it either.



Not according to Barry Jennings...


----------



## ERGO (Dec 21, 2012)

daws101 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



You got to be kidding me, do you really think Larry Silverstein meant pulling WTC 7 down with a steel cable? Pulling a building down with a steel cable that is in a very very weaken state may be practical, but not a building that is structurally sound with 47 floors with other good buildings around it.  WTC 7 was still structurally sound and pulling down WTC 7 with a steel cable would be highly impractical and very difficult to do. Pulling WTC down with a steel cable would damage the other buildings around it. Do some research, when demolitionists use the term "pull it", it means to bring a building down with explosives. Larry Silverstein did not mean using a steel cable. When asked about this later his response was "I mis-spoke" (He weaseled out by lying of course). He didn't say he meant a steel cable.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 21, 2012)

ERGO you called this out before and you are correct,Dawgshit,Gomer Ollie and Moron In the Hat are paid agent trolls.They know it was an inside job as well as we do.They would never come back and post such moronic garbage and keep coming back to get their asses handed to them on a platter here everyday like they do for free.welcome to the world of Gomers logic.He really DOES make Gomer Pyle look like a genius.

this is all he knows how to sprout off when he is cornered.

dont forget to mention how when asked to clarify that he meant for the firefighters to pull out.somehow all of a sudden,the firefighters all of a sudden are an IT. you can tell these guys are trolls easily cause bld 7 is the crux of the 9/11 coverup commission they cant get around.they cant get around barry jennings testimony where he mentioned that he heard explosives going off in the basement and that they occured before bld 7 collapsed which shreads to pieces the lies of NIST since they insist that the debris from the towers caused bld 7 to collapse due to fires.


----------



## ERGO (Dec 21, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> ERGO you called this out before and you are correct,Dawgshit,Gomer Ollie and Moron In the Hat are paid agent trolls.They know it was an inside job as well as we do.They would never come back and post such moronic garbage and keep coming back to get their asses handed to them on a platter here everyday like they do for free.welcome to the world of Gomers logic.He really DOES make Gomer Pyle look like a genius.
> 
> this is all he knows how to sprout off when he is cornered.



*I think this describes the situation very well...*


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 21, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > For example Barry Jennings, the guy he was with told a similar story yet he placed the explosions after or as the towers fell, not before....  But you go on believing.................
> ...



This stupid fuck agent troll is caught lying as always.Jennings immediately said the explosions took place in the basement BEFORE the towers fell which shreads to pieces the lies of the NIST report so this troll knowing he is defeated,resorts to lies as always.thats the ignorant logic of Gomer Ollie,the idiot that CLAIMS he has a high IQ. yeah thats hysterical this troll uses NIST'S computer stimulation as evidence.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 21, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


 
Dont you love it how when Gomer is cornered that when you mention we cant see any  cables, he retreats and makes up one lie after another to try and save face. 

Wow Gomer is really a bigger idiot than I ever imiagined.Females dont get into long discussions about 9/11 like I do or do any research on it.They dont make long lengthy posts when engaging in these discussions on 9/11 so any reasonable logical person would see I am a dude. 

Thats no slam against females,thats just how it is.they dont seem to have the desire to look into 9/11 for some reason.enough to go on message boards and discuss it anyways.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 21, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



as always.Gomer gets his ass handed to him on a platter.Thats true that pull it is a term used in demolitions.they proved that because there was this one radio talk show host that called into a demlotion company and asked the receptionist if the term pull it is ever used in their demolitions.she said she did not know and she would go ask one of the top demolition guys and she later came back and said that pull it indeed is a term used in demolitions.as always,Gomer loses. must suck being him.



Fucking idiot.............
Yes, yes you are... 



Gomer Ollie sure is.thats the UNDERSTATEMENT of the century.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 21, 2012)

paulitician said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



You got to remember Paul,if he did that,he wouldnt have a paying job anymore and he would be unemployed so thats why he keeps coming back for his constant ass beatings and is willing to humiliate and embarras himself here everyday year after year. You know he would NEVER do it for free you know?

the thing that is so laughable about Gomer and the way he debates is he CLAIMS that our videos we have shown have all been debunked when he has NEVER even tried proving it.comedy gold as always from Gomer. you to actually TRY and refute the facts your opponent presents,he never does.Notice how he ran off with his tail between his legs when Guy proved him wrong there WERE whistle blowers? what a chickenshit coward.

thats how he operates. He did exactly what I said he would do,run away and not try and refute them.He is too predicatable.


----------



## ERGO (Dec 21, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



As this video shows the folks over at Popular Mechanics are either lying or they don't know what they're talking about. It's hard for me to imagine that Popular Mechanics would state they never heard the term "pull it" for bringing a building down.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LZsQxy8XhnM#]--What Does "Pull It" Mean?-- - YouTube[/ame]!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 21, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



That's exactly what we're trying to tell you.......


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 21, 2012)

ERGO said:


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





Excellent find Ergo.Thanks for posting that.cheers.

Thats the radio show I was talking about which proves Gomer is a patheitc lying troll who never gets tired of getting his ass handed to him on a platter.I had forgotten what the title of that video was to be able to find it again so im glad you found it.Thanks again for proving to the whole world what a lying troll Gomer is and like always,is a loser.

off topic for a minute,have you seen this video here before ERGO? once people who think that just because it SOUNDS absurd that 9/11 is an inside job and dont know the facts of the case,the open minded objective people,once they see this video,they can then understand why the Bush administration would orchestrate this event against the american people.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...ally-believe-george-hw-bush-and-or-nixon.html


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 21, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Barry Jennings is the only person to ever make those observations. the guy that was with him didn't report any bodies. the firefighters didn't report any bodies, but you'll use their conversations as proof of molten steel.....

You truthers are so funny.....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 21, 2012)

ERGO said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



You are a fool or a liar.... You may take your pick.......


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 21, 2012)

two farts in a row from Gomer. 

amazing isnt it how his handlers are getting so worried that a lurker might come on here and see how Gomer has been exposed as the troll he is that they sent him back here so quickly to humiliate himself again? He sure is getting paid very well obviously for his ass beatings they keep sending him back for.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 21, 2012)

ERGO said:


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



Thank you for once again showing us that Bldg 7 was not Pulled........


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 21, 2012)

someone farted in here.

this is what Gomer keeps doing in his posts as he very well knows.



This troll is really going to suffer in the future for his participation in this coverup and he will find out the hard way money wont buy him the happiness he seeks and thinks he has.Bush sr and Clinton are already suffering greatly from the karma they committed of their murderous acts while in office with all kinds of health problems,thats just in THIS life now,they have not seen anything yet,when they leave this earth,they will suffer greatly in their  future afterlife in the worst way possible.expect the same to happen to Bush jr in the future as well when he gets older.same with gomer of course.


----------



## ERGO (Dec 21, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> ERGO said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



It's is you that is the misled fool. You honestly think that sporadic fires that weren't even hot enough to weaken the steel columns in WTC 7 caused all the steel columns to give out simultaneously and then the building proceeded to collapse symmetrically non-stop without any resistance all the way into it's own footprint? Demolition experts, that aren't corrupt that is, from around the world have stated on video and in articles, that it looked like a controlled demolition to them. That's because it was!

I'm going to repost this image just for you


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 21, 2012)

Sporadic fires? Really? You sure you want to go with that?


----------



## daws101 (Dec 21, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


how can sombody be so full of shit in so little space? 
actually -pull means just what they said it did.. (to pull a building with cables or or to pull firefighters out.)
2. Barry was lying.. and was rescued several hours before the collapse, so anything he said is not relevant to what or how wtc7 fell.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 21, 2012)

handjob posts alot and says nothing!


----------



## ERGO (Dec 21, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> Sporadic fires? Really? You sure you want to go with that?


Yes! 
spo·rad·ic  
/sp&#601;&#712;radik/
*Adjective
Occurring at irregular intervals or only in a few places; scattered or isolated.*


*HOW DID WORLD TRADE CENTER 7 FALL?*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw]HOW DID WORLD TRADE CENTER 7 FALL? - YouTube[/ame]

* Fire, Steel, & WTC 7 *
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMxRvoT_AeI]Fire, Steel, & WTC 7 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Dec 21, 2012)

ERGO said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Sporadic fires? Really? You sure you want to go with that?
> ...


wake up Dorothy! you're having that dream again.....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 21, 2012)

Sporadic fires that burned out of control for 7 hours or more? Really, sporadic? Something there doesn't pass the smell test.....


----------



## ERGO (Dec 21, 2012)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



"Pull it" is a demolition term for a controlled demolition with explosives. That's a fact! Larry Silverstein said "pull IT" not pull (them). Firemen are not an IT!... *IT * refers to an inanimate object, such as a building.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 21, 2012)

ERGO said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


another ignorant fuck ...you just said silverstein was lying...!!?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 21, 2012)

Ergo obviously is as stupid as the rest of the truthers. Anyone with any sense knows that Pull it has nothing to do with explosives.


----------



## ERGO (Dec 21, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> Sporadic fires that burned out of control for 7 hours or more? Really, sporadic? Something there doesn't pass the smell test.....



The point I was making is that the fires were scattered throughout the building.
Steel melts at 2800 F degrees. The steel columns in WTC 7 were thick steel. Those fires didn't get hot enough, nor could they have, to cause those thick columns to give out. The way the building collapsed all the thick steel columns gave out simultaneously and symmetrically (What could cause that?). All of WTC 7 was not ablaze. The fires were scattered throughout the building. Hot did scattered (sporadic) fires cause ALL the columns to give out simultaneously when a lot of the columns in WTC 7 weren't even exposed to fire? Again those fires weren't capable of causing the thick steel columns to even give out to begin with.
You just lack the intelligence to understand that the SCATTERED fires in WTC 7 could not have got hot enough to cause ALL the columns to give way simultaneously and symmetrically.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 21, 2012)

Fires that burn uncontrolled for 7+ hours are not sporadic nor really scattered...

And the building did not fall all at the same time it was a progressive collapse as anyone can see. first the penthouse fell into the inside of the building, then the supports gave way from east to west if my understanding of how the building sat is correct.

Most truther videos leave out the penthouse falling.....


----------



## ERGO (Dec 21, 2012)

daws101 said:


> ERGO said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You're either misrepresenting what I said or you didn't understand it. either way you're a low IQ monkey. I said he was lying about his reply when questioned about his statement about deciding to "pull it". His reply was I mis-spoke, I meant pull the fireman. *He's lying!*


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 21, 2012)

I seriously doubt he was lying. Things were pretty fucked up that day...


----------



## ERGO (Dec 21, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> Fires that burn uncontrolled for 7+ hours are not sporadic nor really scattered...
> 
> And the building did not fall all at the same time it was a progressive collapse as anyone can see. first the penthouse fell into the inside of the building, then the supports gave way from east to west if my understanding of how the building sat is correct.
> 
> Most truther videos leave out the penthouse falling.....



They were scattered throughout the building, that's the context I using the word sporadic for.... you're fucking moron!!

"The building did not fall at the same time it was a progressive collapse?" 

You're delusional, you don't know what you're talking about and you're not intelligent all. The building clearly falls down together AT THE SAME TIME symmetrically without any resistance. It's quite apparent that you don't have any understanding of physics whatsoever. You're a hammer head!


*Building 7 - Experts Explain It Was Controlled Demolition!*

watch and learn

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUdhdTXHcn4]Building 7 - Experts Explain It Was Controlled Demolition! - YouTube[/ame]

*Fireman and Police telling people to back up....notice what they're telling the people what's about to happen. Testimony after testimony of hearing explosions.*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg]Compiled Footage of Building 7&#39;s Collapse - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 21, 2012)

Gee, during your compilation I noticed that they simply cut out the falling into the building of the first penthouse, 9 seconds of the collapse that your truther video didn't bother to show.... Why is that?

And here are some video of the fires that you normally do not see on truther sites....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U]WTC 7 fires and south side hole - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 21, 2012)

You can attack me all you want. It doesn't make your stupidity any better......


----------



## ERGO (Dec 21, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> I seriously doubt he was lying. Things were pretty fucked up that day...



Larry Silverstein bought WTC 1 & 2  6 weeks before the false flag attack on 9-11-2001 and he took out insurance specifically for terrorism. 
Buying WTC 1 & 2 was not a good investment because the building needed to have the asbestos removed that would have cost millions of dollars to have removed.

Six months before the 9/11 attacks the World Trade Center was "privatized" by being leased to a private sector developer. The lease was purchased by the Silverstein Group for $3.2 billion. "This is a dream come true," Larry Silverstein said. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights."

But the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe.

From an economic standpoint, the trade center, subsidized since its inception, has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. 

How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?

Also, the towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built.

It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings. 

Other New York developers had been driven into bankruptcy by the costly mandated renovations, and $200 million represented an entire year's worth of revenues from the World Trade Towers.

Under a pending agreement, a developer and his investors will get back most of the down payment that they made to lease the World Trade Center just six weeks before a terrorist attack destroyed the twin towers. Developer Larry Silverstein and investors Lloyd Goldman and Joseph Cayre are nearing a deal that would give them about $98 million of their original investment of $124 million, The New York Times 

Instead of renovation, Silverstein is rebuilding, funded by the insurance coverage on the property which 'fortuitously' covered acts of terrorism. Even better, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, based on the two, in Silverstein's view, separate attacks. The total potential payout is $7.1 billion, more than enough to build a fabulous new complex and leave a hefty profit for the Silverstein Group, including Larry Silverstein himself.

As reported in The Washington Post, the insurance company, Swiss Re, has gone to court to argue that the 9/11 disaster was only one attack, not two and that therefore the insurance payout should be limited to $3.55 billion, still enough to rebuild the complex.

*Larry Silverstein is a lying PIG!*

Source link:Silverstein Makes a Huge Profit off of the 9/11 Attacks


----------



## ERGO (Dec 21, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> You can attack me all you want. It doesn't make your stupidity any better......



Gee...that has such special meaning for me coming from a DOLT like you.

Good Night hammer head


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 21, 2012)

So? Let the lawyers battle it out in the courts, And of course he would purchase terrorism insurance on a building that had already been a target of terrorism. You guys don't use common sense a lot do you?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 21, 2012)

ERGO said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > You can attack me all you want. It doesn't make your stupidity any better......
> ...



By the way, I'm sorry, but they just can't cure stupidity...........


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 21, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> Ergo obviously is as stupid as the rest of the truthers. Anyone with any sense knows that Pull it has nothing to do with explosives.



Anyone with any EXPERIENCE knows that is EXACTLY what it means. The term is common nomenclature in the CD field.

Lying pussball!


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 21, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> Fires that burn uncontrolled for 7+ hours are not sporadic nor really scattered...
> 
> And the building did not fall all at the same time it was a progressive collapse as anyone can see. first the penthouse fell into the inside of the building, then the supports gave way from east to west if my understanding of how the building sat is correct.
> 
> Most truther videos leave out the penthouse falling.....



Did the penthouse sit directly above the core columns? Yes.

Are the core columns the strongest vertical load bearers? Yes.

How did scattered fires, that never got hotter than 1,000 degrees, cause the strongest beams to give out first?

Hmmm?


----------



## Capstone (Dec 22, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> Your videos have been around forever they will not disappear,[...]


Oh, I know the videos are out there; it's just a matter of finding a YouTube account that's reliable enough for the purpose of citation (if you click on several of the links on this webpage ...you can see what I mean).



SFC Ollie said:


> [...]Because they prove nothing, just TV correspondents talking and reporting before the facts are known, or getting the story wrong. [...]



True to form, I see you're ignoring the eyewitness videos, most likely because *highly credible* reports of numerous "secondary explosions" (prior to the _collapses_) on or near floors well below the impact zone ...might actually be evidence of something, opting instead to focus on the premature reporting of WTC7's "collapse". No surprise there. 

Even so, what the erroneous CNN/BBC reports might corroborate are the numerous stories of emergency medical personnel and ground zero workers (Singh, McPadden, the 3 NJ EMT's, ETC.) who reported of being told to move away from building 7 (and even to relocate their triage area) because the building was going to "be brought down" (according to Indira Singh this happened early in the afternoon). With a bunch of unwitting reporters running around trying to outdo each other, it's easy to see how somebody may have jumped the gun. Granted, potentially corroborative evidence doesn't necessarily amount to "proof", but it's still noteworthy ...to say the least.


----------



## paulitician (Dec 22, 2012)

Authority-Worship is rampant in this country. It's all most Americans know. And it crosses Democrat/Republican Party-lines. Many consider themselves 'Rebels', but in reality most are just run-of-the-mill Authority-Worshippers. Our Government lies on a daily basis. So it shouldn't be surprising they lied about 9/11. Lying is just what they do. But Authority-Worshippers will never accept that. It is what it is.


----------



## Capstone (Dec 22, 2012)

paulitician said:


> Authority-Worship is rampant in this country. It's all most Americans know. And it crosses Democrat/Republican Party-lines. Many consider themselves 'Rebels', but in reality most are just run-of-the-mill Authority-Worshippers. Our Government lies on a daily basis. So it shouldn't be surprising they lied about 9/11. Lying is just what they do. But Authority-Worshippers will never accept that. It is what it is.



The two-party system in America is a fucking joke. BUT, until an outsider has a reasonable shot at slaying that double-headed dragon, all I can do is vote for the head that pisses me off the least.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 22, 2012)

ERGO said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Sporadic fires that burned out of control for 7 hours or more? Really, sporadic? Something there doesn't pass the smell test.....
> ...


as always twoofers cherry pick and minimize.
1. steel does not need to melt to lose it strength...misreprsenting are we?
2. What caused the fires in WTC 7?
Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors-7 through 9 and 11 through 13-burned out of control. These lower-floor fires-which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed-were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.

How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 22, 2012)

daws101 said:


> ERGO said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


As always you reply with the very thing that is the basis of the debate, as if regurgitating the NIST lies and inconclusive, and inconsistent bullshit is somehow going to be different
just because you repeat it.
And as always your answer is a disingenuous repeating pile of Dawgshit and one and leaves out any detail or substance or original thought process or that explains of steels properties and the effects of fire/heat upon it.
How about trying to explain how YOU think the NIST theory and guesses are correct?

You see,
In order to cause massive steel components to even be weakened by fire to the point of failure, the high temps have to be elevated and sustained for durations needed to effect  the steels critical failure point.
No proof of such temps has been provided by NIST or anyone else during the actual fires in the buildings. NIST actually discredits any high temperatures regarding the WTC fires.
Steel, when heated spreads the heat that is applied to it from the contact point, down its length and to other attached parts. This is why fireproofing is sprayed on steel members, not only to protect the actual steel from melting/weakening, but to protect whatever it may come into contact with, or in the vicinity of it.

How does one know about fires and heat and its effect on steel constructed buildings?
*There have been tests conducted on steel used in building construction.
In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments). 
*

In contrast, The physical tests NIST and Underwriters Laboratories performed for the investigation on the towers did not support the predetermined conclusions that NIST  sought to maintain.

 Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. 
Regarding the Twin Towers, they were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings.

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center, and he stated-
_Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there._

 A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.
_The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707&#8212;DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. _

If a steel structure would ever experience any sort of collapse due to extreme temperatures, the collapse would tend to remain localized to the area that experienced the high temperatures.
The kind of low-carbon steel used in buildings bends rather than shatters. If part of a structure is compromised by extreme temperatures, it may bend in that region, conceivably causing a large part of the structure to sag or even topple. However, there is no example of a steel structure crumbling into many pieces because of any combination of structural damage and heating, outside of the alleged cases of the Twin Towers and Building 7. 
There is a picture of a large steel member of one of the buildings involved bent into a large horse shoe. It did not crack in half and this is testament to the flexibility of steel, heated or not.

So in summary, hi rises constructed of steel spread the heat around like a huge heat sink.
Steel can withstand much hotter temperatures then what was involved at the WTC buildings without collapsing. This is also verified in historic records of other hi rise fires
around the world, and one that occurred in a WTC tower in 1975.
Any collapse would have initially started at the source of this extreme heat, and then would be signified by first bending, moving or toppling over in relation to these weakened parts reaching the critical point of failure.

Massive buildings constructed of high grade low carbon steel that was treated with fire retardant like the  WTC complex was, simply do not give way and fail due to heat that is below its critical failure point, from office combustibles, and collapse in on themselves while having the effected collapsing parts go right through the unaffected, thicker more robust middle and lower sections of the buildings and descend anywhere close to free fall acceleration.

There are no temps on record that would in any way suggest this. There are no historic record that suggest this is even a possibility, but there is significant factual testing that proves this CAN NOT happen even at temps above 88 C (1472 F).

After initially saying the steel must have "melted" it is now fully understood and excepted
even by you idiots, that this was impossible because the temps were too low for this to have occurred.
Weakened steel still does not account for the way any of the hi rises collapsed. Massive steel components do not simply lose all their strength and let go.
Because of what is widely known about fire, and its effect on steel, through testing, and historic record we know that
It takes extreme heat, above the critical failure point of steel, applied for long durations of time, at critical load bearing points to cause a complete global collapse, that would allow the falling mass to go right through the parts that were unaffected by fire and heat.
Those are the scientific and physical facts.
 Lying about them or ignoring them altogether wont change them, dufuss. Even if the  source is an agency like NIST, according to you idiots, the higher the authority the more likelihood that laws of physics and facts can be discounted and the more believable the lie? 



> 2. What caused the fires in WTC 7?


 Indeed, what did cause the WTC 7 fires that NIST admitted burned themselves out in parts of the building, but seemingly caused the still improperly explained "collapse"?
They have ruled out jet fuel, and diesel tanks. According to NIST "the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."
If the buildings were so vulnerable to collapse due to regular fires of unknown origin alone, wouldn&#8217;t they also be equally vulnerable to failure with just a small number of explosives? Seemingly, just one strategically placed on or near the column you and NIST stated was responsible, should have been sufficient.

The New York Times, quoting WTC 7 building owner Larry Silverstein explained that like most modern structures, WTC 7 was reinforced to survive structural damage: "We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity." 

But  office fires causing "thermal expansion" a "new phenomena" is being justified as the primary reason as causing a rapid, total, global collapse...Sure.

This explanation still does not take into account the above mentioned effects of fire/heat on treated high grade steel components, but apparently is enough to fool people into thinking it is possible, while circumventing the principles and laws of physics, and caused 8 stories consisting of tons of steel and building components to dissapear and allow  the upper part of the building to descend weightless for 2.25 seconds.



> Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors-7 through 9 and 11 through 13-burned out of control.



Other buildings that were within close proximity to the towers were hit by debris and were approximately the same distance away from WTC 1 include the World Financial Center buildings across West Street, the Deutsche Bank building across Liberty Street, and the Millennium Hotel across Church Street, and none of these other buildings caught on fire, though some of them sustained severe damage but did not collapse.
 Only Silverstein controlled buildings experienced the strange, 'collapses".

The damage to WTC 7 was asymmetric, confined to the tower's south side, and any weakening of the steelwork from fires would also be asymmetric. 
Thus, according to what we've learned about fire and its effect on steel, any physical or  damage by fire sufficient enough to cause the whole building to collapse, would have caused it to fall over asymmetrically, towards the south. But WTC 7 fell straight down, through the fortified parts quoted by Silverstein above, and through the path of most resistance.



> These lower-floor fires-which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed-were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings.


 That's very true, and yet non of the other buildings in other instances that were essentially towering infernos, experienced collapses that included period of free fall. No thermal expansion, or magical scenarios
no collapses period.



> The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.



So the reported physical damage after WTC 1 collapsed-
Southwest corner damage extended over Floors 8 to 18 
Damage was observed on the south face
Apparently the fires in WTC 7 traveled upwards according to different sources. 
One would think that a fire wouldn&#8217;t travel upwards very fast in a building with concrete floor slabs, but these fires had burned out by early afternoon on Floors 19, 21, 22, 29, and 30 along the west face near the southwest corner.
However, even in the Twin Towers, which were obviously damaged a lot worse than WTC 7, the fires didn&#8217;t travel up very far from the impact zones.

So allegedly, the fire had already reached floor 30 and burned out there before 2 p.m.
Around 2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
some fires are observed on the east face, Floors 11 and 12 at the southeast corner. 

3:00 to 5:00 p.m.
 Around 3 p.m., fires were observed on Floors 7 and 12 along the north face. The fire on floor 12 appeared to bypass the northeast corner and was first observed at a point approximately one third of the width from the northeast corner, and then spread both east and west across the north face.
 Some time later, fires were observed on Floors 8 and 13, with the fire on Floor 8 moving from west to east and the fire on Floor 13 moving from east to west. Figure L&#8211;24b shows fires on Floors 7 and 12.
 At this time, the fire on Floor 7 appeared to have stopped progressing near the middle of the north face.
The above observations are from NIST. 
The fire on Floor 7 was moving west to east along the north face and stopped somewhere in the middle. The fire on floor 7 apparently did not find its way to the east side.

By mid-to-late afternoon, the fires seem to be on lower floors only, no higher than floor 13. The fires on upper floors all seem to have burned out and not traveled up any further.

The fire on Floor 8 continued to move east on the north face, eventually reaching the northeast corner and moving to the east face.
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

The fire on Floor 12 has burned out by this time, but the fire on Floor 7, which has been constant from almost the very beginning, still has not burned out. Nor has the fire yet reached all parts of the 7th floor either. It never seems to have reached the east side, at least not any place visible from outside. It seems to have stopped somewhere in the middle.

It has been hypothesized that a very long-lasting fire on floor 7 could have caused the collapse of the building. 
As the FEMA report says, &#8220;It is important to note that floors 5 through 7 contained structural elements that were important to supporting the structure of the overall building. The 5th and 7th floors were diaphragm floors that contained transfer girders and trusses. These floors transferred loads from the upper floors to the structural members and foundation system that was built prior to the WTC 7 office tower. Fire damage in the 5th to 7th floors of the building could, therefore, have damaged essential structural elements.&#8221;

Why did the fire on Floor 7 (and, to a lesser extent, the fire on Floor 6) last so long? The FEMA report notes, on page 5-23, that this is at least a little bit odd: &#8220;It is currently unclear what fuel may have been present to permit the fires to burn on these lower floors for approximately 7 hours.&#8221;

However, when WTC 7 collapsed, the east penthouse dropped first, suggesting that something happened to the easternmost core columns. Some experts believe, furthermore, that a failure of just column 79, the northeastern most core column, could have triggered a failure of all the other core columns and then the entire building. 
But, the fires on floors 6 and 7 apparently never progressed to the east side. 

So then, what could have done in the easternmost core columns?

It can be argued that WTC 7 was more vulnerable because it had already suffered some structural damage due to the debris from WTC 1. But that structural damage, was pretty much confined to the south face. 
 It might also have affected a core column or two, but, apparently, not any of the easternmost core columns that are believed to have started the collapse. (See the NIST preliminary report, Figure L-23c, on p. L-23.) In particular, column 79, believed by some to have been the most likely culprit, was far away from any structural damage due to debris.
So even the damage and the fires don't exactly explain the way the 47 story building came down with the trade marks of a CD. A straight, smooth descent that included free fall time. 
There doesn't appear to be anything that makes sense when one takes the time to acquaint themselves with steel and hi rise construction, and the effects fire has on it. Including historic and testing data and information. Thermal expansion isn't even a high priority in regards to heat or cold.

Remarkably in only 10 days Controlled Demolition, Inc. submitted a plan to remove the remains of Ground Zero.

HOWEVER, the company makes no claims for the demolition records that would have been established on 9/11. Their website claims the Detroit Hudson Department Store at 439 feet dropped in October, 1998 is the tallest structural steel building ever imploded.
IN ADDITION, CDI, Inc. is MUCH SLOWER than the NYFD that Silverstein claimed 'pulled' WTC7.

Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI's 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the (Hudson Store) complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI's implosion design.
CDI's 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition. 


> How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
> The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.



Highly unlikely, and not scientifically proven. The fires and damage are not consistent with the observed results. Even the computer simulation is not consistent with the observed results. Besides if this building was seemingly so vulnerable to an instance of fire and heat on just one column, wouldn&#8217;t it also be equally vulnerable to failure with just a small number of explosives or cutting agent? 



> According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.


 Again not consistent with the fire, fuel loads, or placement, physics and momentum of massive steel structures and components. Uncontrolled fires in other buildings have never caused them to collapse.


> Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.


 EVENTUALLY is a word that needs to be stressed here. The weakening of massive steel parts takes time. The steel bends and moves as the critical failure point is slowly reached. The mass of this building does not seemingly just get out of the way and allow the upper parts to fall in it, in a straight down descent.




> The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.


This wild hypothesis is not supported by any evidence. Their computer simulation of it is a joke, and does not match the observed results. The fuel loads, fire travel, and temperatures do not coincide with the steels critical failure point. NIST CONDUCTED A FRAUDULENT INVESTIGATION. An outcome of arson, or pre planted devices could not be allowed to come to light as the ramifications were considered a national security risk and 
resulted in mass upheaval and unrest in American society. This is why the reports and investigations were severely hampered, falsified, and most of the evidence was destroyed immediately. There were people in positions of authority to allow this to take place, and coincided with pre arranged planning to take this nation to war.
People have come forward from different fields including military, government administration, science, construction, physics and others

The WTC 7 hinges on one cloumn, with wild hypothesis on never before occurring scenarios. Evidence of fore knowledge is available, including reports of Silverstein asking his insurance company for permission to CD WTC 7. Witness testimony available to the American public, that was suppressed, officials caught in lies and laughing about non existant WMD's while your people died in vain looking for them.... and the list goes on and on



> Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


 Bullshit  nonsensical wild guesses of the most improbable imaginable.

Forget about the diesel fuel,
Oh, and forget about the damage caused by the falling towers, too
Molten metal? What molten metal?
Paper thin steel and sulfidation? What paper thin steel and sulfidation?
Explosive thermite? What explosive thermite?


In order for the NIST theory to even be considered plausible, they would have to acknowledge the extremely high temperatures that were found underneath all 3 WTC buildings. You know the ones they acted so incredulous about.
So lets get this straight.
They have to assume that the fire temps were indeed of high temperatures for the needed durations and at the critical load bearing points to cause the collapses, BUT, they don't even acknowledge the ridiculously high temps withing the 3 buildings rubble piles that took 3 months to extinguish..That could possibly explain the high temperatures to begin with.....But then if they did acknowledge the high temps in the rubble piles, they then would have to explain the source of them....in all 3 WTC building complexes wouldn't they? So knowing that there are morons like you and others that are either easily duped, and or terrified cowards about the consequences...they just said fuck it...
Here ya go...fires and "thermal expansion"...feel better?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 23, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > ERGO said:
> ...



these paid shills are going to have to go to their handlers to try and think up some clever lies to try and get around this post so expect them to be gone a long time before they come back.You just know they are spending hours on the phone with them sicussiin what kind of propaganda to post to try and get around this post of yours.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 23, 2012)

by the way Jones,you really dont need to go into all that detail.All you got to do is post this below and watch them run off with their tails between their legs acting like it was never posted.


something else not covered in that video that should be mentioned is not one of these agent trolls that have penetrated this site ever have an explanation for these facts.In that video they say-the 9/11 commission acted like this guy didnt even exist.

they of course are talking about Barry Jennings.One thing NONE of these agent trolls that have penetrated this site has EVER been able to address and wont is bld 7 which is the crux of the 9/11 commission in the fact that the towers neighbors were MUCH closer to the towers so they had far more extensive damage done to them and far worse fires than bld 7 yet those towers did not collapse but bld 7 did even though it was MUCH further away from them.

NONE of these paid agent trolls here ever have an answer for that and never address that because they know they are cornered and cant counter it so they act like I never even posted this fact just like you will because it proves there was an inside job since barry jennings, that man they are talking about the 9/11 commission said didnt even exist,immediately that day in an interview with reporters, talked about hearing explosions in the basement of bld 7 and they occured before the towers fell which shreads to pieces the lies of the NIST report that the debris from the towers caused bld 7 to collapse.

Nobody here has ever been able to get around that fact.thats why Barry Jennings died mysteriously two days before the NIST report came out because his testimony shreads to pieces their lies.The pattern is the same as the kennedy assassination,just like in that case,many people who gave versions different than the governments ended up dying in mysterious deaths. 


Never fails they do that EVERYTIME.watch.

however if you posted that for the truthers who WILL actually read it,then thanks.good information there.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 23, 2012)

Once again, One person who claims to have heard these explosions before  the towers fell.....

And the person with him at the time gives a different timeline, and a different story.

No audio recordings of these explosions and no recordings of these explosions in any means, just one guy.....


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 24, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> Once again, One person who claims to have heard these explosions before  the towers fell.....
> 
> And the person with him at the time gives a different timeline, and a different story.
> 
> No audio recordings of these explosions and no recordings of these explosions in any means, just one guy.....



Bullshit. Now you're stuck on stupid about explosions. The things you argue about and deny, in no way substantiate  AGAINST the things I  posted about the "collapses" or validate anything else about the 9-11 attacks as told to you by the state. Fucking nimrod.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 24, 2012)

mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > ergo said:
> ...



edited for wall of text and fictional content!
When reading twoofer posts keep in mind the longer the post the deeper the bullshit!


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 24, 2012)

daws101 said:


> mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Denial, more than just a river in Egypt...


----------



## daws101 (Dec 24, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > mr. Jones said:
> ...


true! and you're drowning in it!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 25, 2012)

daws101 said:


> mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Ha, you edited your own fictional content. You can't rebuttal anything even with help.


----------



## paulitician (Dec 26, 2012)

Just like the Bin Laden assassination, their 9/11 story is complete fiction. I'll never get why so many are so loyal to Big Brother. I guess they're so used to being lied to, they've become numb to it.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 26, 2012)

You really should read the book.........


----------



## daws101 (Dec 26, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > mr. Jones said:
> ...


anybody who posts on Christmas is truly delusional!---I knew you were true nut job ..this just cements it!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 26, 2012)

daws101 said:


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



You Zionist never take Christian holidays off, so neither should we. Have you nothing to say about the puke you posted concerning "thermal expansion"  was destroyed with fact and reason?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 26, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, One person who claims to have heard these explosions before  the towers fell.....
> ...



true to form,as I predicted,the paid troll evaded it.He wont address your post because his handlers have no answer for it just like I knew they wouldnt. Like he always does,he evaded your facts and changed the subject. Must suck being Gomer when he  knows i can predict him so easily.

Gomer also ignores that Jennings conveintly died a couple days before the NIST report came out which was obviously foul play since his testimony would shread to pieces the NIST report. Gomer also ignores that 9/11 follows the same pattern of the kennedy assassination,many people mysteriously dying who came forward because they gave versions of events different than the governments version.Just one wacky coincidence is the logic of the coincidence theorists,err the paid trolls.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 26, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


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



amen to that.

Just like the Bin Laden assassination, their 9/11 story is complete fiction. I'll never get why so many are so loyal to Big Brother. I guess they're so used to being lied to, they've become numb to it. 

pretty much.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 26, 2012)

Somebody just farted in here TWICE!!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 26, 2012)

Hey lookie here,the paid troll who has an obsession over me and like clockwork,posts IMMEDIATELY after i did.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 26, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF-CkMpQtlY]Monty Python - Village Idiots - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 26, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Addressed and slapped down, Now prove that Jennings was killed by the Government, or anyone for that matter.......... Put up or shut up....This should be interesting since we know you can't do either one.....


----------



## daws101 (Dec 26, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


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


another delusional assumption...why am I not surprized?
btw christmas is not a christian holiday, it's pagan.....
more proof your fact and reason is neither!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 26, 2012)

ah the TEAM arrives and full force to get each others back to shit on the floor some more.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 26, 2012)

anyways,great video here.have fun watching these paid trolls say this was just a coincidence.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 26, 2012)

Here's a song for the Truthers. (all 4 of them)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EclQVQGqnZ0&feature=related]Sam Kinison- Are You Lonesome Tonight - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Dec 26, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> ah the TEAM arrives and full force to get each others back to shit on the floor some more.


 that's "in full force"!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 26, 2012)

someone farted in here.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 26, 2012)

I never knew 9/11 wildcard job's name was Ross.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jrXzqsPdjP8]ROSS ANGRY ON COMPUTER - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 26, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> anyways,great video here.have fun watching these paid trolls say this was just a coincidence.
> 
> For those who STILL don&#39;t believe that 9 11 was an inside job - YouTube



Yep, that does it right there a fictional TV show proves all your weird dreams.....


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 26, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > anyways,great video here.have fun watching these paid trolls say this was just a coincidence.
> ...



Actually, what it proves is that we were lied to when we were told "Nobody ever *conceived* of the idea of terrorists flying planes into the Trade Center."


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 26, 2012)

Maybe who ever said that never saw the stupid TV show.... I didn't.... Of course i watch very little TV.....


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 26, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> Maybe who ever said that never saw the stupid TV show.... I didn't.... Of course i watch very little TV.....



You ever hear of 'Operation Northwoods'?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 26, 2012)

I don't know why the Truthers here are prattling on and on about thermite, explosives and metal expansion when their main leader said it was a directed energy beam from space.

Star Wars Energy Weapons 1

This is what Dickie the G wants exposed in a new investigation whenever he gets off his well fed ass and trundles "*The Petition*" down to Washington D.C.


----------



## paulitician (Dec 27, 2012)

Just assume Big Brother is lying to you...Because he is.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe who ever said that never saw the stupid TV show.... I didn't.... Of course i watch very little TV.....
> ...


yes ...it has no relationship to or bearing on what happened on 9/11...
it's the classic twoofer toss it at the wall and see if it sticks ploy...


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 27, 2012)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Actually, it has a significant relationship, because it proves the point that our military has dreamed up all kinds of scenarios to run psy-ops on the American people. 

To deny that is to deny you need oxygen to live.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 27, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe who ever said that never saw the stupid TV show.... I didn't.... Of course i watch very little TV.....
> ...



You mean the plan that is in the drawer right next to the one that calls on an invasion of Canada? Yeah we have lots of military operational plans that were never used or even considered.....


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 27, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



THAT is a bald-faced lie, Ollie.

Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962


> In his new exposé of the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets, author James Bamford highlights  a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS.  *This document, titled Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods.*  Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba.  These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington, including sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated), faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a Remember the Maine incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage.  Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.



The .pdf is at the link, it's obvious that you're unfamiliar with it.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 27, 2012)

Proposed....never acted upon......Just like the week I spent on Green Ramp waiting to load up to go after Idi Amin Dada...........The plans were presented and we were ready to go, but never got the green light....And that's only one such operation I knew about that never blossomed...

Northwoods never even made it that far.........


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 27, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> Proposed....never acted upon......Just like the week I spent on Green Ramp waiting to load up to go after Idi Amin Dada...........The plans were presented and we were ready to go, but never got the green light....And that's only one such operation I knew about that never blossomed...
> 
> Northwoods never even made it that far.........



Your original contention was that it was never considered. THAT is a lie. It came from the JCS and was presented to SecDef. 

Bet your ASS it was 'considered'...


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Proposed....never acted upon......Just like the week I spent on Green Ramp waiting to load up to go after Idi Amin Dada...........The plans were presented and we were ready to go, but never got the green light....And that's only one such operation I knew about that never blossomed...
> ...


so what! it's no proof that 911 was an inside job.......you can always dream....


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 27, 2012)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



He'll find a YouTubey that says it's proof any minute now.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2012)

two farts in a row from the agents trolls.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



the trolls always dodge that.they always make up the funniest shit like its a fake document and crap like that.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 27, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


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



exactly.condi rice goes and lied and said they could never have imiagined that.funny how somehow this network could imiagine that but these allegedly incompetent neocons in the Bush administration and the military were just a bunch of dumb clowns who were incompetent who could never envision something like that.yeah right. and that was the explanation of the governments how they pulled it off was they were just incompetent.

yeah they were so imcompetent that nobody in the administration or the military got fired for their incompetence.they sure lose their credibility around here.these people in the military even got PROMOTED for their incompetence. they sure get paid well for their ass beatings they alwats come back for all the time. all the people in congress who brought up that point that they should have been fired for their alleged incompetence,got fired from congress as well for not going along with the coverup.thats how our great congress and government works as these paid trolls know,they get rid of the GOOD politicians.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 27, 2012)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



It wasn't presented as "proof that 911 was an inside job", daws. Are you having trouble following the thread today?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 27, 2012)

Look at that. I post and less than 10 minutes later my puppet shows up.

Hey puppet, tell us how important you are. Or just make a fart post. I leave it to you to decide how you want to dance for me.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


then why was it presented at all? since it does not support the allegations in this thread....or do just love to hear yourself type?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 27, 2012)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



If you're not capable of reading the last 2 pages of this thread without adult supervision and help, maybe you should go back to your sandbox...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 27, 2012)

I believe it was presented as proof that the government lies to us.....

Guess what, True story, I once had a mission that took me to Groom lake..... You know what I saw while i was there? Neither do I.....   (The second part was the government lying to you.......)


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


ahww how cute...
but it's not an answer!
it's the same conspiracy shit you ass hats have been pulling out of your collective ass since Kennedy.
we all know the govenment lies ...that does not prove "they" lied about 911.
so until you have actual evidence corroborating  your myth...
it's just that. a myth.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 27, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> I believe it was presented as proof that the government lies to us.....
> 
> Guess what, True story, I once had a mission that took me to Groom lake..... You know what I saw while i was there? Neither do I.....   (The second part was the government lying to you.......)


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 28, 2012)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



This from the asshat who thinks that tons of steel turns to noodles at low temps, and that airplanes can disintegrate into the Pentagon, but human DNA is seemingly indestructible.
Yeah you know you've been lied to by "them" but it doesn't matter to you.


----------



## paulitician (Dec 28, 2012)

Most Americans have become completely numb to Big Brother's lying. Most not only expect to be lied to, but also actually defend the lying. It's kind of like that 'Stockholm Syndrome.' Most Americans now sympathize and cooperate with their Big Brother captor. They hate and attempt to marginalize those who tell them truth, while worshipping and defending those who routinely lie to them. Americans have become very confused. But i know it's not all their fault. It's the many many years of State Propaganda. It's all most know. More Americans just need to stand up and start demanding truth. They need to stop just accepting being lied to. I hope that happens one day. But i have to admit, i'm not all that optimistic.


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 28, 2012)

paulitician said:


> 9/11 Conspiracy Solved: Names, Connections, & Details Exposed! - YouTube!



Another useless and illogical argument from a Ron Paul nutter! I will point out I am against the assault weapons ban, so I am right of center on this issue. However, if you are going to make a argument against gun control make a good one.

Guns are made for one purpose - that is to harm or kill the target you are shooting at. Their main purpose is to end life (whether it be a human or animal)! Yes many times it's in self-defense and of course they can be for recreational purposes like ski shooting or target practice. But the main purpose remains the same. Train, planes or automobiles are not made to kill people. There primary purpose is transportation, and quicker transportation then previous methods. To use these argument that all these modes of transportation either directly or indirectly cause death and we don't ban them as your argument against gun control is hopelessly weak at best!

Stick to better arguments!


----------



## paulitician (Dec 28, 2012)

GHook93 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 Conspiracy Solved: Names, Connections, & Details Exposed! - YouTube!
> ...



Well, not sure we're debating the Gun-Control issue on this thread. But i'm sure you'll find many other threads on that subject. And i'm also not sure what you mean by "Ron Paul nutter." The man is the only Politician even worth listening to at this point. He's anything but a "Nutter."


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 28, 2012)

paulitician said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



That Ghook troll for you.He obviously has been brainwashed by these paid agent trolls Dawgshit and Moron In The Hat-the kid that has an obsession with me and will  post IMMEDIATELY within minutes after I make this post.Ghook troll has never even listened to him obviously otherwise he would know he is the only one that belives in the constitution which is why troll agent Moron In The hat used to try and slander him all the time.thats what his handlers paid him to do.

l paul was the only one who got any kind of screentime that was worthing listening to thats for sure.he was a true patriot while he was in office.I would like to put my support behind gary Johnson for the next election because he has similair views to Paul but they will just do the same thing to him they did to Paul,sabotoge his strategy and his campaine.They always make sure the puppet they want in office always gets elected.Like Bush and Clinton before him.the elite were pleased with the atrocities that Obama committed against the american people so they made sure he got reelected like I knew they would.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 28, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...





thats Dawgshit for ya.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 28, 2012)

Gee I wonder what Ron Paul thinks of your nutcase theories?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 28, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> Gee I wonder what Ron Paul thinks of your nutcase theories?



He thinks it was Bin Laden & Al-Qaeda.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmezmNrr_0o]Ron Paul booed for telling 9/11 truth. CIA and Military agree with him, that isn&#39;t good enough? - YouTube[/ame]



Bet they won't like this YouTubeey.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 28, 2012)

It was his supporters that probably cost him many many votes....


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 28, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



Woo. What a one-trick pony. Maybe you should learn a new trick, Flicka. You sound like a broken record.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 28, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> It was his supporters that probably cost him many many votes....



Agreed, and I think Paul knows it and knows he can't do anything about it. Kinda like Pat Buchanan's prob. Their peeps tend to be ideologically fervent which is just a polite way of saying weird.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 28, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



I gotta tell ya, Guy, you seem pretty normal but you have a 9/11 troll following you around lickin' your balls. Now I know that can be entertaining but is it really who you wanna be? I mean, if I had him between my legs I'd rethink my positions. Just sayin'.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 28, 2012)

paulitician said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



I'm pretty sure that is what G meant by a "Nutter" ... someone who believes Paul is the only politician worth listening to.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 29, 2012)

SAYIT said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I need to rethink MY positions? 

Based on someone else's opinion?

Sorry, but I don't do 'dishonesty'.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 29, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


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




Sorry, but yes you do........


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 29, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


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



Link?


----------



## paulitician (Dec 29, 2012)

SAYIT said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



Rather watch paint dry than watch most Politicians speak. Ron Paul is the only one worth listening to. He's possibly the only Politician i'll ever trust. But hey, that's just my opinion.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 29, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Most all of them that deny the facts.......


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 29, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



You haven't presented any facts, only disputed opinions...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 29, 2012)

Wrong. The official investigation is fact until proven otherwise. So far there has been no proof presented that could stand up in a court of law. Not one piece of real evidence and not one piece of physical evidence to contradict the facts....


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 29, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> Wrong. The official investigation is fact until proven otherwise. So far there has been no proof presented that could stand up in a court of law. Not one piece of real evidence and not one piece of physical evidence to contradict the facts....



The 'official investigation' has been disputed by some members of the 9/11 Commission itself. How can you assert it as 'fact'? 

In fact, most of the conclusions reached by that commission, and by NIST, couldn't "stand up in a court of law", which is why this case has never SEEN the inside of a courtroom.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2012)

paulitician said:


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



I understand that is your position and you must understand it is very narrow ... sorta like idol worship.


----------



## paulitician (Dec 29, 2012)

SAYIT said:


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



No "idol worship' for me. It's just how feel about him. When i see other Politicians speaking on tv, i change the channel. When i see Ron Paul speaking, i stop and pay attention. So in my mind, he is the only Politician worth listening to. It's not "idol worship", it's just my opinion.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


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



Maybe I wasn't clear. 
If a one-trick-pony like 9/11 was a big fan of mine, I'd figure I'm doing something wrong. 
Or perhaps I misjudged you. 
Do you buy into the 9/11 conspiracy theory thing?


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


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



Good. I'll take that to mean you are normal and really don't buy into the 9/11 "truther" BS. After all, one can't find much more dishonesty than one does amongst those "truthers," right?


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong. The official investigation is fact until proven otherwise. So far there has been no proof presented that could stand up in a court of law. Not one piece of real evidence and not one piece of physical evidence to contradict the facts....
> ...



I'm sorry, I must have missed something in the translation. What case? 
BTW, your opinion, that the NIST findings "couldn't stand up in a court of law, which is why this case has never SEEN the inside of a courtroom" is simply your opinion and couldn't stand up in a court of law. Evidently my initial impression of you was misguided. You and 9/11 do make a cute couple.


----------



## paulitician (Dec 29, 2012)

SAYIT said:


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



You're a pretty smug condescending little twit ain't ya? Your steadfast belief that Big Brother never lies to the People, is naive and ignorant. Allow me to shock ya here...Big Brother lies to you 24/7 - 365. It's just what he does. So it's not surprising at all that he would lie about 9/11. In fact, just go ahead and assume he lied. Because he did.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 29, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong. The official investigation is fact until proven otherwise. So far there has been no proof presented that could stand up in a court of law. Not one piece of real evidence and not one piece of physical evidence to contradict the facts....
> ...



Except that they have stood up in a court of law............ Yet you want to deny that also.

And just what is it that the 911 commission members dispute? Is there even one of them that believe that the government had anything to do with the attack? NO, what they believe is that certain parts of our government lied to cover up their own incompetence in dealing with the aftermath of the attack and their screwed up actions during the attack. Which even that hasn't been proved.......


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 29, 2012)

SAYIT said:


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



Sorry, but I haven't seen much 'truth' coming from the government, which leads me to distrust anything they say. I'm not claiming to 'know' what happened on 9/11, but I am saying that the 'official' story is such a crock of shit that not even the 9/11 Commission accepted it.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 29, 2012)

See above..........


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 29, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Which court, Ollie?

Link?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 29, 2012)

Are you really that far out of touch?

The Trial of Zacarias Moussaoui (2006)

Exhibits in the Moussaoui Trial


----------



## daws101 (Dec 29, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


I love it when sister jones yammers nonsense.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 29, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> Are you really that far out of touch?
> 
> The Trial of Zacarias Moussaoui (2006)
> 
> Exhibits in the Moussaoui Trial



Doesn't change my position in the least. Where have I EVER said that Al Quaida didn't hijack planes and fly them into the towers?


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2012)

paulitician said:


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



You now have the golden op to repost anything of mine in which I say, infer or imply that "Big Brother never lies to the People." You are just being silly, Princess, and are putting words in my mouth to serve your lame argument.
I just don't buy, like some flaming loon, that "Big Brother lies to you 24/7 - 365. It's just what he does." 
It certainly is possible that the official 9/11 findings are defective, skewed, incomplete, imperfect or even bogus. Those _possibilities_ wouldn't lead a rational person to "assume" Big Bro "lied." You have formed your conclusion ("Big Brother lies to you 24/7 - 365") and are compelled to seek out that which supports your conclusion. That is irrational and self-fulfilling.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2012)

eots said:


> *Raymond L. McGovern  27-year CIA veteran. Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates (NIE), the consensus reports of all U.S. intelligence agencies. According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, NIE's "are the Intelligence Communitys most authoritative written judgments on national security issues." Responsible for preparing and presenting the President Daily Brief (PDB) to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and for providing intelligence briefing to their Vice Presidents, *Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials.  Upon retirement in 1990, McGovern was awarded the CIAs Intelligence Commendation Medallion and received a letter of appreciation from then-President George H. W. Bush. Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.
> Endorsement of 9/11 and American Empire (Vol I)  Intellectuals Speak Out:
> 
> "It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with compelling evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the Downing Street memos show, that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a lie. It is also the case that the whole 'war on terror' was based on a prior deception. This book hence confronts the American people---indeed the people of the world as a whole---with an issue second to none in importance and urgency. I give this book, which in no way can be dismissed as the ravings of paranoid conspiracy theorists, my highest possible recommendation." Interlink Books
> ...



You left out the other side of McGovern's coin. From Wikipedia:

In 2002 he was publicly critical of President George W. Bush's use of government intelligence in the lead-up to the war in Iraq.

In 2003, together with other former CIA employees, McGovern founded the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity or VIPS. The organization is dedicated to analyzing and criticizing the use of intelligence, specifically relating to the War in Iraq. In January 2006, McGovern began speaking out on behalf of the anti-war group Not in Our Name. According to the group's press release, McGovern served symbolic "war crimes indictments" on the Bush White House from a "people's tribunal."

In a television interview with Tucker Carlson on MSNBC, McGovern said: "Ive been using the acronym O.I.L. for many  for two years now: O for oil; I for Israel; and L for logistics, logistics being the permanent  now we say enduring  military bases that the U.S. wants to keep in Iraq."

The Washington Post reported that, in his testimony, McGovern "declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration 'neocons' so 'the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world.' He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. 'Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation,' McGovern said. Genuine criticism of official Israeli policy is often portrayed as if it were anti-Semite bigotry: 'The last time I did this, the previous director of Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic.'"[5]


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Only in the "mind" of the severely mentally impaired.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> > BecauseIKnow said:
> ...



Simply believing such things doesn't make them so, Princess.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2012)

emilynghiem said:


> Can someone please explain
> if the US govt or Israel operatives were behind the 9/11 attacks:
> 
> Then why didn't all the enemies of the US
> ...



You would require these conspiracy theorists to think and act rationally and logically.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> You couldn't find your own ass with both hands and a map.
> 
> Some day, if you ever have any proof that will stand up in court, we might take you seriously.......



I must admit ... I'd have a difficult time taking these conspiracy nuts seriously under any circumstances. They're just too fruity and waaaay too self-serving.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> :
> 
> Cheers. lifts up glass. Hey check it out,someone else joined us that isnt an agent troll or a frady cat Bush dupe in denial like whitehall,Guy.
> 
> Guy is another one who actually knows what he is talking about as well.



Woo! You really are quite the freak show, Princess. Entertaining but terminally stupid.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 29, 2012)

SAYIT said:


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


you'll find if you haven't already, that hand job never really has anything to say.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> Whitehall, take the 40 minutes to watch the video in the OP, you won't sound nearly as uninformed afterwards...





9/11 inside job said:


> excellent post Guy but trust me,your wasting your breath,whitehall troll when he is confronted with these kinds of facts in videos,he runs off EVERYTIME and never takes you up on the challenge to watch a video.





GuyPinestra said:


> It's denial. It's very hard for people who have spent their entire lives believing in the 'goodness of government' to wrap their minds around the idea that this kind of thing could happen here in the good old US of A. Unfortunately, these are the people the conspirators count on the most.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2012)

daws101 said:


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



Indeed I have but he does so with such blistering bluster.
I must admit I find the study of conspiracy theorists far more interesting than their theories. 
Self-imposed Twilight Zoners.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 29, 2012)

SAYIT said:


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


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 29, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Are you really that far out of touch?
> ...



Yet you believe that the government was somehow responsible? Just like you deny that the term pull a building means literally that to pull it down with cables and not explosives...Even though you have been shown a building being pulled.... I'm sorry but you are proving yourself to be just another ignorant truther who denies the real evidence and wants the government to be guilty...


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


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


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 29, 2012)

SAYIT said:


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



It's widely believed that the poster he's cheering is his sock account.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



These "truthers" seem to have a need to find the gov't to be guilty or, as Paulitician (spel?) insists "Big Brother lies to you 24/7 - 365. It's just what he does."


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 29, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



What I believe, Ollie, is that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were started and operated by the CIA, and that relationship hasn't changed since they first went to Afghanistan to fight the 'Rooskies'. 

I believe that the plot to attack the Trade Centers was known to the CIA, and that for the purpose of America's 'Reichstag Fire', it was allowed to happen. 

I believe that in the year prior to 9/11, arrangements were made to transfer ownership, security and control of the 3 buildings demolished on 9/11 to entities intricately tied to the NeoCons of PNAC within the government.

I believe that WTC 1, 2 & 7, ALL recently purchased and 'renovated' by Jay Silverstein, were in fact wired for that demolition during those 'renovations'.

I believe that the term 'pull' in demolition circles means to destroy a building by controlled demolition. I believe that term has been in common use in that industry for DECADES prior to 9/11, and it has NOTHING to do with pulleys and cables. I was present in Las Vegas for MANY of the old casino's demolition, the term was frequently used at the time, and no cables or pulleys were used.

I don't know what I believe about you personally. I'm torn between 'dupe' and 'agent of disinformation'. I lean towards the latter, based on your diehard stick-to-it-iveness in the face of so much contrary information.

I also believe that the truth of 9/11 will remain officially hidden for at least as long as the truth about the Kennedy Assassination.

IOW, until all the people that care about it are dead.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 29, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Who the hell is Jay Silverstein?


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



I thank you for your honest and detailed description of your opinions.
I will not waste more of your (or my) time refuting again what has already been thoroughly debunked many times ... your conclusions. Frankly, you have the right to be locked on to your theories and certainly no one will ever be able to uproot them from your mind. You are correct in your assessment that what you deem to be the truth of 9/11 will remain officially hidden for many, many years ... at least until all those who have already provided real facts and conclusions in the matter are dead. 
Conspiracy theories, on the other hand, have a life of their own.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2012)

Rat in the Hat said:


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



If so he has the capacity to switch from a relatively thoughtful sounding dude to a raging idiot. Quite a talent, I'd say.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 29, 2012)

Rat in the Hat said:


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



I certainly hope you're not trying to assert that I am anyone's 'sock', Rat. That would be absurd.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 29, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


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



Not you. wildcard.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 29, 2012)

Rat in the Hat said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Sorry, I meant LARRY...


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2012)

Rat in the Hat said:


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



Ah. I missed that also. I thought you were referring to the relatively thoughtful Guy and raging loon, 9/11.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


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



I surely didn't see a connection between you and Mr. 9/11 other than his penchant for licking your balls.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 29, 2012)

SAYIT said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Ahh, but none of those things I listed have been 'debunked', SAYIT.

In fact, all but the 'prior knowledge' have been DOCUMENTED.

But these facts you care not to deal with, correct?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 29, 2012)

SAYIT said:


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



With almost 6,000 posts, the vast majority of which are in the 'Politics' forum, I can assure you I am no sock...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 29, 2012)

> What I believe, Ollie, is that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were started and operated by the CIA, and that relationship hasn't changed since they first went to Afghanistan to fight the 'Rooskies'.


 Actually UBL wasn't that big a player during those years, He may have wanted to be....



> I believe that the plot to attack the Trade Centers was known to the CIA, and that for the purpose of America's 'Reichstag Fire', it was allowed to happen.



Got any proof?



> I believe that in the year prior to 9/11, arrangements were made to transfer ownership, security and control of the 3 buildings demolished on 9/11 to entities intricately tied to the NeoCons of PNAC within the government.


More opinion?



> I believe that WTC 1, 2 & 7, ALL recently purchased and 'renovated' by Jay Silverstein, were in fact wired for that demolition during those 'renovations'.



There is zero evidence of any explosives....Sorry about that.



> I believe that the term 'pull' in demolition circles means to destroy a building by controlled demolition. I believe that term has been in common use in that industry for DECADES prior to 9/11, and it has NOTHING to do with pulleys and cables. I was present in Las Vegas for MANY of the old casino's demolition, the term was frequently used at the time, and no cables or pulleys were used.



I believe you haven't a clue what you're talking about.



> I don't know what I believe about you personally. I'm torn between 'dupe' and 'agent of disinformation'. I lean towards the latter, based on your diehard stick-to-it-iveness in the face of so much contrary information


.

And I don't give a rats ass what you believe about me personally. I am nothing more or less than what you see. SFC, US Army Retired,  who knows how to think for himself...Try it sometime. And information there may be, but I would prefer truthful, verifiable information.....


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


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



Yeah, they have been debunked but they are facts you care not to deal with, correct?


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


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



I believe that to be the only real truth you have posted today, Guy.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> > What I believe, Ollie, is that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were started and operated by the CIA, and that relationship hasn't changed since they first went to Afghanistan to fight the 'Rooskies'.
> 
> 
> Actually UBL wasn't that big a player during those years, He may have wanted to be....
> ...



I thank you for your service to our country.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 29, 2012)

> I thank you for your service to our country.



You are most welcome......


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 29, 2012)

1. You know what OBL's status was in Al Qaeda over the 2 decades between the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and 9/11? You should work for the NSA, Ollie.

2. Nope. Got any proof they didn't?

3. Larry Silverstein bought all 3 buildings less than a year prior to 9/11. That is a FACT, not 'opinion'. The ties between him, the security firm and the PNAC powers were documented in the video that started this thread. I'm not surprised you ignored it.

4. Zero evidence of explosions? Witnesses and reporters =/= 'zero evidence', Ollie.

5. I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about, your silly dodge about cables notwithstanding.

6. I don't give a fuck either, sport. Spout whatever horseshit you want to, it doesn't change the FACTS.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 29, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> 1. You know what OBL's status was in Al Qaeda over the 2 decades between the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and 9/11? You should work for the NSA, Ollie.
> 
> 2. Nope. Got any proof they didn't?
> 
> ...



One slight correction to your post. Larry Silverstein did not buy the buildings. He signed a 99 year lease from the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey.


And he had to pay rent on them even after they collapsed.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 29, 2012)

paulitician said:


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



Paul is out of office now.He retired since he lost.He was a true patriot.many Paul supporters have turned to Gary Johsnon now but its a waste of time.the establishment will just sabotoge his campaine and make sure he doesnt get elected just liek they did with Paul.Noting will change till the american people get off their asses and fight to take their country back.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 29, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



He never does,anytime he is challenged to debunk any,he cowardly  runs off like the coward troll he is.Look here.here is the proof.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/270115-psychology-of-the-conspiracy-theorist.html

He NEVER tries to counter the facts in that short 5 minute video,he just comes back with pathetic one liners when he is cornered by it as he proved.

Trust me,your just wasting your time arguing with him.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 29, 2012)

SAYIT said:


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



Debunked?   Hardly! 

Al Qaeda and the CIA

BBC news article:
    "...Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to fight
    against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The
    Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars
    and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi
    Arabia and Pakistan. He received security
    training from the CIA itself."

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Who is Osama Bin Laden?

Forbes business information service article:
    "...[Osama bin Laden] received military and
    financial assistance from the intelligence services
    of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United States."

Who Is Osama Bin Laden? - Forbes.com

ABC News article:
    "In the 1980s, bin Laden left his comfortable
    Saudi home for Afghanistan to participate in the
    Afghan jihad, or holy war, against the invading
    forces of the Soviet Union - a cause that,
    ironically, the United States funded, pouring
    $3 billion into the Afghan resistance via the CIA."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/binladen_profile.html

Larry Silverstein and the WTC 

 Larry Silverstein and his partner Frank Lowy acquired a 99-year lease on the entire World Trade Center complex just weeks before the 9/11/01 attack. The deal was negotiated by Lewis Eisenberg, the former chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Eisenberg was recently appointed chairman of the Republican National Committee. Eisenberg had resigned from Goldman Sachs in the 1980s after his secretary accused him of sexually harassing her. When New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman appointed Eisenberg chairman of the Port Authority, in February of 1996, Forbes Magazine wrote that it was "a strange political appointment, considering the part he played in the sex scandal that rocked Goldman and the financial community in the late 1980s."

Silverstein had built Seven World Trade Center in 1987 on property leased from the Port Authority, but the six-building World Trade Center complex remained under public control until Silverstein and Lowy obtained the 99-year lease on July 26, 2001. The new deal left Silverstein in control of 10.6 million square feet of WTC office space, and gave Lowy control of the 427,000-square-foot retail mall in the WTC basement. 

Here's some more info on the insurance payout and various other things...
Larry Lucky Larry Silverstein - informationliberation
The insurance company, Swiss Re, paid Mr. Silverstein $4.6 Billion  a princely return on a relatively paltry investment of $124 million.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 29, 2012)

Rat in the Hat said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > 1. You know what OBL's status was in Al Qaeda over the 2 decades between the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and 9/11? You should work for the NSA, Ollie.
> ...



You are correct, and he paid that rent out of the $4+ BILLION his insurance paid out on his $124 million downstroke...


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 29, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



But I'm not arguing, just having a little discussion...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 29, 2012)

paulitician said:


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



NOBODY here should waste their time with this troll.He defends ANY government version of events no matter how absurd and full of lies they have been proven to be.whether it be 9/11,the jfk assassination,the lincoln assassination,ron paul being the only candidate for the people,anything that doesnt kiss up to the government he ignores.this troll worships the government to no end and here at this site,only to do just that,troll these boards.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 29, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


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


 well discussing anything with this troll gets you nowhere.He isnt worth it.Like I said,he worships the  government to no end and thinks they can do no wrong and they are out there looking out for him and they are not corrupt at all.He defends ANY kind of government corruption no matter how absurd it is.You might as well be talking with a brick wall.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 29, 2012)

Quote=GuyPinestra
I believe that the plot to attack the Trade Centers was known to the CIA, and that for the purpose of America's 'Reichstag Fire', it was allowed to happen.

Quote=SFC Ollie
Got any proof?



GuyPinestra said:


> Nope. Got any proof they didn't?
> 
> Quote=SAYIT
> I see. So since there's no proof that the CIA didn't know about the plot to attack the Trade Center on 9/11, you _assume_ they must have.
> ...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 29, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



thats what I been saying forever.9/11 is like the kennedy assassination,done and over with.9/11 is just a smokescreen to keep posters occupied talking to the paid shills that have penetrated this site and other boards.they want you to discuss and argue about it while they plot more sinister things against us.thats why they send these paid trolls here so they get peoples attention away from those events and keep them occupied arguing about 9/11.same with the obama birth certificate.they want people to discuss and argue these events and waste their time on it while they plot more sinister events agaisnt us.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 29, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


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



Now that is some funny shit that Moron In The Hat has come up with that Wildcard is a sock of mine.  First agents Moron In the Hat and Candyass   say Paulitican is  my sock puppet and NOW the latest,that Wildcard is.I love it.


wow are they ever getting desperate.

I have seen people around here get a temp ban before for using sock puppets.Unlike Agent candyass,I dont work for any government operation where I can hide my sock puppet like he does when he posts under Obamaerican.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 29, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


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



There SAYIT's lies as always.what hypocrisy.The facts prove it was an inside job but those are facts HE cant deal with.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 29, 2012)

SAYIT said:


> Quote=GuyPinestra
> I believe that the plot to attack the Trade Centers was known to the CIA, and that for the purpose of America's 'Reichstag Fire', it was allowed to happen.
> 
> Quote=SFC Ollie
> ...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 29, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Quote=GuyPinestra
> ...


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 29, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Only a true sock denies his own sockability. 

Just sayin' 

Peas.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 29, 2012)

1. You know what OBL's status was in Al Qaeda over the 2 decades between the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and 9/11? You should work for the NSA, Ollie. 

Actually in the late 70's and early 80's I did.... Now can you show one iota of Proof that the CIA actually trained UBL, or just freedom fighters in general? And while you are at it do some research and figure out when Al Queada was formed...Then show me how much money went to a multi millionaire who was paying his own little company of fighters...

2. Nope. Got any proof they didn't?  

You do know how stupid that is right?

3. Larry Silverstein bought all 3 buildings less than a year prior to 9/11. That is a FACT, not 'opinion'. The ties between him, the security firm and the PNAC powers were documented in the video that started this thread. I'm not surprised you ignored it.

He leased them that is fact, any ties between him and anyone else is pure speculation. Now do you know who PNAC is and what the stand for? (a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle. )

4. Zero evidence of explosions? Witnesses and reporters =/= 'zero evidence', Ollie.

Witnesses who heard secondary explosions, not explosives....Please learn the difference...

5. I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about, your silly dodge about cables notwithstanding.

Prove it.

6. I don't give a fuck either, sport. Spout whatever horseshit you want to, it doesn't change the FACTS.

You are having a difficult time finding actual facts, I suggest you study harder...


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 29, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> 1. You know what OBL's status was in Al Qaeda over the 2 decades between the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and 9/11? You should work for the NSA, Ollie.
> 
> Actually in the late 70's and early 80's I did.... Now can you show one iota of Proof that the CIA actually trained UBL, or just freedom fighters in general? And while you are at it do some research and figure out when Al Queada was formed...Then show me how much money went to a multi millionaire who was paying his own little company of fighters...
> 
> ...



See posts #352, 353 and 361.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 29, 2012)

And what caused your "secondary explosions", Ollie?

Because there is plenty of videos of FDNY heroes who saw and heard MUCH more.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 29, 2012)

Also, explain these firefighters at 4:30 of this clip. Then again at 7 minutes...

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


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 29, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> And what caused your "secondary explosions", Ollie?
> 
> Because there is plenty of videos of FDNY heroes who saw and heard MUCH more.



There are multiple things in an office building that will explode in a fire...From refrigerator compressors to batteries....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 29, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> Also, explain these firefighters at 4:30 of this clip.
> 
> EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY! / MacQueen NYFD 9/11 witnesses - YouTube



Just normal everyday guys, who know very little if anything about how a controlled demolition is done. There is zero evidence of explosives.......


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 29, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > 1. You know what OBL's status was in Al Qaeda over the 2 decades between the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and 9/11? You should work for the NSA, Ollie.
> ...



Gee three news reports that link UBL to the fighting in Afghanistan... We know that is true. One actually says that UBL was trained by the CIA... Isn't that the same News that reported bldg7 falling before it fell? Truth is that most CIA operatives couldn't tell you if UBL received any training or not....


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 29, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Also, explain these firefighters at 4:30 of this clip.
> ...



So FDNY personnel have no experience with controlled demolition? You reach any farther you'll dislocate your shoulder... 

And then look at the 7 minute mark, too...


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 29, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Is that ALL they said, Ollie?? Hmmmm??


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 29, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> Also, explain these firefighters at 4:30 of this clip. Then again at 7 minutes...
> 
> EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY! / MacQueen NYFD 9/11 witnesses - YouTube



You mean at 7 minutes where someone dubbed in the explosion type sounds?

Same camera without the enhanced sound effects.....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_64RigP1Fk]9/11, World Trade Center South Tower Falls - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 29, 2012)

I hate dishonest lying fucks...Go away.......


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 29, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> I hate dishonest lying fucks...Go away.......



You make an accusation like that you better back it up, chump. You're the fucking clown that said the tape was dubbed, PROVE it.

You're the fucking clown that said FDNY personnel are not familiar with controlled demolition, even though NYC is where a LOT of CD happens.

If anyone here is a "dishonest, lying fuck", it would be you, Ollie.


----------



## paulitician (Dec 30, 2012)

SAYIT said:


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



Nah, it's perfectly rational to understand Big Brother does lie to the People 24/7 - 365. In fact, i find it incredibly irrational, naive, and ignorant to believe otherwise.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 30, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



The tallest building that was ever taken down by controlled demolition was about 480 feet tall.  Nobody knows how a tower over 1,000 feet would come down when hit by airplanes and then suffering from uncontrolled fires.  

Again, how do you wire 2 buildings for controlled demolition with nobody noticing--absolutely nobody.  

You can't be this pathetically stupid, can you?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 30, 2012)

candycorn said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Big Brother must have paid off every last person in the buildings to keep them silent while it was being done.

Even the victims.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 30, 2012)

paulitician said:


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



Childish attitude. No wonder you believe Ron Paul was the only politician worth listening to. I also see you found nothing to support your contention that I believe "Big Brother never lies." Obviously that means you do, Princess.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 30, 2012)

candycorn said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Yes, yes they can.........


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 30, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Their ignorance is bliss or as I call it, self-imposed and rigidly self-enforced.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 30, 2012)

candycorn said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Only someone who is WILLFULLY IGNORANT can post the kind of shit you spew.

Try reading the fucking thread, asshole.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 30, 2012)

*Big Brother:* Now listen everyone, we're going to wire these buildings to explode, but we don't want anyone to say anything, OK?

*Kevin Cosgrove:* Yessah, Boss. No problem, Boss.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAyF8KmXORw]9-11 Victim Kevin Cosgrove final moments 911 call - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 31, 2012)

Rat in the Hat said:


> *Big Brother:* Now listen everyone, we're going to wire these buildings to explode, but we don't want anyone to say anything, OK?
> 
> *Kevin Cosgrove:* Yessah, Boss. No problem, Boss.
> 
> 9-11 Victim Kevin Cosgrove final moments 911 call - YouTube



What point are you trying to make, Rat? That innocent people died? I think we all know that, the question is WHY did they die? 

You guys can't believe that your government is complicit, even though they've proven their willingness to lie through their teeth to us TIME AFTER TIME, and I can't believe that you can't see their greasy fingerprints all over this thing.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 31, 2012)

candycorn said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



In answer to your question, corn, you spend 6 months running hundreds of contractors through the buildings re-wiring everything else. Makes GREAT cover!!

You can't be this pathetically obtuse, can you?


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 31, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > *Big Brother:* Now listen everyone, we're going to wire these buildings to explode, but we don't want anyone to say anything, OK?
> ...



Woo. Talk about "willful ignorance." The point you so pathetically try to avoid seeing is that the wiring of those buildings for demo would require extensive work by many people and tons of materials and coordination. How do you get all the workers who plant the explosives not to tell, Princess?


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 31, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



So you think you could get N.Y. union laborers to load tons of explosives into the Trade Center and say nothing to anyone? You also think you could get union electricians to plant and wire those explosives and also say nothing?  
You do live in a very strange world, Princess ... the Twilight Zone.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 31, 2012)

Rat in the Hat said:


> *Big Brother:* Now listen everyone, we're going to wire these buildings to explode, but we don't want anyone to say anything, OK?
> 
> *Kevin Cosgrove:* Yessah, Boss. No problem, Boss.
> 
> 9-11 Victim Kevin Cosgrove final moments 911 call - YouTube



People like Guy know nothing of union trades peeps and city inspectors whose cooperation and silence would have been necessary to prep and wire these buildings for demo or they simply ignore reality while clinging desperately to their conspiracy theories. Most of the theorists are just sick or stupid. Some, however, have some nefarious agenda they are serving. The jury is still out on Guy.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 31, 2012)

SAYIT said:


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



The wiring of those buildings for demolition was accomplished OVER TIME by a couple of people, it certainly didn't take dozens. And the easiest way to keep them from 'telling' would be to kill them once the job was done. Car wreck, suicide, step in front of a bus, all methods used successfully in the past to silence people.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 31, 2012)

SAYIT said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



You don't think that with hundreds of workers in and out for months on end that you couldn't slip a couple of guys into the mix that nobody knew?

You don't think that the work couldn't be done at night, when all those 'union laborers' were home watching a Yankees game?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 31, 2012)

SAYIT said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > *Big Brother:* Now listen everyone, we're going to wire these buildings to explode, but we don't want anyone to say anything, OK?
> ...



I've been in commercial construction most of my life, I'm VERY familiar with 'union peeps' and inspectors. I also know that demolition explosives wouldn't be planted in areas where union peeps and inspectors are conducting their legitimate jobs. 

Cooperation and silence aren't required if there is no knowledge.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 31, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


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




LOL That's rich....You haven't a clue...........


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 31, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > *Big Brother:* Now listen everyone, we're going to wire these buildings to explode, but we don't want anyone to say anything, OK?
> ...



The point is that saying the buildings were wired to explode without anyone saying anything would have to include the victims staying silent.

The point is that in the last split second of Mr. Cosgrove's life, when the building starts collapsing, NO explosions are heard.

The point is that the government didn't cause the buildings to collapse. 2 groups of raghead assholes followed a plan engineered by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Muhammed Atta which was financed by Usama bin Laden, and turned airplanes full of innocent civilians into guided missiles.

The point is that the Salomon Brothers building did not collapse because it too was wired to explode. It collapsed because big chunks of the North Tower landed on it, ripped open sections of the facade, and started fires which could not be fought because the tower collapses trashed the water mains.

And...

The point is that anyone who believes the government would kill thousands of it's citizens just to start a war is fucking retarded. The govt can start a war anytime it wants to. How many civilians did the govt kill to start Vietnam?


----------



## paulitician (Dec 31, 2012)

SAYIT said:


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



Ah, more smug condescension. I find your attitude to be childish. And like i said, just assume Big Brother is lying to you...Because he is.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Dec 31, 2012)

Rat in the Hat said:


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


What 'victims' would have had the knowledge?



> The point is that in the last split second of Mr. Cosgrove's life, when the building starts collapsing, NO explosions are heard.


 Which means absolutely nothing when you consider the absolutely HORRID quality of that audio.



> The point is that the government didn't cause the buildings to collapse. 2 groups of raghead assholes followed a plan engineered by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Muhammed Atta which was financed by Usama bin Laden, and turned airplanes full of innocent civilians into guided missiles.


Which explains NOTHING about how 48 5 inch thick central core columns managed to collapse in neat little sections as over 1,000 feet of building dropped to the street below.



> The point is that the Salomon Brothers building did not collapse because it too was wired to explode. It collapsed because big chunks of the North Tower landed on it, ripped open sections of the facade, and started fires which could not be fought because the tower collapses trashed the water mains.


And somehow these fires were hot enough to cause a single core column (#79) to fail, causing the symmetrical collapse of the ENTIRE building?



> And...
> 
> The point is that anyone who believes the government would kill thousands of it's citizens just to start a war is fucking retarded. The govt can start a war anytime it wants to. How many civilians did the govt kill to start Vietnam?



Really? You do realize that FDR withheld prior knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack in order to gin up support for our entry into WW2, don't you? Tell that shit to those sailors who were sacrificed that Sunday December morning.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Dec 31, 2012)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



And you can always be the naive & ignorant moron!


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 1, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



You are correct about my condescending attitude, Princess ... I do not suffer fools well.
As for your "Big Bro lies 24/7, 365" obsession, I have just one more question: If I buy into it do I get to were a tin foil hat and communicate with aliens using a Mattell wrist watch walkie-talkie like you?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 1, 2013)

Wildcard said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



There can be no finer example of the monumental stupidity, ignorance, adolescence, and cowardice that runs through the conspiracy theory movement than this Wildcard.
Begin with the very scary skull & crossbones avatar, move on to the shrill, lame and desperate posts and finish with his disabled board REP rating behind which the coward just negged repped me. Even if I was dim enough to believe the silly conspiracy theories which are rampant among the theorists I would be silenced by the fear that I might be associated with a flaming loon like WildChild.


----------



## paulitician (Jan 1, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



A very feeble attempt at humorous condescension. Like you're the first poster to ever use the old 'Tin Foil Hat' insult. Pretty stale routine there. That being said, one day you'll wake up. Big Brother has fed you a steady diet of lies all your life. You like most Americans, just haven't dared to take the Red Pill yet. But more & more Americans are now deciding to wake up. Times are hopefully changing. If you believe Big Brother's stories on the Bin Laden assassination and 9/11, you really are still asleep. Time to wake up.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 1, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



If you are tired of hearing the 'Tin Foil Hat' insult it is likely you get tagged often. It never occurs to one such as you why others see you in one. 
Your "more and more Americans" claim is exactly the opposite of what you said in another post when you lamented the future because you have little hope Americans will see things your way. That is typical of one who has a lucid moment and then slips once again under the waves.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 2, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



Still waiting...


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 2, 2013)

quote=Rat in the Hat
The point is that anyone who believes the government would kill thousands of it's citizens just to start a war is fucking retarded. The govt can start a war anytime it wants to. How many civilians did the govt kill to start Vietnam?[/quote]

quote=GuyPinestra
Really? You do realize that FDR withheld prior knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack in order to gin up support for our entry into WW2, don't you? Tell that shit to those sailors who were sacrificed that Sunday December morning.[/QUOTE]

quote=SAYIT
Really? Do you actually want to add to your ever growing list of CT lunacy?   

Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 2, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



Woo. Your posts are those of an articulate and reasonably thoughtful person but your MO is that of a flaming CT loon. Your 9/11 CT premise is busted by a simple question from Rat in the Hat and you respond by posting another tin foil hat CT.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 2, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



So now it's FDR who had the prior knowledge? You guys used to say it was Churchill. Unless you were saying it was Admiral Kimmel. Or Frank Knox.

Who are you going to blame it on next, Jim Forrestal?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 2, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> quote=Rat in the Hat
> The point is that anyone who believes the government would kill thousands of it's citizens just to start a war is fucking retarded. The govt can start a war anytime it wants to. How many civilians did the govt kill to start Vietnam?



quote=GuyPinestra
Really? You do realize that FDR withheld prior knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack in order to gin up support for our entry into WW2, don't you? Tell that shit to those sailors who were sacrificed that Sunday December morning.[/QUOTE]

quote=SAYIT
Really? Do you actually want to add to your ever growing list of CT lunacy?   

Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/QUOTE]

Spare me the Wiki BS, there is plenty of evidence showing prior knowledge, including testimony in the Congressional Record concerning the scapegoating of Admiral Kimmel and General Short. 

A little 'due diligence' on your part might open up your eyes.

How is it that ALL our assets in Pearl were lined up like ducks in a row EXCEPT for the aircraft carriers in the Pacific fleet?


----------



## paulitician (Jan 2, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



I always use the word 'Hopeful.' Because i really am hopeful. But i must admit, some days i'm less optimistic than others. It is what it is. And i'm not tired of hearing the old 'Tin Foil Hat' insult. I was just noting that your attempt at humorous condenscension was a big fail. Try again with some new material.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 2, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > quote=Rat in the Hat
> ...



quote=SAYIT
Really? Do you actually want to add to your ever growing list of CT lunacy?   

Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/QUOTE]

quote=GuyP
Spare me the Wiki BS, there is plenty of evidence showing prior knowledge, including testimony in the Congressional Record concerning the scapegoating of Admiral Kimmel and General Short. 

A little 'due diligence' on your part might open up your eyes.

How is it that ALL our assets in Pearl were lined up like ducks in a row EXCEPT for the aircraft carriers in the Pacific fleet?[/QUOTE]

quote=SAYIT
Your "proof" or FDR's prior knowledge is non-existent and the ships were where they were supposed to be. Circumstantial evidence wrapped in BS = conspiracy theory ... nothing more. You really should seek professional help.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 2, 2013)

Why would the CINC want to Destroy half his Navy just to start a War?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 2, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > quote=Rat in the Hat
> ...



quote=SAYIT
Really? Do you actually want to add to your ever growing list of CT lunacy?   

Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/QUOTE]

Spare me the Wiki BS, there is plenty of evidence showing prior knowledge, including testimony in the Congressional Record concerning the scapegoating of Admiral Kimmel and General Short. 

A little 'due diligence' on your part might open up your eyes.

How is it that ALL our assets in Pearl were lined up like ducks in a row EXCEPT for the aircraft carriers in the Pacific fleet?[/QUOTE]

say it troll only sees what  he wants to see since the truth scares him so he of course will ignore your post and wont look at it.that you can count on.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 2, 2013)

Somebody just farted in here.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 2, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Why would the CINC want to Destroy half his Navy just to start a War?



I guess your war history is a little rusty there, Ollie. 



> Of the 18 ships damaged or sunk during the attack, only 3 were damaged/destroyed beyond salvage and repair, though their equipment and armaments were removed, repaired, and reused aboard other vessels:
> 
> USS Arizona (forward magazine explosion)
> USS Oklahoma (capsized)
> ...



Now the lesson gets more interesting. Not only did we NOT lose "half our Navy", the 3 ships that weren't repaired were the oldest and slowest battleships we owned, built between 1909 and 1916.

Those carriers and their escort battle groups were comfortably 'out of theater', though.

How convenient and coincidental, huh?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 2, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Why would the CINC want to Destroy half his Navy just to start a War?
> ...



And how many might have been sunk? Now you are acting as if the exact outcome of the attack was also planned....Get a grip on real life and you cannot teach this retired Sergeant much about Military history.... But you want to take things literal we can do that too...... Then we can double down on tearing your stupid conspiracies apart......


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 2, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Many more WERE sunk, right there in that nice shallow harbor where they could be REFLOATED and REPAIRED. 

 I guess you missed those *BOLD* words in my previous post.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 2, 2013)

I guess I was too busy laughing at you...........


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 3, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> I guess I was too busy laughing at you...........



I've heard that is a sign of a mental disorder, you may want to see a professional...

If you have the time before your appointment, would you care to point out any errors in fact in my previous posts?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 3, 2013)

Nope, not going to start all over....You are simply one of those that will ignore fact when it doesn't fit your version of the story....

When you have some physical evidence that the official story line is false , do let us know.....


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 3, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Nope, not going to start all over....You are simply one of those that will ignore fact when it doesn't fit your version of the story....
> 
> When you have some physical evidence that the official story line is false , do let us know.....



IOW, you got nuttin'...

Soooooo.... back to the 'story line' that set us off on this tangent.



GuyPinestra said:


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



Anyone else??


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 3, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I was too busy laughing at you...........
> ...



Laughing at fools is not a mental disorder but slavish adherence to monumentally silly CTs most certainly is and pretending your CTs are factual is equally demented.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 3, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Nope, not going to start all over....You are simply one of those that will ignore fact when it doesn't fit your version of the story....
> 
> When you have some physical evidence that the official story line is false , do let us know.....



In fact the CTs are required to ignore or reject all facts which contradict their often pre-determined ("Big Bro lies 24/7, 365" - Paulitician), generally silly conclusions. It's a character trait that qualifies them for their genuine Mattel wrist watch walkie-talkies.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 3, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Please point out my factual errors then, and stop relying on childish insults.

At the risk of repeating myself, I thought we were discussing these things rationally.


----------



## paulitician (Jan 3, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



You're not gonna get anywhere with that one. He or she is all-in on that Goose Stepping thing. Big Brother is always good and always tells the truth. Such blind allegiance & obedience is unwavering. You'll never get through to them. So don't waste too much of your time and energy on em. They're all-in, and that's that.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 3, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



I'm not trying to change his mind, I understand the strength of his resolve. My only purpose is to rationally put forth the things I know so that others who may only be lurking can get some info and hopefully embark on their own mission of knowledge.

There IS hope, I was once a Goose Stepper, too...


----------



## paulitician (Jan 3, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



I hear ya. Well said.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 3, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



Factual errors? How about most of what you say?

Post 364 this thread which you of course dismissed..... 

I think it's better than watching the 3 stooges the way you fools dismiss the official reports and any witness or fact that doesn't fit what you believe at the time.

For instance do you agree 100% with the OP?

How about Terrels theories? You think he is right? Or 911insidejokes fart posts? This is who you have aligned yourself with if you aren't one or more of them.....


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 3, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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



Here is your post #364...


> 1. You know what OBL's status was in Al Qaeda over the 2 decades between the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and 9/11? You should work for the NSA, Ollie.
> 
> Actually in the late 70's and early 80's I did.... Now can you show one iota of Proof that the CIA actually trained UBL, or just freedom fighters in general? And while you are at it do some research and figure out when Al Queada was formed...Then show me how much money went to a multi millionaire who was paying his own little company of fighters...
> 
> ...



In it you claim to have worked for the NSA and have 'inside knowledge' of Osama Bin Laden's relationship with the CIA, you whitewash PNAC and their illegal, unConstitutional efforts at global dominance/nation-building, you dispute audio, visual and eyewitness evidence of pre-collapse explosions by falsely labelling them 'secondary', and you once again try and fail at conflating "Pull it." (Silverstein's words) with the use of cables and pulleys. (Which were nowhere in evidence on or near Bldg.7)

Now you ask me if I "agree 100%" with something I haven't watched in several weeks, hoping I'll say 'Yes' so you can find some sliver of something on which to divert the discussion, you ask me about "Terrell's theories" while laying no basis of who he is or what his theories are, and then try to insinuate that I am someone's sock, and that what I say or believe has no validity because of SOMEBODY ELSE'S fart jokes.

How unbelievably desperate can you get, Ollie?


----------



## whitehall (Jan 3, 2013)

Politico said:


> No.



How can there be a conspiracy unless democrats and the Clinton administration were in on it? It's simple people. Clinton knew about the plot and let it happen thinking that maybe just a few citizens would be killed like the first attempt on the WTC. Democrats went along with it because they wanted to create a crisis early in a republican administration.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 3, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Never once have I claimed to have any inside knowledge...As I most certainly do not. But yes I did work directly for NSA for just over 4 years....Believe it or not, i could care less.....But do not read into what I say or put words in my mouth.....

And there is your failing, once again you attempt to dismiss the fact that to pull a building is to pull it down with cables. As you have been shown WTC6 being pulled..... Yet you haven't proved that it means anything different.... Do play again, it's such a fun game.....
Keep on dodging, some day you might get hit with the real truth....Boy will you ever feel stupid then........


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 3, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Never once have I claimed to have any inside knowledge...As I most certainly do not. But yes I did work directly for NSA for just over 4 years....Believe it or not, i could care less.....But do not read into what I say or put words in my mouth.....
> 
> *And there is your failing, once again you attempt to dismiss the fact that to pull a building is to pull it down with cables. As you have been shown WTC6 being pulled.....* Yet you haven't proved that it means anything different.... Do play again, it's such a fun game.....
> Keep on dodging, some day you might get hit with the real truth....Boy will you ever feel stupid then........



In Silverstein's interview he was SPECIFICALLY addressing Bldg. 7. Please provide some video or photographic evidence of Bldg. 7 being 'pulled', or admit you are lying.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 3, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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




Stop! You're killing me! 
You offered no facts but instead attempted to support one silly CT ("Bush had prior 9/11 info which he suppressed in oredr to drag us into war") with another ("FDR had prior info but allowed Pearl Harbor in order to drag us into WW2") at which point irrational discussion became downright comical.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 3, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Never once have I claimed to have any inside knowledge...As I most certainly do not. But yes I did work directly for NSA for just over 4 years....Believe it or not, i could care less.....But do not read into what I say or put words in my mouth.....
> ...



That's what we're trying to tell you, WTC7 was not pulled........So prove to me that he meant to blow it up..............


BTW I may not always be 100% correct, but i do not lie........


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 3, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Never once have I claimed to have any inside knowledge...As I most certainly do not. But yes I did work directly for NSA for just over 4 years....Believe it or not, i could care less.....But do not read into what I say or put words in my mouth.....
> ...



And has been explained many times Silverstein referred to pulling the fire-fighting effort out of the building less there be further loss of life. The BS story which claims Silverstein made money from 9/11 is just that - BS - but without that BS you would need (and eagerly manufacture) more BS to support your bottom line.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 3, 2013)

paulitician said:


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




This is interesting. Is laughing at silly CTs and their silly CTs referred to as "Goose Stepping" in the CT World? So who said that Big Bro' "is always good and always tells the truth?" Just as with your silly CTs, you must fabricate your facts about me in order to have something which supports your baseless conclusions. Pathetic yet soooo typical.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 3, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Worked like a charm.... TWICE!!


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 3, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



This just gets better with every self-serving post. I guess your idea of rational discussion is supporting a ridiculous CT ("Bush knew but suppressed the info in order to drag us into war") with an outrageous one ("FDR knew the Japs were coming but suppressed the info in order to drag us into war"). If nothing else you CT guys are ... uh ... interesting.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 3, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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



Sorry to truncate your post but that one line says it all although it's not just official reports they reject ("Big Brother lies 24/7, 365" - Paulitician) but any facts which contradict their baseless conclusions. Your "fit what [they] believe at the time" point is right on the mark.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 3, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk]Larry Silverstein admits WTC7 was pulled down on 9/11 - YouTube[/ame]

That's bullshit, SAYIT. There hadn't been any firefighters in Building 7 since before NOON.

Silverstein's $124 million downstroke turned into a $4.2 BILLION insurance payoff. How did he NOT make money?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 3, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I wish the same could be honestly said by Paulitician.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 3, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



I used to believe you were a bright Guy pulling the straight man's leg, G, but you have convinced me that you are just a flaming idiot and I mean that with all do respect. 
Silverstein has lost a billion in rent and still is required to rebuild the towers. 
Cost? $4.2 billion. As always your arguments, if one could call them that, are half-assed, child-like and self-serving.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 3, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



LOST a billion in rent? How is that possible when much of ALL 3 buildings were VACANT at the time?

And I noticed you shifted from the 'pull the firefighters' line, now that I've shown there were no firefighters TO 'pull'...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 3, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



Any Idea what time Silverstein had this conversation? Not the interview but the conversation with a fire chief....


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 3, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



You are delusional, Princess, and I also say that with all do respect. The buildings were VACANT? Did you really just say that? What were all those people doing in those VACANT buildings? You truly have swallowed the whole jug of Kool-Aid:

Another first responder adds that there were &#8220;tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled [emphasis added] us out.&#8221;19 The first-hand accounts of rescue operations at WTC 7 tell a consistent story, and the latter quote also uses the word &#8220;pull&#8221; to describe the removal of firefighters from the vicinity of the building, just as McQuillan&#8217;s statement does. Indeed, there is large agreement between McQuillan&#8217;s response and the testimony of the firefighters, including the fact that:
 a.firefighters were in fact in the vicinity of WTC 7 on 9/11;
 b.their activities involved evacuation and rescue missions;
 c.firefighters remained near WTC 7 until late in the afternoon of 9/11;
 d.firefighters realized that WTC 7 would probably fall by approximately 3 pm on 9/11; and
 e.firefighters pulled back from the building shortly after this realization, and watched the building collapse at approximately 5:20 pm. Despite the objections of conspiracy theorists, the &#8220;official story&#8221; is both logically coherent and supported by evidence.

By contrast, the story told by the 9/11 Truth Movement is riddled with holes. It assumes that Larry Silverstein destroyed WTC Building 7, presumably in order to claim a huge insurance payoff. But if this is so, why would he tell the world of his plot on a PBS special? Furthermore, what relationship does Silverstein have with the United States government who, according to conspiracy theorists, destroyed the WTC buildings in order to terrorize its citizens into accepting domination by a police state?20 And if the government controlled the demolition of the WTC buildings in order to strike fear into its citizens, why one this one case would it wait until all of the tenants were evacuated from WTC 7 so that there were no reported casualties?21 The government&#8217;s strategy appears wildly inconsistent in the Truth Movement account &#8212; killing nearly 3,000 people in the destruction of the two main towers, while allowing an entire afternoon for the tenants of WTC 7 to escape. We should also note that the alleged 9/11 plot was needlessly complicated, since the building was wired for a controlled demolition and targeted to be hit by airplanes &#8212; why not just do the controlled demolition, ditch the airplanes and blame it on the terrorists of your choice?

There&#8217;s also the problem that, as even the 9/11 Truth Movement admits, prepping a building for demolition takes considerable time and effort. Usually a building targeted for demolition has been abandoned for considerable time and partially gutted to allow explosives intimate contact with the structure of the building. But since all of the WTC buildings were occupied right up to 9/11, how did the government gain access to wire 3 towers for complete demolition without anyone noticing? Imagine trying to sneak wires and bombs into buildings while thousands of people are working in offices, riding the elevators and milling about in the halls &#8212; that scenario is unlikely in the extreme.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 3, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Just imagine trying to sneak bombs and wiring past the union workers on the WTC loading docks. Anyone who tries to scab their jobs usually doesn't end up walking very well.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 3, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


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



GuyP claims to know the biz but ignores the harsh truth about NY City trade unionists. No maintainence gets done in those buildings without union involvement. None. The half-truths and outright lies of the CT crowd ("ALL 3 buildings were VACANT" - GuyP) would be comical if they didn't take themselves and their silliness so seriously but these guys are truly serious (not to mention pathetic). They really believe the crap they post.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 3, 2013)

> On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement [on the issue of Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment]:
> Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building. ...
> 
> In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
> ...



There is a problem with the above statement, namely there were no firefighters in WTC 7:

    "No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." [Fema Report]

    "There was no firefighting in WTC 7." [Popular Mechanics]

    "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from [WTC 7] for safety reasons." [New York Times]

Additionally we have the statements of NYPD officer Craig Bartmer.


> "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did -- and a lot of guys should be saying the same thing. I don't know what the fear is coming out and talking about it? I don't know -- but it's the truth."
> 
> "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw... I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest."


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 3, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> > On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement [on the issue of Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment]:
> > Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building. ...
> >
> > In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
> ...



I've been sifting through the 9/11 CT websites and guess what I found? Every one is either selling something or panhandling (begging for donations). It seems an entire money-making industry has grown up around those willing to make fools of themselves while callously stepping on the broken bodies of the 9/11 victims. Sub-human sludge if you ask me.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 3, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> GuyP claims to know the biz but ignores the harsh truth about NY City trade unionists. No maintainence gets done in those buildings without union involvement. None. The half-truths and outright lies of the CT crowd ("ALL 3 buildings were VACANT" - GuyP) would be comical if they didn't take themselves and their silliness so seriously but these guys are truly serious (not to mention pathetic). They really believe the crap they post.



Listen Jackass, I didn't say all 3 buildings were VACANT, you fucking lying piece of shit. I said much of the buildings were vacant, and that is the truth, particularly WTC 1 & 2.

Here's an interesting link...
http://letsrollforums.com/press-release-world-trade-t24256.html?

These folks did a FOIA request on the occupancy of WTC 1 & 2 from completion to destruction. There is a link to the spread sheet they were provided. It seems that much of the towers were NEVER leased, and that MANY of the occupants at the time of the attacks had only recently moved in. 

Here's an interesting and artsy picture of the towers.

See anything odd, like LOTS of vacant floors?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 3, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > GuyP claims to know the biz but ignores the harsh truth about NY City trade unionists. No maintainence gets done in those buildings without union involvement. None. The half-truths and outright lies of the CT crowd ("ALL 3 buildings were VACANT" - GuyP) would be comical if they didn't take themselves and their silliness so seriously but these guys are truly serious (not to mention pathetic). They really believe the crap they post.
> ...



Quote: Originally Posted by GuyPinestra  
LOST a billion in rent? How is that possible when much of ALL 3 buildings were VACANT at the time?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 3, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Reading comprehension is a little lacking for you?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 4, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > GuyP claims to know the biz but ignores the harsh truth about NY City trade unionists. No maintainence gets done in those buildings without union involvement. None. The half-truths and outright lies of the CT crowd ("ALL 3 buildings were VACANT" - GuyP) would be comical if they didn't take themselves and their silliness so seriously but these guys are truly serious (not to mention pathetic). They really believe the crap they post.
> ...



I don't find it odd that the buildings were vacant, considering that photo was taken during construction.

You do see the crane on the right hand tower, don't you?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 4, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > GuyP claims to know the biz but ignores the harsh truth about NY City trade unionists. No maintainence gets done in those buildings without union involvement. None. The half-truths and outright lies of the CT crowd ("ALL 3 buildings were VACANT" - GuyP) would be comical if they didn't take themselves and their silliness so seriously but these guys are truly serious (not to mention pathetic). They really believe the crap they post.
> ...



Wow a conspiracy forum to prove a conspiracy......No bias there..........


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 4, 2013)

Try this one then, Rat...


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 4, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



Turnstile counts from the Port Authority suggest that more than 14,000 people were typically in the Twin Towers by 8:45 a.m. NIST estimates show 17,000 on 9/11. That's an awful lot of peeps in those "VACANT" buildings, Princess.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 4, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Try this one then, Rat...



Try it for what? What am I to see in an overpixilated picture? Show a clear image of that, and we'll go from there. Maybe it will show what the projections on the south tower roof are, since the ST roof was flat on the finished product.


I do however find it amusing that they claim the section below the horizon as "total obscurement". Was the sunlight supposed to pass through the planet to show it was "vacant"?

And the upper mark of "total obscurement" pointing to an area that looks "vacant" is a hoot, too.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 4, 2013)




----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 4, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


>



That can't possibly be a picture of the twin towers. The North Tower antenna is too tall, and there is nothing protruding from the South Tower roof.



[/CT mode]


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 4, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Try this one then, Rat...
> ...



You're not seeing what is being illustrated, Rat. Think about it for a minute, I'm guessing it will come to you sooner or later...


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 4, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


>



Pretty picture, does it have a point?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 4, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



I know what I'm seeing. Another photo during construction. That's why the North Tower antenna is so short, because what's in the picture is only the support structure. And I'll bet the protrusions on the South Tower roof are the bases for the kangaroo cranes. The cranes themselves would probably bee seen if the picture hadn't been overpixilated when it was modified by the person who used MS Paint to draw on it.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 4, 2013)

I thought we were having a photo contest.......

Anyway looks like about the same occupancy as those buildings around them.........

Doesn't look all that empty to me...........


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 4, 2013)

Just as an aside, it was fun when Christophera used the same picture to "prove" the towers had cores made out of concrete.



Christophera said:


> The agents have been proven wrong with one simple photo showing that any columns could not have been full length.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Damn, I miss that crazy CT bastard. I hope he's doing well, wherever he went to.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 4, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Just as an aside, it was fun when Christophera used the same picture to "prove" the towers had cores made out of concrete.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah he was like the leader of the CT band here for a while.........


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 4, 2013)

The fact is, Bush let America be attacked on it's own soil, through compliance or incompetence.

He failed his #1 responsibility.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 4, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Just as an aside, it was fun when Christophera used the same picture to "prove" the towers had cores made out of concrete.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Does anyone know WTH he was talking about?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 4, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Just as an aside, it was fun when Christophera used the same picture to "prove" the towers had cores made out of concrete.
> ...



If you've got a few days to kill, read this thread.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/85840-fema-deceives-nation-about-twin-towers-core.html

In a nutshell, his claim was that the towers didn't have core columns. Instead they had an 11 foot thick concrete core, re-inforced with 3 inch rebar on 4 foot centers. And the rebar was coated with C-4 when the towers were built so they could demolish the buildings on 9/11.

For additional fun, here's his thread about how he filed "Misprision of Treason" charges against Larry Silverstein & Rudy Guiliani over it. That's how much he believed in his claim.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/106852-title-18-misprision-of-treason-filed-in-district-court.html


----------



## paulitician (Jan 4, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



The more you post, the more you prove you're just a typical loyal Goose Stepper. You're doing all the work proving that. So by all means, please carry on.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jan 4, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> The fact is, Bush *let America be attacked *on it's own soil, through compliance or incompetence.
> 
> He failed his #1 responsibility.


What would the "compliance" be?


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jan 4, 2013)

The official story is that the Twin Towers "pancaked" themselves to the ground. Like in this picture below.






Doesn't look like it's "pancaking" to me. Looks like it's falling off to the side. That means that the upper floors *could not* have crushed the floors beneath them.

Plus, it looks like the bottom floors are being blown out by *something just a bit stronger than air pressure!*


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jan 4, 2013)

The real fascinating part is how all *this*:






Was compacted into *this*:


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jan 4, 2013)

Banksers Trust. Across the street from WTC hit by falling debris. Photo taken by FEMA in damage assessment.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 4, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> The real fascinating part is how all *this*:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You might have a point, if the buildings "fell into their own footprint".

But since they didn't...







... you're wrong.







Interesting fun fact. The photo I posted is one of Christophera's.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 4, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > The fact is, Bush *let America be attacked *on it's own soil, through compliance or incompetence.
> ...


Well, we don't know, do we?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 4, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


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



Ummm, no thanks...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 4, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



Exactly.well said.I mean you cant expect someone to change their mind Guy who cowardly runs off with his tail between his legs everytime you show that 5 minute video of overwhelming evidence it was an inside job.

All he/she  ever does is come back with childish one liner insults  when you ask him/her to address those facts.Plus,one thing i have learned is loyal Bush dupes like this one have got to find out for themselves.Nothing you,me,Eots or anybody else says is going to make them change their minds. 

Mad Scientist as well the first couple years when he was here was also a loyal Bush dupe just like you were.He came over to the side of the truth though not because anything me,mr jones,eots or anybody else said to him,but he had to find out himself through others he knows in real life before he got convinced it was an inside job.anything we said,he ignored. This one is a lost cause Guy.This one worships the lamestream media and our corrupt government institutions to know end.You'll get nowhere with him.He defends ANY government version of events.

The only kind of Bush dupes you should bother with are the ones that can acknowledge our government has committted atrocities against the american people before in the past.Like there was this poll made once at this site by a loyal Bush dupe who made options of what they thought was the funniest conspiracy theory out there like elvis still being alive-which rightly so should have been up there,the kennedy assassination being an inside job,or 9/11 being an inside job,or the moon landing and one poster came on and posted-The Jfk assassination was an inside job,that one shouldnt be up there.

Now THOSE people I would encourage you to talk to because there IS hope for those kind of people since they can acknowledge the truth that our government has committed atrocities in the past against their own people.But this one? Like I said before,just defends the fairy tales of the governments version of events on ANY government conspiracy.someone like that,you'll get nowwhere with.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 4, 2013)

Anyone know which of the hundreds of videos we've looked at that 911nutjob keeps referring to? I'm sure ii's one that has been laughed at and or debunked a hundred times....... Just wondering which one it is, I'm a little bored....But i haven't checked the other boards I write on for a while soooo......


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 4, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > The real fascinating part is how all *this*:
> ...



Thing is, while Mad admits CTs are fun he doesn't seem wedded to their veracity as are some CTs here.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Jan 5, 2013)

whitehall said:


> We saw the freaking planes hit the towers. 9-11 tin foil hats like to quote soil samples and sismo graphs but they never theorize why or how the fuk America would conspire to blow up the WTC. The American intelligence community is just not that smart where they could place explosives in the WTC and time the detonation to the whims of a bunch of jihad terrorists. Why would Americans do that? Nobody knew that Bush would get congressional approval for a military operation in Iraq. Do lefties really want to implicate Clinton in a plot to blow up the WTC? He would have to be involved because the planning went on for years.



No one is saying airliners did not hit the buildings.

But 150 ton airliners with 34 tons of jet fuel totally destroying 400,000 TON buildings in LESS THAN TWO HOURS?

That is more hilarious than anything the Three Stooges ever did.

Th only thing more ridiculous is the Physics Profession not addressing it in a reasonable manner in 11 years.  Like when did they ever discuss the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower?

The Irony of Curiosity

psik


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 5, 2013)

psikeyhackr said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > We saw the freaking planes hit the towers. 9-11 tin foil hats like to quote soil samples and sismo graphs but they never theorize why or how the fuk America would conspire to blow up the WTC. The American intelligence community is just not that smart where they could place explosives in the WTC and time the detonation to the whims of a bunch of jihad terrorists. Why would Americans do that? Nobody knew that Bush would get congressional approval for a military operation in Iraq. Do lefties really want to implicate Clinton in a plot to blow up the WTC? He would have to be involved because the planning went on for years.
> ...



Of course, we also know those 150 ton airliners did not have to destroy the entire building to bring it down ... just enough of it to allow gravity to do its thing. You have heard of gravity, right professor? BTW, check out these airplane denying BOZOS:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...-IG4DA&usg=AFQjCNFPgVOl5JCPIICUeJLA5Wbpr1yc5g


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 5, 2013)

psikeyhackr said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > We saw the freaking planes hit the towers. 9-11 tin foil hats like to quote soil samples and sismo graphs but they never theorize why or how the fuk America would conspire to blow up the WTC. The American intelligence community is just not that smart where they could place explosives in the WTC and time the detonation to the whims of a bunch of jihad terrorists. Why would Americans do that? Nobody knew that Bush would get congressional approval for a military operation in Iraq. Do lefties really want to implicate Clinton in a plot to blow up the WTC? He would have to be involved because the planning went on for years.
> ...



And you of course know enough about Physics that you should be advising the thousands of Physicists in the USA how they should do their jobs.....

Stooges.....


----------



## whitehall (Jan 5, 2013)

We had about a million videos of the attack on the WTC and they show two planes hitting the Towers. When the structures collapsed it showed the collapse from the top down. There isn't a single case in the history of intentional explosive demolition where the floors collapse from the top down. Google up typical explosive demolition and you will see obvious detonations usually starting on the bottom. Conspiracies always have a reasonable theory regarding the intent such as FDR wanting to get the US into WW2 by encouraging the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor but the tinfoil hats offer no political or any other reason for the 9-11 attack. A conspiracy would have to include the entire democrat party including president Clinton and extend into 7 months of the new Bush administration. Are the tinfoil hats willing to implicate Clinton? How could a mysterious rogue unit coordinate split second timing with crazy jihadists and where was the FBI and the CIA and why the hell would Americans intentionally destroy the symbol of Capitalism in New York City as well as the Pentagon and God knows where the 4th flight was headed? Nothing in the realm of conspiracy makes the slightest sense. What are the tin foil hats thinking?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 5, 2013)

whitehall said:


> We had about a million videos of the attack on the WTC and they show two planes hitting the Towers. When the structures collapsed it showed the collapse from the top down. There isn't a single case in the history of intentional explosive demolition where the floors collapse from the top down. Google up typical explosive demolition and you will see obvious detonations usually starting on the bottom. Conspiracies always have a reasonable theory regarding the intent such as FDR wanting to get the US into WW2 by encouraging the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor but the tinfoil hats offer no political or any other reason for the 9-11 attack. A conspiracy would have to include the entire democrat party including president Clinton and extend into 7 months of the new Bush administration. Are the tinfoil hats willing to implicate Clinton? How could a mysterious rogue unit coordinate split second timing with crazy jihadists and where was the FBI and the CIA and why the hell would Americans intentionally destroy the symbol of Capitalism in New York City as well as the Pentagon and God knows where the 4th flight was headed? Nothing in the realm of conspiracy makes the slightest sense. What are the tin foil hats thinking?



You haven't paid attention, they don't believe there was a plane at the pentagon or in Shanksville...After all, there is no video........


----------



## towser_bow_wow (Jan 6, 2013)

creativedreams said:


> Likely Mossad lured willing terrorists to the planes and remote control developed just before 9/11 to be able to take over passenger planes in the event they were hijacked, turned them into perfect scapegoats.
> 
> Play with the emotions of the masses and you can get world support to do anything.
> 
> Now let the internet disinfo agents begin to chime in...



I have not seen verifiable proof that any passengers were killed on 911.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 6, 2013)

whitehall said:


> We had about a million videos of the attack on the WTC and they show two planes hitting the Towers. When the structures collapsed it showed the collapse from the top down. There isn't a single case in the history of intentional explosive demolition where the floors collapse from the top down. Google up typical explosive demolition and you will see obvious detonations usually starting on the bottom.


I'm guessing you missed all the reports of lower floor and basement explosions that happened PRIOR to the collapse.



> Conspiracies always have a reasonable theory regarding the intent such as FDR wanting to get the US into WW2 by encouraging the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor but the tinfoil hats offer no political or any other reason for the 9-11 attack.


There were PLENTY of reasons offered, you must've missed those, too, even though they were enumerated in the OP.



> A conspiracy would have to include the entire democrat party including president Clinton and extend into 7 months of the new Bush administration. Are the tinfoil hats willing to implicate Clinton?


No it wouldn't. It would only have to involve those at the very top. It's not hard to imagine them having identical goals when they're all members of the same secret societies. When they ALL get their marching orders from the same puppeteers.



> How could a mysterious rogue unit coordinate split second timing with crazy jihadists and where was the FBI and the CIA and why the hell would Americans intentionally destroy the symbol of Capitalism in New York City as well as the Pentagon and God knows where the 4th flight was headed? Nothing in the realm of conspiracy makes the slightest sense. What are the tin foil hats thinking?


Split second timing? WTF are you talking about? All they needed was for the jihadists to hit the buildings with planes, it didn't matter what day or time.

You ask where was the FBI, I encourage you to Google 'Able Danger'.

You ask why the towers, I encourage you to Google 'Asbestos removal & mitigation'...

You ask why the Pentagon, Google 'Rumsfeld missing trillions'...

Get back to me when you finish your homework.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jan 6, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Banksers Trust. Across the street from WTC hit by falling debris. Photo taken by FEMA in damage assessment.



This is my favorite 9/11 photo. Thanks, FEMA.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 6, 2013)

towser_bow_wow said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > Likely Mossad lured willing terrorists to the planes and remote control developed just before 9/11 to be able to take over passenger planes in the event they were hijacked, turned them into perfect scapegoats.
> ...



Another Sock? Whose is it this time?

You don't need to see anything other than the chard bodies at the pentagon and the reports of the DNA evidence. Or maybe you would like to talk to some of the families who actually got pieces of their loved ones back...... Moron........


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 6, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > We had about a million videos of the attack on the WTC and they show two planes hitting the Towers. When the structures collapsed it showed the collapse from the top down. There isn't a single case in the history of intentional explosive demolition where the floors collapse from the top down. Google up typical explosive demolition and you will see obvious detonations usually starting on the bottom.
> ...



Good point, now tell us just why would Rumsfeld announce to the world about the missing monies knowing it could be covered up the next day????? DUH.....


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 6, 2013)

The easiest answer would be to allay suspicion...

Tell me something, Ollie, did they ever FIND the money?

For that matter, did they ever find the office they were running the investigation from?

Isn't that the EXACT point the plane hit, AFTER making that ridiculous turn?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 6, 2013)

If Rumsfeld hadn't said anything then there would have been no suspicions.... 

So why tell the world about something then cover it up?  Would make more sense to cover it up without saying a word about it...
And Rumsfeld is not stupid..... (well I disagreed with him on the conduct of the war after we had won it but that's a different story)

Have they found it? I haven't a clue, never looked into it, though I'm certain someone has...

And you know that office was destroyed so why ask?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 6, 2013)

towser_bow_wow said:


> creativedreams said:
> 
> 
> > Likely Mossad lured willing terrorists to the planes and remote control developed just before 9/11 to be able to take over passenger planes in the event they were hijacked, turned them into perfect scapegoats.
> ...



And certainly nothing will ever convince you.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 6, 2013)

creativedreams said:


> Likely Mossad lured willing terrorists to the planes and remote control developed just before 9/11 to be able to take over passenger planes in the event they were hijacked, turned them into perfect scapegoats.
> 
> Play with the emotions of the masses and you can get world support to do anything.
> 
> Now let the internet disinfo agents begin to chime in...



There are no facts in your CT to waste time disputing, Princess, because there are no facts.
"Mr Hunter, we have rules that are not open to interpretation, personal intuition, gut feelings, hairs on the back of your neck, little devils or angels sitting on your shoulder." - Crimson Tide Motion Picture


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 6, 2013)

whitehall said:


> We saw the freaking planes hit the towers. 9-11 tin foil hats like to quote soil samples and sismo graphs but they never theorize why or how the fuk America would conspire to blow up the WTC. The American intelligence community is just not that smart where they could place explosives in the WTC and time the detonation to the whims of a bunch of jihad terrorists. Why would Americans do that? Nobody knew that Bush would get congressional approval for a military operation in Iraq. Do lefties really want to implicate Clinton in a plot to blow up the WTC? He would have to be involved because the planning went on for years.



Certainly getting the Towers to fall in their footprints was a neat trick. I'd like to see a demo team accomplish that without using of a couple of airliners loaded with jet fuel.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 7, 2013)

Wildcard said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


ok! whatever you say


----------



## daws101 (Jan 7, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Banksers Trust. Across the street from WTC hit by falling debris. Photo taken by FEMA in damage assessment.
> ...


 since it's proof of nothing .I can see why!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 11, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > We saw the freaking planes hit the towers. 9-11 tin foil hats like to quote soil samples and sismo graphs but they never theorize why or how the fuk America would conspire to blow up the WTC. The American intelligence community is just not that smart where they could place explosives in the WTC and time the detonation to the whims of a bunch of jihad terrorists. Why would Americans do that? Nobody knew that Bush would get congressional approval for a military operation in Iraq. Do lefties really want to implicate Clinton in a plot to blow up the WTC? He would have to be involved because the planning went on for years.
> ...


Actually it's been done already.
I'd like to see another 47 story hi-rise fall like WTC 7 using only office combustibles and some matches. Now there's a trick for you.


----------



## Pogo (Jan 11, 2013)

Just for entertainment, no comment:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jLOJsZDIhU]DJO&#39;s - 911 Trek - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 11, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...





SayIt troll of course wont watch this video that shows a building that was brought down by controlled demolitions since it shows bld 7 coming down in the EXACT same fasion. The proof is in the pudding.At the three minute mark,you can see bld 7 coming down at free fall speed the same way those other huge buildings were demolished.according to these trolls,no controlled demolition of building 7 and no freefall speed either.

Those videos of those high rise buildings coming down through controlled demolition must be fake according to their logic and Barry Jennings made up that story about hearing explosions from the basement before the twin towers fell and it was all just one strange coincidence the trolls say that he dies two days before the NIST report came out even though his testimony would have shreadded to pieces the report.

dont you love the logic of the coincidence theorists?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...ld-7-or-lost-libertys-since-9-11-alright.html


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 11, 2013)

Nice try, once again I notice that the truther video does not start until after the penthouse falls into the inside of the building, doing god only knows how much damage. And then the side by side comparisons you can obviously see the explosions at the base of the controlled Demo, but not around the base of WTC7....

FAIL again.........

But come on back and say I'm lying or a fart post or what ever you'd like, fact is I'm right and you cannot honestly deny it.......

Please play again....


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 11, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Of course, there's only your word for that. Which demo company did you use and could you post the receipt?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 11, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



You seem to forget the fuel-laden jetliners that crashed into the Towers and are you saying there were no flamable fuels inside #7?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 11, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Just for entertainment, no comment:
> 
> DJO's - 911 Trek - YouTube



I assure you at least 3 of this board's loony CTs are busy dissecting that silly little Youtube. Two will soon claim it is irrefutable proof that 9/11 was an inside job and the other will claim it's a piece of MOSSAD disinformation. Such is life with my pet CTs.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 11, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Nice try, once again I notice that the truther video does not start until after the penthouse falls into the inside of the building, doing god only knows how much damage. And then the side by side comparisons you can obviously see the explosions at the base of the controlled Demo, but not around the base of WTC7....
> 
> FAIL again.........
> 
> ...



Indeed he can't honestly deny it but he can dishonestly deny it and he will like it's his job. He reminds me of those serious Star Trekkies who believe the show was actually Reality TV, dress like their fav character and attend Trekkie Conventions. Twilight Zoners.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 11, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Nice try, once again I notice that the truther video does not start until after the penthouse falls into the inside of the building, doing god only knows how much damage. And then the side by side comparisons you can obviously see the explosions at the base of the controlled Demo, but not around the base of WTC7....
> 
> FAIL again.........
> 
> ...



Do you have a link to ANY video that has the base of Bldg. 7 in it? 

I've looked but I can't seem to find it.

All I've seen is the testimony of lower level explosions from Barry Jennings and some FDNY folks who've mysteriously stopped talking.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 11, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Nice try, once again I notice that the truther video does not start until after the penthouse falls into the inside of the building, doing god only knows how much damage. And then the side by side comparisons you can obviously see the explosions at the base of the controlled Demo, but not around the base of WTC7....
> ...



One must casually (or angrily) dismiss the NIST report and blindly accept some or all of the baseless CTs in order to continue qualifying for one's Foil-hat membership card and decoder ring. Pretending that there is a magic video which will - once-and-for-all - provide irrefutable proof of these CTs is a sure sign of mental illness. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/nyregion/22wtccnd.html?pagewanted=all


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 11, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Nice try, once again I notice that the truther video does not start until after the penthouse falls into the inside of the building, doing god only knows how much damage. And then the side by side comparisons you can obviously see the explosions at the base of the controlled Demo, but not around the base of WTC7....
> ...



Look at the comparisons again, really really close.....
You can see the smoke from the explosions rising in the Controlled demo, you don't see them fro WTC7.......

Now go find both of them with Audio...Guess what you hear with the controlled demo??? Yep explosions.

Guess what you don't hear at WTC7? Again, explosions...

There simply is no proof to support the claim..........

And I notice you ignored the 9 missing seconds of the beginning of the collapse.....


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 11, 2013)

There's plenty of video out there that you can hear explosions, but I'm sure that no matter what I post you'll dismiss it, so I'm not even going to bother.
Shit, I watched the news in real time that day, and you could see the smoke coming from the bottom of Bldg 7, but I can't prove it because I can't find the video.
I can't find ANY video that shows the bottom half of the building during the collapse, so there's no way to prove or disprove what you say.

Barry Jennings said that 1 1/2 hours prior to his rescue that there was a massive explosion that blew him and someone else out of the stairwell and back into the 8th floor, and while he waited to be rescued he heard and felt many more explosions in the building.

I think he's a credible witness, you can think what you want.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 12, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> There's plenty of video out there that you can hear explosions, but I'm sure that no matter what I post you'll dismiss it, so I'm not even going to bother.
> Shit, I watched the news in real time that day, and you could see the smoke coming from the bottom of Bldg 7, but I can't prove it because I can't find the video.
> I can't find ANY video that shows the bottom half of the building during the collapse, so there's no way to prove or disprove what you say.
> 
> ...



Problem is that the guy he was with tells a different story and a different timeline. And his story matches up with what was happening....

What time was Jennings rescued? And isn't he the guy who claimed to have had to step over bodies of a building that had been evacuated and had no casualties? While the guy who was with him reported no bodies, the Firemen reported no bodies. But of course there was damage, a 110 story building had fallen on it...... I'll go with the verifyable facts and timeline before I believe the outlier.....


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jan 12, 2013)

Ollie will NEVER admit Building 7 was a controlled demolition. Because if he did, then he'd have to admit the entire "War on Terror" is a lie and he has too much invested in that. 

The best video is where Donald Rumsfeld claims he doesn't even know what it it is!: "Building 7? Never heard of that". Oh that's that building where the CIA, DEA AND IRS share the 25th floor. Remember now? 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0lD-Qrn3XI"]9/11: Donald Rumsfeld - "What is building 7?" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jan 12, 2013)

*Proof* that at least one airliner hit the WTC. This Boeing 737 jet engine sits on the corner on Church and Murray after having exploded through the South Tower on 9/11.
















Intact Boeing 737 Engine for comparison.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 12, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Demo "team" as you site, or demo "company"? If you understand some of the physics involved in the destruction of the WTC complex buildings, it should become obviously clearer that their demise can not physically, or scientifically be attributed to fire only.
Responding to your post on point, WTC 7 is a prime example of a building being demolished WITHOUT the use of of an airliner loaded with jet fuel (kerosene).


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 12, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > There's plenty of video out there that you can hear explosions, but I'm sure that no matter what I post you'll dismiss it, so I'm not even going to bother.
> ...



Verifying "facts" from known liars is only verifying lies. Once again, WTC 7 did not collapse due to any damage from either of the 110 story towers.
LOL, you mention the 110 stories coming down, but can't seem to fathom ALL those stories coming down with minimal resistance,  just a few seconds short of FF. 
1250 feet. 1/4 mile worth of huge, massive steel structure components...2 times. Then WTC 7 that wasn't hit by a plane..You conspiracy theorists are fucking loons.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 12, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


It seems that one can infer that you got your "official" state conspiracy theory credentials in order.
 So... in order to obtain your status of a state conspiracy theorist, I assume
 one must casually, and ignorantly dismiss credible, verifiable physics, that the NIST report
does not even address, and accept some baseless, outrageous conspiracy theory concocted by the state and their associates
But the states version MUST be true, after all they obtained the assistance and direction of a man whose post on the 9-11 commission panel was a conflict of interest, and whose area of expertise includes  the creation and maintenance of public myths thought to be true, even if not actually true.
Pretending that the states unprovable conspiracy theory is in fact plausible, despite the many well thought out and verifiable objections to it, should be a warning sign of mental and emotional indoctrination that compels one to disregard and ignore real facts even when they are presented to you. 
But hey, to folks like you it matters not that the state has been a historic source of bullshit and deceives the public on many matters, as long as it is the government doing the explaining saying whatever, it's bound to be true right?


----------



## Capstone (Jan 12, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> The best video is where Donald Rumsfeld claims he doesn't even know what it it is!: "Building 7? Never heard of that". ...



Plausible deniability. 

Of all the suspected conspirators, Rummy's my favorite, mainly because I believe him. In fact, I think he was lucky to escape with his life on 9/11.


----------



## earlycuyler (Jan 12, 2013)




----------



## Capstone (Jan 12, 2013)

earlycuyler said:


>



Good one, Early.

But until at least some of the conspirators have been convicted and forced to walk the plank off the top of the tallest building remaining in America, that horse won't be dead.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 12, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> There's plenty of video out there that you can hear explosions, but I'm sure that no matter what I post you'll dismiss it, so I'm not even going to bother.
> Shit, I watched the news in real time that day, and you could see the smoke coming from the bottom of Bldg 7, but I can't prove it because I can't find the video.
> I can't find ANY video that shows the bottom half of the building during the collapse, so there's no way to prove or disprove what you say.
> 
> ...



of course they will dismiss it.If they acknowledge it,their handlers will stop paying them money that they have been to troll these boards. Yeah thats a good point you mention about how there was black smoke rising from the base of the towers because during that time,you hear misstimed explosions from the basement that witnesses testified to hearing going off as well.

yeah those videos are out there where it shows the black smoke rising from the basements but like you said,it would be pointless to post it anyways cause yeah,they'll just ignore it.He is the most credible witness there is thats why they killed him and these two agents can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are trying to fool people into thinking he isnt a credible witness to no avail.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 12, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> Ollie will NEVER admit Building 7 was a controlled demolition. Because if he did, then he'd have to admit the entire "War on Terror" is a lie and he has too much invested in that.
> 
> The best video is where Donald Rumsfeld claims he doesn't even know what it it is!: "Building 7? Never heard of that". Oh that's that building where the CIA, DEA AND IRS share the 25th floor. Remember now?
> 
> 9/11: Donald Rumsfeld - "What is building 7?" - YouTube



and dont forget to mention he also wont admit it because his handlers will stop paying him the big bucks they do to troll these boards like he does everyday if he does admit it.


Verifying "facts" from known liars is only verifying lies. Once again, WTC 7 did not collapse due to any damage from either of the 110 story towers.
LOL, you mention the 110 stories coming down, but can't seem to fathom ALL those stories coming down with minimal resistance, just a few seconds short of FF. 
1250 feet. 1/4 mile worth of huge, massive steel structure components...2 times. Then WTC 7 that wasn't hit by a plane..You conspiracy theorists are fucking loons. 
__________________


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 12, 2013)

Capstone said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



That horse will never be dead then because just like i said over on my thread its going to turn into another kennedy assassination where the REAL killers just like in that tragedy,are going to get away with it and continue roaming the streets here in america and never brought to justice.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 12, 2013)

Capstone said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



I'm kinda hoping a few of the off-the-wall CTs will be forced to walk the plank.


----------



## earlycuyler (Jan 12, 2013)

Capstone said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



I just cant buy it. Our Government cant balance a check book, or manage a credit card, but they can pull this off ?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 12, 2013)

This message is hidden because SAYIT is on your ignore list


THE TROLL SEEMS TO HAVE ALZHEMIERS DISEACE SO I GUESS I SHOULD REMIND HIM OF THIS AGAIN.

NOT GOING TO DEBATE A CHICKENSHIT COWARD WHO CAN ONLY COME BACK WITH PATHETIC ONE LINERS WHEN ASKED TO DEBUNK THAT SHORT 5 MINUTE 9/11 VIDEO.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 12, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



If you truly believe "the REAL killers ... are going to get away with it and ... never [be] brought to justice" then the horse you're beating is already dead, Princess, and with all due respect you are a monumental fuktard. No offense...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 12, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



So everyone except Jennings is a liar...got it.....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 12, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



Got any physical proof yet? Didn't think so...


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 12, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



You've had waaay too much of the Kool-Aid, Princess. The various competing CT stories are all full of holes and inconsistences but you don't seem capable of discerning them. I'm not about to reinvent the wheel for you ... you have a good time with that decoder ring.


----------



## Capstone (Jan 12, 2013)

earlycuyler said:


> I just cant buy it. Our Government cant balance a check book, or manage a credit card, but they can pull this off ?



A couple of things:

First, what on Earth makes you think our Government's string-pullers have any interest in balancing the budget and paying down the national debt? To the contrary, The Federal Reserve and its constituent banksters have a vested interest in perpetuating the status quo. Can't you see that our Government has appeared (and still appears) hopelessly impotent and totally incompetent *by design?!*

Second but more importantly, "our Government" _in toto_ needn't have been involved directly in the planning or execution of the events of 9/11/01. A small cabal of strategically appointed individuals would have more than sufficed; and I believe the evidence shows they did just that. At the end of the day, Early, there's reason to believe the true masterminds of 9/11 were well outside of the confines of the US Government.


----------



## eots (Jan 12, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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



good thing they rushed to destroy the crime scene...


----------



## eots (Jan 12, 2013)

any evidence of the temperatures predicted  to as required to cause structural failure...because NIST could find no evidence in any of the materials tested of these temperatures ever being reached


----------



## eots (Jan 12, 2013)

Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, 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 - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 12, 2013)

Capstone said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > I just cant buy it. Our Government cant balance a check book, or manage a credit card, but they can pull this off ?
> ...



It would have taken hundreds if not thousands for the planning execution and cover up......... And We can't even keep tapped phones a secret..........


----------



## eots (Jan 12, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



nonsense...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 12, 2013)

Common Sense......


----------



## Capstone (Jan 12, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> It would have taken hundreds if not thousands for the planning execution and cover up......... And We can't even keep tapped phones a secret........



Bullshit.

Beyond the planners and primary beneficiaries of the operation, all that would have been needed was a handful of high level government officials to cleverly ensure an effective stand-down of our air defense system (via conveniently timed drills and other confusion fomenting tactics), someone to operate the remotely guided aircraft, someone in a position of influence over the security of the WTC complex, a Black Ops demolition team (not necessarily of domestic origin) to rig the buildings in the weeks and months leading up to the attacks, and a handful of media bigwigs to shape the story that was fed to the American public at large. 

Moreover, the incentive for members of the group (however large it was) to remain silent after the fact couldn't be any more clear. These people have profited from their complicity in the murder of more than 3,000 American citizens, the subsequent deaths of tens of thousands of American soldiers and contractors, and the unwarranted slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghans.  

It should be noted: it's not as though the plan went off without a hitch. There was the Pentagon fiasco, the crash in Pennsylvania, the inexplicable but perfectly symmetrical "collapse" of building 7, the media mishaps (and 'once aired' reports), and a buttload of highly credible eyewitnesses (emergency responders and others close to ground zero at or within minutes of the first attack), whose accounts have largely contradicted the official storyline from day one (a few of these people have died under mysterious circumstances since). So, clearly, no matter how many individuals were _in the know_, it apparently wasn't quite enough.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 12, 2013)

Lol


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 13, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



A ridiculous assumption. Ollie...


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 13, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...



   
Your specialty, G.


----------



## paulitician (Jan 14, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Ah i see, all you got is stale one-liner insults. We get it. You're lame.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 14, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


cue bells and whistles: (announcer) "SISTER JONES  HAS JUST WON THE IF I SAY THIS OVER AND OVER AWARD!"


----------



## daws101 (Jan 14, 2013)

earlycuyler said:


>


LOLOLOLOL!


----------



## daws101 (Jan 14, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> this message is hidden because sayit is on your ignore list
> 
> 
> the troll seems to have alzhemiers diseace so i guess i should remind him of this again.
> ...


hey  hand job, what's "diseace"?


----------



## daws101 (Jan 14, 2013)

sfc ollie said:


> mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > sayit said:
> ...


has no credible proof of any kind !


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > this message is hidden because sayit is on your ignore list
> ...



What 5 minute video is he harping about all the time? My bet is it's been debunked hundreds of times on most every site he goes to......


----------



## daws101 (Jan 14, 2013)

eots said:


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


false declarative no evidence.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 14, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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


facts! he don't need no stinkin' facts!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 14, 2013)

two farts in a row from you dawgshit.

five farts in a row from the agent trolls before these two of dawgshits as well.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 14, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



you noticed it as well huh? yeah people who debate this troll they find out immediatly whenever he is cornered and has no answers,all he can do is throw pitiful one liners.

He did that EVERYTIME I asked him to debunk the facts in that 5 minute video on that thread of yours.Im glad Im not the only one that noticed that about him,that all he can do is throw pathetic one liners when the troll is cornered.

I wondered if anybody else around here noticed thats how he debates all the time when he is cornered.


good thing they rushed to destroy the crime scene... 

yep and these agents can only fling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are._


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


 Maybe you'd like to post the facts that you rely on that solidifies your belief in the "official conspiracy theory" and the narrative you were told about 9-11 is "factually" sound?



eots said:


> any evidence of the temperatures predicted  to as required to cause structural failure...because NIST could find no evidence in any of the materials tested of these temperatures ever being reached


There is no evidence that the temps required to destroy the WTC buildings were ever achieved, we know this, as well as the NIST tests being a failure, still they claim the destruction as being blamed on fires primarily.
Yet we witness comments by Dawgshit such as...this when a credible objection is made that the NIST narrative is proven by physics, science, and calculations, AND NIST's own failure to prove their guess is anywhere close to being  true and correct.



daws101 said:


> false declarative no evidence.


Dipshit Dawgshit and his ilk are adhereing to "evidence" provided by NIST that has been shown and proven to be flawed, failed, unsound, and blatent lies. These people don't give a shit what anyone else says despite the fact that they can be pointed to the credible calculations, formulas, and information that shows the NIST and the OCT to be nothing more then BS.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


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


"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
 -- Aldous Huxley
 Likewise you  continue to run away whenever you are given the chance to show us all the 'facts' that make you cling to such outrageous BS as the NIST report and the OCT narrative. 
You can not address with any reasonable intelligence the fact that physics provide different results that are counter to your dogmatic belief, that fire destroyed 3 massive hirises. 
You have never posted anything in defense of the NIST report, that can't be destroyed by real world science or physics and, even NIST's own words and report.
You just just cling to the same ole tactics of diversion and BS when faced with having to stand by your beliefs, that are constructed on failed  unprovable "evidence" that has been posted numerous times, but that you continuously ignore. You are on USMB conspiracy section, discussing the 9-11 attacks, but you refuse to discuss the issue in any rational intelligent manner...so why do you bother?

But then.. I suppose...."It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 14, 2013)

earlycuyler said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...


 You seem to be viewing the government as just one big entity and ignoring the many tentacles that are attached to it and the compartmentalization of the departments, and even within the agencies/departments themselves. 
Not to mention the backgrounds and loyalties of some of those within the government branches that most certainly could facilitate any number of things and outcomes.
 You also rather naively dismiss the real threat of bribery, and political and physical death and financial ruin after years of "hard work" that are at stake. 
Perhaps you might do well to brush up on the machinations of government and history before you involve yourself in a 9-11 conspiracy discussion.
A good place to start would be what some of the whistle blowers and those in the fields pertinent to government and the 9-11 attacks have said regarding their objections to the the official version of events, followed by the objections of credible people in science and physics pertaining to the destruction of the WTC buildings. 
There are many who do not have some sort of dependence on government, financially or otherwise.
Skipping all the way to the who, why, and how is going to make you ignore the very first and important reason there was almost immediate doubt the truth was being told in the first place.
Not knowing those 3 parts does not in anyway dismiss the physics and science behind the 9-11 events, or the improbability of the NIST report being accurate, or scientifically sound..


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 14, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Good God man ... your "facts" have been so thoroughly debunked so often it's just not worth the trouble of reposting the truth again. If you want to escape from chasing your tail (you are entertaining) look at the web sites which calmly make your silliness and outright lies look so silly. You fool no one.   

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Sagging Trusses and Bowed Columns


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 14, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...



The reason there was "immediate doubt" about the truth of the official 9/11 story is the same reason there was "immediate doubt" about Sandy Hook ... slimy CTs who know they can get silly CTs like you to bite on any story they author no matter how silly. For them there is fame and some coin and for you there's the mess you make in your pants every time you read one of their fictions. You are forced to reject things like the NIST findings because they interfere with your CT religious beliefs.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 14, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



Your 9/11 CTs have been so thoroughly and totally debunked there is nothing left to do but ridicule the stragglers who cling deperately to them.   

Skeptic » eSkeptic » Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage


----------



## eots (Jan 14, 2013)

sayit said:


> mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



what has been _debunked _exactly ???  ..what has clearly been debunked is the 9/11 commission report and the nist report two documents I am sure you know little about


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 14, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



No the immediate doubt started when massive structures were exploded (not collapsed) and their rapid rate of decent through the path of most resistance did not coincide with them being made  of steel, and this unprecedented event (their actual destruction) not only occurring once, but twice, and then a 3rd massive building "collapsing" without being the target of one of the coke sniffing, freedumbs hating, devout Muslim jihadists plane.

Official state conspiracy theorists like yourself  seemingly have no ability or desire to look at this subject with any objectivity, and dismiss the states conspiracy theory's lack of credible proof and evidence, depending instead on an adherence of strict loyalty to their authoritative figures and agencies, despite historical precedence of numerous lies.
You depend on reports that rely on unsound  data and calculations, and just plain ole bullshit. 
Hell it took a regular citizen to point the fact that WTC 7 experienced a period of freefall for the first 8 stories.
The dogmatic fanatical beliefs that official conspiracy theorists like you have is most likely based on fear and cowardice, that the realization of what is happened and continues in the nation, is too overwhelming and too much to accept and comprehend. 
It is you that is afraid of shitting yourself, so you deny even the mere existence of a possibility of the CT's that you fear so much. 

BTW, the NIST report has been taken into account, and it actually is at the center of many points of the objections, since you bring it up care to explain why they refuse to release their computer simulation data so that others in the scientific community can replicate the outcomes? I doubt you will, so run along now, unless you wish to debate that which might cause you to soil yourself.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 14, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



You don't think they will actually look at that link or read any of it... They might look at the pictures but they won't understand what they are looking at. It's the wrong physics for that.....


----------



## daws101 (Jan 14, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


once again you are fantasizing.
I've answered  every lame ass question/challenge you ever spewed.
as with all people in denial your own warped pov seems real but in fact is not.
it also seems you don't understand the concept of debate.
being in the conspiracy section  does not mean agreeing with the
  ct being presented.
as to rational and intelligent you don't even fake it well. 
quote mining out of context phrases by authors you've never read or if you did you've misinterpreted them due to willful ignorance or sheer stupidity.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 14, 2013)

eots said:


> sayit said:
> 
> 
> > mr. Jones said:
> ...


standard eot's dodge and the imagined  brighter then you yammering


----------



## SixtyOne (Jan 14, 2013)

Man I&#8217;m talking about a bunch of  Conspiracy nuts

Check these nuts out.

What Will Be The Next Made Up Crisis...  

They have this one called Solar who the other nuts bow down to, he&#8217;s the one who run things and all the others are afraid of.  they have one called Darth Fife . He&#8217;s one of the nut who think the shootings wasn&#8217;t totally random but think while some are obviously copy-cat, the initial incidents - like Aurora CO and Newtown CT are just too damned convenient to have occurred totally on their own. 
He believe that the Power Elite (mostly Democrats, but a fair number of Republicans) have a way of triggering these events.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


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


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 14, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



Once more for the terminally stupid. There is no evidence or proof the Towers were rigged to explode. Give it up, Princess ... even your sources have.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 14, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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



No one can save these lame CTs but themselves. You can lead the camels to water but you can't make 'em drink.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 14, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> two farts in a row from you dawgshit.
> 
> five farts in a row from the agent trolls before these two of dawgshits as well.



The point by point refutation of a typically sophomoric CT. Nice work, Princess.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 14, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



The NIST report was laboriously prepared by credible scientists. Your prob and that of the loony CT world is it doen't conform to your lunacy. Carry on, Princess.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 15, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



There is but one official account of 9/11 which was painstakingly prepared by credible people and while it may be incomplete or otherwise flawed - it was, after all prepared by people - there is _no evidence_ that they conspired to "fix" the results.
On the other hand we have numerous, often conflicting CTs which resulted in pissing matches by the authors who charge each other with various crimes and misdemeanors including disinformation and being a tool of the gov't. Their disagreements boil down to "my CT is factual and yours is bogus" which elicits the response "no, your CT is bogus and mine is factual." Their agenda? Fame and some coin. Check out the college dropout slackers who produced two films (Loose Change) on the subject and their sudden riches and noteriety. You've been duped.


----------



## paulitician (Jan 15, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Sock. Predictable and smug. Nothing new or original.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 15, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



You're projecting, Princess. Nothing is more smug and stale than your responses. Carry on.


----------



## paulitician (Jan 15, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Sure Sock, whatever you say.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 15, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


----------



## daws101 (Jan 15, 2013)

paulitician said:


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


so when ,if ever are you going to answer the living in mom's basement and inflatable girlfriend question?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 15, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Haven't seen pictures or videos of the actual events have you? See the problem with ignorant fucks like you is, the state conspiracy theory dogma whose nuts you cling to, has absolutely no evidence or proof that the WTC buildings could have imploded/collapsed by fire/kerosene. There are laws within physics that dictate how fast an object will travel through air as opposed through mass.
There are also properties of steel and the temperature it must be heated to, for durations of time before it gives way like spaghetti noodles. The best hypothesis that explains their demise is not due to fires and office combustibles.
If you had done the slightest bit of research and study into what the real objection to the OCT are, you would have known this, and not come on here and make an ass out of yourself by showing just how out of touch with the topic you are.
Better get your supervisor to help you on this one...princess


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 15, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



You mean other than the fact that that is EXACTLY what they DID?? Explode?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


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


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 15, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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


And just what is it that makes them (NIST) so credible, in your opinion...? And no, the problem we have with their sham "report"  is not that it doesn't conform to any logical conspiracy theory at all.. it doesn't even conform to the one YOU cling to you fucking idiot!
Not only does it NOT fit their own version but it does not conform to known science, and the laws of physics, nor takes into consideration the properties of steel, fires, and heat dissipation among other important aspects, including some within the scientific community. 

Now are you able to understand what the problem credible non partisan people in the science, and physics fields have with your conspiracy theory, or do you need to take a time out and go ask for some help?
See little one, once you actually investigate such matters you will know just how bad the NIST fucked up in their less then credible reports.
I'll give you time to study...run along now poobut...questions are coming..


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 15, 2013)

Notice how they ignore the pictorial and video evidence of the buildings beginning to sag......

And how long did it take for them to fall? anywhere near free fall or closer to twice as long? Fact people pure fact....


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 15, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Why isn't there evidence of explosions?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 15, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Notice how they ignore the pictorial and video evidence of the buildings beginning to sag......
> 
> And how long did it take for them to fall? anywhere near free fall or closer to twice as long? Fact people pure fact....


We don't ignore anything, hell I don't even ignore you despite you acting like your Alzheimer's is progressing along.

Have you taken the time to notice the exploding nature of the buildings and how tons of steel mass was ejected hundreds of feet away? Explain that to us... what force did that?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 15, 2013)

So please go ahead and tell us what was causing the towers to pull in the way they were........


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 15, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> So please go ahead and tell us what was causing the towers to pull in the way they were........



Tell us what force caused the tons of massive steel components to be ejected hundreds of feet away, even imbedding into other buildings?
Tell us why you think the fires got hot enough when even NIST did not and could not prove it?
Why did they fall right through the path of most resistance?
Why was there only "minimal resistance" according to NIST?

Don't you have capability to look at this and think for yourself?
The questions above are what you should be asking, and finding answers for.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 15, 2013)

SO you don't have an answer to what we could all see. Got it...........


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 15, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



They did not explode ... they collapsed.
Demo explosions occur in a carefully orchestrated sequence and the Towers would have required many such large, sequential explosions . No evidence of demo rigging was found and the NIST concluded the cause of the explosions was the fire, not vice versa. There were no sequential explosions, no proof that the NIST report was tainted and none that its authors were incompetent. You have only "gut feelings, hairs on the back of your neck, little devils or angels sitting on your shoulder" (Crimson Tide) and the assurance of like-minded CTs who believe in the same pseudoscience you do and share your total distrust of America and Americans.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 15, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



All that BS and not a lick of proof of the Towers having been rigged for demo or the massive sequential explosions necessary for a "controlled demo" of buildings of that size. If you had the intellectual capacity to separate the wheat from the chaff you wouldn't come here with your half-assed pseudoscience and innuendo in such a feeble attempt to deny the facts and make an ass of yourself by showing how out of touch with reality you are, Princess.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 15, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > yes it hurts you a lot. btw I see no difference  betweenosting an excerpt of the NIST report and my own thoughts since they are the same facts.
> ...


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 15, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



The only conspiracy theory I "cling to" Princess is the one in which a twisted gang of terrorists hijacked 4 passenger jets and slammed them into America on 9/11/2001. Only shrill, desperate fools deny this fact. The rest of your thesis is based on the machinations of vivid imaginations coupled with the CTs varied nefarious agendas. 
You are just a dupe of these CTs, Princess.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 15, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



Your reading comp could use some work, Princess. Obviously there were intermittent explosions but not the large, sequential explosions associated with and necessary for a controlled demo. There is a _complete lack of evidence_ that the building was rigged for demo or were felled by demo explosives, unless you have been holding out.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 15, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > So please go ahead and tell us what was causing the towers to pull in the way they were........
> ...



Your questions have been answered so completely and so often that your unwillingness to accept them can only be evidence of your lack of personal integrity. Air pressure associated with the building's sudden collapsed ejected materials at a high rate of speed and the lack of resistence is a function of the mostly hollow nature of any building.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jan 15, 2013)

I guess you guys missed my post, so here it is again:



Mad Scientist said:


> *Proof* that at least one airliner hit the WTC. This _*Boeing 737 jet engine*_ sits on the corner on Church and Murray after having exploded through the South Tower on 9/11.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 15, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> I guess you guys missed my post, so here it is again:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are there really still deniers claiming there were no planes?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



If you say so, Shirley...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64&NR=1&feature=endscreen]FDNY describe the bombs planted in the World Trade Center - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 16, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



They are describing the pancake effect, Princess, as the exterior walls of each floor violently burst from the pressure of the collapse of the floors above, not planted bombs.
Once more for the terminally dense:
There is no evidence that the building was rigged for demo or felled by demo explosives, but you have a nice day.


----------



## paulitician (Jan 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Seriously, you must get paid to loiter here 24/7. My God, we get it already. You're a 100% loyal dedicated Goose Stepper. You can punch out now. SHEESH!


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jan 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > I guess you guys missed my post, so here it is again:
> ...


Of course there were planes! that's a *Boeing 737* Engine in the street, *where else* could it have come from?

Boeing 737.
*Boeing 737.*
*Boeing 737.*
*Boeing 737.

*Wait a minute, what kind of planes hit the buildings again?


----------



## daws101 (Jan 16, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


----------



## daws101 (Jan 16, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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


bullshit
[ame=http://youtu.be/9Q5S0ehGhR4]National Geographic Science & Conspiracy Part 4 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Jan 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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


[ame=http://youtu.be/9Q5S0ehGhR4]National Geographic Science & Conspiracy Part 4 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



The CT story morphs as the facts destroy their fantasies. Since there was no evidence of explosives, they must have been secret, super high-tech stuff the demo industry knows nothing about. Uh-huh. Of course, no one noticed the small army of demo techs requiring months to rig the towers because ... they never existed.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Yeah, riiiiiight... Did you hear the man say "It was like they had detonators, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom...."?

You're nothing but another apologist, Bro, and your BS is plainly obvious.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 16, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



The key word is 'like' as in "like they had detonators," Princess. Funny how their conversation was conveniently taped and uploaded, eh? I'd say it was planned, a conspiracy even! There is no evidence that any of those firemen have ever witnessed a demo and absolutely none that the towers were rigged or felled by explosives. None.
You're nothing but a srill and desperate CT dupe who's been had by the Alex Jones's of the CT World and your blind spot is plainly obvious.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Jan 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



OK, whatever you say. You don't like first-hand witness accounts, you don't like video, you don't like people who disagree with your government-sponsored story.

I'm guessing the only thing you DO like is to troll forums trying to disrupt discussions of what really happened that day.

Enjoy!


----------



## daws101 (Jan 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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


 so I guess hundreds of floors at an acre square, collapsing and pushing millions of cubic feet of air at high speeds don't make a sound much like an explosion?


----------



## daws101 (Jan 16, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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


first hand accounts that cannot be linked to actual physical evidence are not credible.
videos produced or falsely interpreted by the paranoid are even less credible ..


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 16, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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




Yep we heard the man say it was  "LIKE" not it was..Now please tell us what makes him an expert on demolition? Or better yet what makes him more of an expert than the real experts that do it for a living.... BTW We've seen this video at least 100 times.....It still proves nothing other than people have opinions....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 16, 2013)

And also did you even bother to watch the national geographic video?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 16, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


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



I missed something in your Youtube. Who declared that to be the remains of a 737 engine?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 16, 2013)

Some youtube video.....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



What their research has failed to show them is that the 747 and 767 use the same CF6 engine.

Snecma is a partner of General Electric Company in high thrust engine programs, the CF6 (powerplant of the Boeing 767 and 747 and the Airbus A330), the GE90 (powerplant of the Boeing 777 family) and the GP7200 (powerplant of the Airbus A380).
High thrust engines - Snecma


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 16, 2013)

Oh and most of the truther sites I had to wade through to find that claimed that the Murry st engine was from a 747. not a 737. So come on man.get on the same sheet of music at least...


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 16, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Oh and most of the truther sites I had to wade through to find that claimed that the Murry st engine was from a 747. not a 737. So come on man.get on the same sheet of music at least...



I guess I was wrong about Mad Sci ... I thought he was a relatively rational Nutter. My bad.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 16, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Oh and most of the truther sites I had to wade through to find that claimed that the Murry st engine was from a 747. not a 737. So come on man.get on the same sheet of music at least...



I'm kinda new at this but it seems the "truther" game is to toss absurd BS on the wall just to see how long it takes the norms to hose it off. Is that the deal? These idiots are just pulling my leg, right?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 16, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



C'mon Pauli ... you need me around to remind you what a silly little child you are.


----------



## paulitician (Jan 17, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Nah, you're just an average Goose Stepper sock. Nothing new or original. "You got Tin Foil Hat." Blah Blah Blah. Boring.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 17, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Oh and most of the truther sites I had to wade through to find that claimed that the Murry st engine was from a 747. not a 737. So come on man.get on the same sheet of music at least...
> ...


there's always that possibility but for the most part they're as serious as a heart attack ,that's if you like absurdist theatre.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 17, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



So tell me, Princess ... have you ever driven a car? Owned one? Kissed a girl who wasn't your sister? Isn't it about time you stop being so weird?


----------



## paulitician (Jan 17, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Sock dipshit.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 17, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



I'll take that as a proud "NO" to all questions above. Thanks.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 18, 2013)

paulitician said:


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







OK, whatever you say. You don't like first-hand witness accounts, you don't like video, you don't like people who disagree with your government-sponsored story.

I'm guessing the only thing you DO like is to troll forums trying to disrupt discussions of what really happened that day.

Enjoy! 



Yep another paid troll that has penetrated this site.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 18, 2013)

eots said:


> sayit said:
> 
> 
> > mr. Jones said:
> ...





amen to that,thats an understatement of the century that those two things you mentioned the NIST report and the 9/11 commission report.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 18, 2013)

paulitician said:


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


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jan 18, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> Yep another paid troll that has penetrated this site.


I doubt they're paid trolls but how many of them do you think *still* believe that Al Qaida is the enemy in the War on Terror when the US supports them in Libya and Syria?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/w...play-key-role-in-war.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

How many of them still think Oswald was the lone shooter?
How many of them don't know the Gulf of Tonkin incident Never Happened? Robert McNamara said so in 1995!
How many of them don't know that Income Taxes ONLY go to paying Interest on the National Debt? That the Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE BANK? 

There's a LOT these guys will NEVER question. You know why?

They're scared shitless!


----------



## paulitician (Jan 18, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Yep another paid troll that has penetrated this site.
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 18, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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



Him and his FDNY  brothers were there and eye witnesses and people like him and others were thoroughly ignored by the 9-11 omission and NIST. 

The pancake theory has been dismissed even by NIST. 
The real world physics don't add 
up with the rapid descents or the conservation of momentum, nor is it consistent with the properties of steel, or fire.
The OCT fanatics aren't discussing these real objections to their government theory, and that is all they are believing in, an unscientific theory...with incomplete data or legitimate proof and evidence that support any of it.
You can not dismiss the science or physics, and dismiss any alternative theories simply because CD crews were not seen entering or leaving the complex. Hell that would be easy enough to do simply by controlling the fucking security, and any work rigging the buildings could have been "renovations".  

 To anyone who observes the WTC being destroyed, and objectively studies the physics behind the objections to the OCT, it's really clear and convincing, and makes a solid case against the government guesses. 

I still await the OCT idiots on here to explain to us how it is the WTC can have minimal resistance, and come down just short of FF acceleration, when debris was exploded and ejected away from the actual collapse front, and couldn't contribute to any "crush down" like you pancake heads are implying.
You people only have 2nd grade thinking ability and ad hominem attacks, when you are asked to confront the above mentioned parts of the debate, and posting excerpts or bits of the NIST report is useless, as it does not explain any of what is asked either. Even their own fire tests
do not prove the extreme fire temps. Their computer model of the WTC 7 is a joke, and can't be accessed for replication. It is clear they don't want anyone to even think about this, and going by what we get from you people, you actually DON'T think about it with any degree of intellect. 
 Until you face and address these issues, you remain trapped believing an explanation that only demands you believe it because it comes from the government and its agencies, who historically have lied to you and the rest of the American public.
The OCT 19 fanatical jihadists fantasy believers have less evidence to back up their beliefs, then those that believe something else helped destroy the WTC  other then planes and fires.
So explain to us how it is the WTC can have minimal resistance, and come down just short of FF acceleration. I await your usual avoidance of questions like this.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 18, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Oh and most of the truther sites I had to wade through to find that claimed that the Murry st engine was from a 747. not a 737. So come on man.get on the same sheet of music at least...
> ...



I wish we knew what it is that you consider absurd about a theory other then the one you subscribe to. It would also help if you would clarify what you feel gives your belief that the OCT is so solid.
Let's have a serious debate on this now, instead of you thanking people for things you seem to know nothing about. If I were you I would abstain from partying before jumping into a serious discussion on 9-11, being stupid AND hungover is no way to go through live poobutt.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 18, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Yep another paid troll that has penetrated this site.
> ...



And you are a moron who doesn't have a clue what anyone else knows or believes. You are simply one of those that for some weird fucked up reason wants the US Government to always be the bad guy... But I bet you wouldn't leave........


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 18, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Now go ahead and tell us again how only a handful of people could pull this off, and we are still waiting to hear your version of what caused the towers to basically suck in before they fell.....Never saw an explosive that could pull a building in before it blew it out....
Fact is you've got opinion, And those who may or may not be experts you have less than 0.01% of them agreeing with you on some point or another... So go ahead and keep talking trash, when you have real evidence let us know......


----------



## daws101 (Jan 18, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


misquoting out of context movie dialog as a way to fake intellectuality is no substitute for actual evidence and analytical ability..!


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



The source of my beliefs, what you wild-eyed CTs refer to as the OCT, is the rational, scientific way it was it established. You seem incapable of accepting the fact that a bunch of angry Muslim loons attacked America on 9/11. All you do seem capable of proving is that you are an irrational a-hole who is worthy only of the ridicule you garner. 
Move out of your Mommy's basement and get a life, Princess.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



NIST ignored those who, like you, have only their opinions but no proof. The explosion theories were considered, found to be baseless and dismised them in favor of that which could be proven. Your problem is your allegiance to CTs is so all-consuming you are forced to reject the report in favor of CT pseudoscience because it does not support your silliness.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 20, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Yep another paid troll that has penetrated this site.
> ...



Uh-huh. Like most loony CTs you are a regular scary legend in your own small mind.
You posted a pic in this thread of the remains of a jet engine you claimed to be that of a 737. When asked for your source of that fact you slithered away like the coward you now claim others to be.
So who told you that was the remains of a 737 engine, Princess, and please don't ignore this 2nd request as you did the first?


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 21, 2013)

Dear Mr. Jones:
(a) I don't see how the collapse could be seen as "minimal resistance".
There was a lot of force, pressure and material involved.
(b) Can you explain how the timing and positions of pre-planted bombs could
coincide with the exact spots where the planes hit?

I believe 9/11 was tragedy for all humanity, including and especially the political division before and after which is where most of the longterm damage has the worst impact.

As long as we point the finger at one group or another, we lose our humanity and we suffer greater loss.  No one could have planned or foreseen the entire collapse, neither any terrorist nor any government group has that much foresight.  People hating and excluding each other politically "allowed" 9/11 to happen.

The one thing we all can agree on - NO ONE did enough to stop it from happening.
We all allowed it to happen, whatever went into it, and whatever comes from it.

We cannot change it but we can stop further destruction of our relations from division and projected blame. teh most we can do is make sure no group, whether domestic or foreign, continues to take advantage of political division to pit one person or group against another and waste any more resources or freedom entangled in conflict instead of solving problems.

Take care and I hope this issue inspires you to overcome any fears or separation you have regarding people of different views or groups. The best deterrence to any political oppression by US or other governments is to make peace and work together in all relationships, local first which then shapes our global relations collectively; then, no one, no person party or political or religious figure can control you because you will have equal responsibility and authority in all matters that anyone else could influence either.

Yours truly and happy 2013
Emily Nghiem



Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinest ra said:
> ...



I agree with no name calling. And I agree to respect each other's intellect.
When you do this, then others will respect the same, it takes mutual effort and it works!

http://www.houstonprogressive.org/believe/worldpeace.html
http://www.houstonprogressive.org/believe/believe.html


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 21, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> OK, whatever you say. You don't like first-hand witness accounts, you don't like video, you don't like people who disagree with your government-sponsored story



Dear 911IJ: Do you also include in "first hand witness accounts" 
the devastation of the man cited as saying the noise "sounded like missiles"
and using that to spread rumors there was a missile instead of what he really meant???

If you accuse opponents (who believe Saudi Arabian terrorists flew planes into the buildings to cause their collapse) of "excluding" any testimony/arguments/evidence to the contrary,
do you acknowledge that many who disbelieve the govt/media accounts are equally if not more "selective" in which sources or information they cite as proof backing their beliefs?

Do you at least agree the problem with communicating to address points of question or infirmation is mutual and not one-sided?


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 21, 2013)

You are probably pointing to the same people who believe that natural rights of man are given by government and protected by hiring political parties to lobby in DC; so if the government infringes on rights that means they were never inalienable to start with!

I still hadn't figured out how removing a Cross from a historic building is religious freedom, before this new idea came out about depending on govt to remove guns to ensure security?
Whatever denomination of Constitutional law this is, I am not that denomination obviously!



Mad Scientist said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Yep another paid troll that has penetrated this site.
> ...



No, they have faith that praying to Government as divine providence is going to save them.  So they are not worried about all the costs, because the Government is going to fix all that.
the people are only the government when it comes to claiming benefits and rights (99%) but when it comes to paying for them, all that is charged to the % who pay for more than they use because they don't depend on govt. Isn't Government wonderful to pay for all that!


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jan 21, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> And you are a moron who doesn't have a clue what anyone else knows or believes. You are simply one of those that for some weird fucked up reason wants the US Government to always be the bad guy... But I bet you wouldn't leave........


And you're one of those guys for some weird fucked up reason thinks the US is RIGHT all the time.

I don't WANT the US to be the bad guy, it's just that in some instances they are. And when they are, I point it out. Like when the US supports Al Qaida in Libya and Syria. 

Don't like it? Too fuckin' bad for you Napoleon.


----------



## eots (Jan 21, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



NIST proved nothing with its computer model which is they cornerstone of their theory...NIST did no testing for explosive residue and dismissed the many reports of explosions claiming explosions would be "as loud as a shot gun blast or as loud as speakers at a rock concert and no such sounds were heard "...true story


----------



## eots (Jan 21, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQdJuQLNFCk]We Have the Results and Only We Have the Results - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 21, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > And you are a moron who doesn't have a clue what anyone else knows or believes. You are simply one of those that for some weird fucked up reason wants the US Government to always be the bad guy... But I bet you wouldn't leave........
> ...



There is no evidence that Sarge "thinks the US is RIGHT all the time." You make that kind of Straw Man crap up to justify your irrational belief that, as he said, the US government is always the bad guy.


----------



## eots (Jan 21, 2013)

The column 79 theory is completely ludicris and has zero supporting evidence


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 21, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > And you are a moron who doesn't have a clue what anyone else knows or believes. You are simply one of those that for some weird fucked up reason wants the US Government to always be the bad guy... But I bet you wouldn't leave........
> ...



You forget, I spent 22 years on active duty, been there, done that. I know that the USA is far from being lilly white.....

But I also know that our Government had nothing to do with the attacks on 911 other than being blind to them before hand....


----------



## daws101 (Jan 22, 2013)

eots said:


> The column 79 theory is completely ludicris and has zero supporting evidence


eot's still trying to sell this debunked bullshit?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 23, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Yeah purposefully "blind", and obstructionist in its way how it "handled" the "investigation".


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 23, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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



So I suppose say, a rouge platoon leader, or CO, couldn't lead his men to commit atrocities either? Now just imagine someone way higher in the chain of command, with the resources and manpower to help you keep your mouth shut...For good..Take a hard look at the men who had the power, and authority in the chain of command, on that day, in that administration and who their unabashed loyalties were to. PNAC. Rebuilding Americas Defenses.

Those buildings were not destroyed solely by fire, the physical destruction don't jive with the physics, and collapse times. Period.
Wars and civil liberty infringements were a direct result of the attacks and a lot of money was made in the war effort on "terrorism" that was  total bullshit.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Zt9BZD7mlc]Iraq For Sale - Full Movie - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Jan 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...


 you're talking a lot but not saying anything (psyco killer David Burne/ THE TALKING   HEADS)


----------



## daws101 (Jan 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


False declarative!
you've shown no evidence that the physics don't jive.
where's your precedence ?
can you provide any evidence other then wtc7 where the laws of physics were broken?


----------



## eots (Jan 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > The column 79 theory is completely ludicris and has zero supporting evidence
> ...



what was debunked ?????


----------



## daws101 (Jan 23, 2013)

eots said:


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


you mean other than everything you and your merry band of slapdicks ever wrote, believed .....


----------



## paulitician (Jan 24, 2013)

mad scientist said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > and you are a moron who doesn't have a clue what anyone else knows or believes. You are simply one of those that for some weird fucked up reason wants the us government to always be the bad guy... But i bet you wouldn't leave........
> ...



Bam!


----------



## daws101 (Jan 24, 2013)

paulitician said:


> mad scientist said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...


----------



## paulitician (Jan 24, 2013)

daws101 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > mad scientist said:
> ...



You don't believe the Government lied about 911. So why do you still come here obsessing over the issue? You must have some doubt. Why else would you be so obsessed with it?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 24, 2013)

paulitician said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


Dawgshit is a troll, and not a very good one.


----------



## paulitician (Jan 24, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Yeah, i once considered the notion he or she was a paid Troll. But i dismiss that notion now. He or she is just obsessed with the issue. There is some doubt there. I think the poster is just trying to convince themself that Big Brother told the truth about 911. You don't spend so much time obsessing over one issue unless there is some doubt there. That's my assessment anyway.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 24, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



Paid or not, still a stupid troll, and one that leans towards sympathy for Zionist criminals at that.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 24, 2013)

I come for the comedy........Even though my mother told me not to pick on the dumb kids.........


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jan 24, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> I come for the comedy........Even though my mother told me not to pick on the dumb kids.........



You seem to hold yourself in such high regards intellectually, why not explain how the little physics lesson I posted is so "dumb"?
 You can't refute something so you make yourself feel better by making fun of others? Brilliant, looks like your the dumb kid on the USMB.


----------



## paulitician (Jan 24, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> I come for the comedy........Even though my mother told me not to pick on the dumb kids.........



Ironic and very funny. We feel the same exact way about you.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 24, 2013)

paulitician said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


it's you who's obsessed, I'm just here to see the freak show and punch holes in your fantasy.
you should be grateful ,the net is most likely the only place you interact with other humans.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 24, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


 yea ,yea say's the asshole who trolls 4 or five other sites at last count.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 24, 2013)

paulitician said:


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


hey everybody if you want to see mental illness at work, notice how paulie purposely and falsely try's to blur gender when he knows full well I'm a man just give himself a sense of superiority.
also notice his obsession with assuming that others are obsessed.
lastly note the all consuming need project his own paranoia on to other posters.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 24, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


how's that? now you're just making shit up.
as always you're assuming and failing.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 24, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



Woo. Now there's a classic case of projection. It is you foil-hatted CTs who have obsessed about 9/11. Daws seems to be the rational head who finds your silliness to be ... uh ... silly, and has no problem pointing that out.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 24, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I come for the comedy........Even though my mother told me not to pick on the dumb kids.........
> ...



I am not a Physicist. And I doubt that you are either. What I do know is that very few% of real physicists would agree with you.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 24, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



Fortunately it is not the other sites that I frequent......


----------



## daws101 (Jan 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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


----------



## daws101 (Jan 24, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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


the ones that do suffer the same delusions sister jones does.


----------



## paulitician (Jan 24, 2013)

daws101 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You seem to be here more than most. You are obsessed. Why is that?


----------



## paulitician (Jan 24, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



No seriously, i wasn't sure. You sound like you're on your period all the time. You sound like a ho. Just sayin.


----------



## eots (Jan 24, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



is daws trying to pretend he is not a paid troll again ???


----------



## paulitician (Jan 24, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Even more pathetic, he's not getting paid to be a Troll. Very sad.


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 25, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Are you pretending you're not an Ideots?


----------



## daws101 (Jan 25, 2013)

paulitician said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


as stated before I like a good freak show. your repeated assumption of obsession proves my point.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 25, 2013)

paulitician said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


  how would you know what a woman on her period sounds like as you've haven't  been near a live premenopausal woman since grade school.
since I've never had to pay for sex (I'm sure you've tried and been turned down by even the most decrepit crack whores )you can only guess what a HO SOUNDS LIKE.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 25, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


 There you have it straight from the twoofer's mouth, delusion at it's finest.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 1, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



Dawgshit believes the laws of physics and science vanished in NYC on 9-11, NOW that folks really _is _delusional.


----------



## paulitician (Feb 1, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


----------



## daws101 (Feb 1, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


more unfounded bullshit from sister jones.
please show what laws and how they vanished on 911. even better, present some precedent preceding 911 that shows the laws of physics can be broken. from a credible non twoofer source .


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 1, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



Hey fuckball, if you believe that tons of massive steel can fall onto and into the WTC at FF acceleration you're a delusional idiot twice over. This could only be possible if the laws of physics were not taken into account, something which you and the rest of your AlCIADUH group of conspiracy theorists always tend to do.
Information about this has been posted over and over again and it's tough shit for you if you're too stupid and delusional to notice.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 1, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


yep! no proof here..


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 1, 2013)

Since the buildings didn't fall at Free fall speeds there goes his Physics degree.........


----------



## daws101 (Feb 1, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Since the buildings didn't fall at Free fall speeds there goes his Physics degree.........


the only degree sister jones got was an A.A. at whiny bitches school  for the terminally pretentious.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 2, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



No proof, you mean like this?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdDp_jlgC9M]Bush jokes about Weapons of Mass Destruction - YouTube[/ame]

What a disgrace, and slap in the face to those in our armed forces who died for the lies.
If there is a hell, I hope this man and people like yourselves burn in it for eternity.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 2, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



With Dawgshit,who knows?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 2, 2013)

Context can mean so much..........


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 2, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



Naw Dawgshit for sure is a paid troll just like Gomer Ollie.spends way too much time here at this site trolling night and day so obviously like Gomer,he's a paid troll as well.

The ones that you can tell arent paid trolls that are just trolls are like prezfan,politico,and whitehall for example.they dont commit themselves to posting here constantly all the time like they do.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 2, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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





same with fellow paid troll Gomer Ollie,Candyass,and the non paid paid trolls in denial and afraid such as Predfan,Whitehall,and Politico for example.

Dawgshit is a troll, and not a very good one. 

yeah about the worst paid troll there is.Boy they were really scraping at the bottom of the barrel signing him up.lol.

Paid or not, still a stupid troll, and one that leans towards sympathy for Zionist criminals at that. 
__________________
thats the understatement of the century.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 4, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



no, not like this. like I ask for. this is a dodge.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



Do you also find the above video of the US president who railed for us to "support our troops" humorous? 

It is proof of the mans evil disregard and insincerity...the search for WMD's was nothing but a joke to him, while American and other innocents died.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 6, 2013)

Once again context.....

You know damned well that this was at a dinner where the president is expected to make fun of himself.....

But you go on making yourself the fool.......


----------



## daws101 (Feb 6, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


epic fail...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 6, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Once again context.....
> 
> You know damned well that this was at a dinner where the president is expected to make fun of himself.....
> 
> But you go on making yourself the fool.......



Bush made fun and mocked the US men and women who signed up to fight his failed war against ALCIADUH, and Saddams "nukookler" weapons of mass destruction, that you of all people, being in the military and all should be one of the first ones to admit he is a disgraceful SOB. If you don't think so, then you are a disgraceful SOB as well.
You're a sorry ass excuse for an ex military serviceman, and this type of response is why you get no respect, for your so called "service". You fucking gump.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 6, 2013)

Mr Jones, Fuck you....


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 6, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr Jones, Fuck you....



Truth hurts eh? I have not met one single troop, who gives that SOB a pass for his disgraceful
actions and lies. Maybe it's time you get your head outta your ass, and join the real world and honor your fellow servicemen and women. They have the guts to admit they were fucked over, but you keep on bending over and asking for more...That is pathetic and disgraceful..


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 6, 2013)

You obviously don't know many veterans.

You want me to defend my service here? I'm not going to do it. You aren't worth it. So go on and act the fool and talk shit about veterans.  I'll just read and laugh......


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 6, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Jones, Fuck you....
> ...


The other one here that does that is OldGuy.


----------



## paulitician (Feb 7, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


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



Ollie's a good & honorable man. You have to understand he was trained and taught for many years to obey & worship Government Authority. It's not his fault. I respect him and his opinions, but at the same time i take into account his years of conditioning. He's like most Americans, Authority-Worship is all they know. But those who serve in the Military, are especially trained & indoctrinated in Authority-Worship. So Ollie's a good man. You just have to understand where he's coming from.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 7, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Jones, Fuck you....
> ...


if you've never served and it's obvious you haven't... your pathetic  
bitching is meaningless.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 7, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> You obviously don't know many veterans.
> 
> You want me to defend my service here? I'm not going to do it. You aren't worth it. So go on and act the fool and talk shit about veterans.  I'll just read and laugh......


it's just sister jone's PMS....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 7, 2013)

They don't understand that some of us respect and want the truth. And they aren't offering it...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 7, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> They don't understand that some of us respect and want the truth. And they aren't offering it...



From who do you want the truth from? I would hope it is from those charged with telling the American people and their military the truth. The US government, its agencies and especially their POTUS.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 7, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



Fuck you slime ball, my family has served. I at least support the poor bastards by exposing the lies they went overseas for, unlike you who would gladly send them off to die while you sit in front of your TV while being able bodied to go your self.
But just the same-

No, I Have Never Been in the Military by Laurence M. Vance


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 7, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> You obviously don't know many veterans.
> 
> You want me to defend my service here? I'm not going to do it. You aren't worth it. So go on and act the fool and talk shit about veterans.  I'll just read and laugh......



I would have thought that at least you would defend the ones who signed up for wars based on BS, and the ones that come back traumatized with PTSD, wounded and maimed.
The lies have been exposed for years now, and you should know better then to encourage them. You knew I have a brother who was ambushed in Baquba and who was all gung ho, till he found out it was bullshit, like so many others have since.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 7, 2013)

The Lies have been exposed for years? And you still use this made up BS? 

My salute to your brother.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 7, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> The Lies have been exposed for years? And you still use this made up BS?
> 
> My salute to your brother.



You are severely out of touch and out of sync. I feel sorry for you man, perhaps it really is too much to ask from someone so indoctrinated, that he refuses to see what the rest of the world can so plainly, carry on.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 7, 2013)

I see you believing that the president was making fun of the people when he was at a function where he was supposed to be making fun of himself.

I see you calling liar without any proof.

I see you wanting your government to be guilty of such atrocities that the mind can barely comprehend them, to the extent that you ignore truth and only believe what makes what you want to be true right.

No I am not out of sync....

You and your friends are.........


----------



## daws101 (Feb 7, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


no fuck you, you lying pretentious shit.
my dad was a lifer in the marines so was my grandfather...I've forgotten more about military life than you'll ever know.
btw sister jones my dad insisted I go to college and not serve.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 7, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



You don't seem to know jack shit you lying sack of shit. Funny how you wish to glorify your lies, without stopping to think that the military took their orders from  asshole chickenhawks that never served, but are more then willing to send kids off to die in wars they built on lies. These are the same scumbags that you crotch sniff and glorify, while claiming to "support the troops"..

A simple search will reveal I'm right, and that most of the assholes you glorify that put the "war on terrorism" into play are Israeli loyalists, and never served in the US military, unlike my family and many others. Many kids serve in the military and go to college, apparently you didn't have the guts your old man had, if that is even true.

The WTC was destroyed by something other then planes and office fires, and the subsequent wars initiated for revenge were fabricated, and built on BS, but you and others are too stupid to realize this, and in the process you ignore the military personnel who have spoken out on this, and tried to expose the truth, why do you not support them you hypocritical little bitch?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 7, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 7, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



And yet you can offer no true physical evidence to disprove the official reports. You keep telling us long enough we still aren't going to believe you. Show me anything that proves those planes weren't there. Show me some det cord, or a receiver, Show me one charge that didn't go off. Show me one of the thousands of people who would have to know about some part of the operation who will step forward and tell us about it. I don't give a rats ass about opinion, that proves nothing and it's all you've got. You only believe the witnesses who you think are telling what you want to be the truth. You refuse the majority of testimony that would disprove what you want the truth to be.

I'm sorry for you. I am a Commander of my local American Legion Post, i have turned down the vice Commander position for the county. I have likewise turned down Vice commander of the united Veterans Council. I know a lot of veterans locally. I don't know one of them that would believe your BS.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 7, 2013)

Ollie pumping himself up again I see. Did you turn down those positions because of ill health? Tell us. What after bypass surgery drugs your taking Ollie (3 possible that I know of)

Since you guys brought up bullshit wars, I gotta' add my 2 cents:

Afghanistan has been totaly worth it because just look at all the Heroin that the US controls now. Afghanistan went from 10 percent to 90 percent of world opium poppy production in the time we've been there!

Think of that next time you salute the flag.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 7, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> Ollie pumping himself up again I see. Did you turn down those positions because of ill health? Tell us. What after bypass surgery drugs your taking Ollie (3 possible that I know of)
> 
> Since you guys brought up bullshit wars, I gotta' add my 2 cents:
> 
> ...


not even 2 cents even with inflation.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 7, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> Ollie pumping himself up again I see. Did you turn down those positions because of ill health? Tell us. What after bypass surgery drugs your taking Ollie (3 possible that I know of)
> 
> Since you guys brought up bullshit wars, I gotta' add my 2 cents:
> 
> ...



What ever medications I take because of my surgery is none of your business. 
My involvement with veterans is in line with the current discussion, I could add some more but then it would be bragging. and you aren't worth it. But then facts aren't bragging are they.... I'm sorry i forgot you don't like facts...

Now please show us some proof of your claim on the poppy production......


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 7, 2013)

Afghani opium production numbers are easy to find for anyone not delutional and living here in the real world:
UN: Afghan opium poppy cultivation up 18 percent

Now production isn't 90% its 80% but afghanistan is still #1 thanks to the sweat and blood of US Soldiers.

Think about that next time you salute the Flag there Short Shit.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 7, 2013)

I will salute my flag whenever it is right and proper to do so, and I have serious doubts that i will think of you or poppy fields at the time. at the time.  Fact is next time I salute the flag should be one week from tonight.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 7, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> I will salute my flag whenever it is right and proper to do so, and I have serious doubts that i will think of you or poppy fields at the time. at the time.  Fact is next time I salute the flag should be one week from tonight.


See? You give KFC Ollie the facts and he just ignores them.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 8, 2013)

Ah but after you made up a number......

Isn't it a good thing that you actually had to educate yourself?

Now if you ever saw me in the politics section you might understand that my position on Afghanistan is the mission has been accomplished, set the poppy fields on fire on our way out the door.......

But none of this has shit to do with the lack of facts you have about 9-11


----------



## candycorn (Feb 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


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




True that.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 8, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Ah but after you made up a number......
> 
> Isn't it a good thing that you actually had to educate yourself?
> 
> Now if you ever saw me in the politics section you might understand that my position on Afghanistan is the mission has been accomplished, set the poppy fields on fire on our way out the door.......


So it *wasn't* 90% it was 80%. That's somehow *better* in your mind? That's a "win" for you? 

Also I already commented that the US is NEVER gonna' "set the poppy fields on fire" *because the US Gov't is the one helping to produce it.* The US Marine Corp is guarding Opium Poppy fields there.

Drug profits are laundered through US Banks. *That's on record!*
How a big US bank laundered billions from Mexico's murderous drug gangs | World news | The Observer


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 8, 2013)

Wow, some people really do hate the Government.

I don't like this administration, I didn't really like the last one either. But to want them to be evil??? You are one sick fuck.......


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 8, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Wow, some people really do hate the Government. I don't like this administration, I didn't really like the last one either. But to want them to be evil??? You are one sick fuck.......


*That's* your problem. You think the Gov't is Evil because I WANT them to. (I _*WISH*_ I had that Power!) I provide facts and *YOU* call *ME* Evil! How delusional can a person get? 

No. 

The Gov't does Evil things because they're FAR too powerful and *no one calls them on it*. _*Yourself included!

*_Serving 22 years in the Army *doesn't* make all Gov't actions legitimate_*.

Furthermore, 

*_The Gov't committing criminal acts *doesn't* make your service criminal.

Are you t*oo insecure* to see that or are you *too scared* to admit it?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 8, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Ah but after you made up a number......
> 
> Isn't it a good thing that you actually had to educate yourself?
> 
> ...



In a twist of irony, burning the fields is only going to hurt, and kill the farmer, who upon receiving a forced loan to grow the poppy, he wont be able to deliver the goods from the harvest, and they take their sons and daughters away from the families as ransom, or forced labor.
Perhaps the US should have given them better incentives to grow something else, instead of the lucrative poppy.
The US and her military men and women were duped into finding OBL, and getting revenge for a false flag attack, that upon intelligent scrutiny, was all bullshit.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 8, 2013)

Still waiting after over 11 years for proof of a false flag......


----------



## paulitician (Feb 8, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Still waiting after over 11 years for proof of a false flag......



You still wouldn't believe it. Your Authority-Worship brainwashing is too thorough. But i'm not just singling you out. Unfortunately, most Americans are just like you. And that's just the way Big Brother likes it.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 8, 2013)

You so funny.......


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 8, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Still waiting after over 11 years for proof of a false flag......


All one needs to do is observe the information that is available that disproves the NIST report.
There is much on it, that includes physics calculations, and fire fuel loads. This is why, and where the questioning, and the objections started. It was not nor could not have been kerosene, and plane damage, nor thermal expansion that would have had to rip out thousands of shear studs in WTC 7.

Here is a concise, detailed rebuttal. Feel free to rebuttal with your own concise, detailed rebuttal that explains why the information in the video may be incorrect.

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

Here is another one with more detail that counters NIST using real diagrams, and shows how NIST lied, using their own report.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGe0E9cjUbI]Shear Ignorance - NIST and WTC7 - YouTube[/ame]

Again if you have any objections please feel free to rebuttal what this explains.


Here's one explaining the missing resistance that should have been noticeable, but wasn't, and that should have clearly slowed the collapse front, but didn't.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSd9wB55zk]Downward Acceleration of the North Tower - YouTube[/ame]

There will be no one coming forward to confess anything, and this is all one needs to know that this was a conspiracy on a massive scale, that could not have originated in Afghanistan.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 8, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Still waiting after over 11 years for proof of a false flag......



Here are calculations pertaining to fuel loads, and properties of steel that also question the validity, and due diligence that was expected from NIST, a US government agency.

Simple Calculations Showing the Official 911 Story is Impossible | Peace . Gold . Liberty


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 8, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Wow, some people really do hate the Government.
> 
> I don't like this administration, I didn't really like the last one either. But to want them to be evil??? You are one sick fuck.......



Ollie, it's not that anyone WANTS them to be evil, it's that sooner or later you realize they ARE evil, REGARDLESS of anyone's wants.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 8, 2013)

So we have three videos made by some unknown voices and a blog by someone whose profile has been removed..

Not much proof there.

I am not nor have i ever pretended to be an engineer,architect, or physicist.  I don't understand half the Stuff that was reported so very quickly in these videos. I did notice that while one was talking about WTC7 they showed slides from WTC1 and 2. There were other things that didn't sound right. But I'm not qualified to argue the points as to whether the guy reading the blue[prints is right or wrong. I certainly would believe some of this if I didn't know 3 things.

1. Less than 0.01% of the architects and engineers in the country agree with you.

2. In order for any of your conspiracy to be true, there would have had to be a plan of such gross magnitude that it couldn't have been pulled off without people knowing about it and talking.

3. There is no way the government needed anything even close to this magnitude to start the war in Afghanistan and even less to restart the war against Saddam. So what was the reason for it all? The so called false flag that started Vietnam was one boat being attacked And you want us to believe that someone somewhere figured we needed to destroy all this?

I'll give you one thing though, at least your videos weren't an hour long........


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 8, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> So we have three videos made by some unknown voices and a blog by someone whose profile has been removed..
> 
> Not much proof there.
> 
> ...



You ability to wave information away is amazing. You could have done what I did and rewind whatever it was you had trouble with, and look up the drawings to verify the info was correct. Hey if its any consolation, I'm no physics expert, but at least I have the will to research things, and learn things especially when it involves such a life altering event like the 9-11 attacks on my country.
You'd think someone like you that is a defender of the OCT and NIST, would dig in and see what and why people don't believe them
BTW, all 3 of your premises are really full of shit, and once a person understands what the videos explain, it will be clear how stupid they are.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 8, 2013)

And yet there is still no physical proof. Such a huge operation and no physical proof nor one whistle blower...

And the Bush administration couldn't keep a wire tap secret.....

Thinking people just won't buy it......


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 8, 2013)

'Thinking people' bought the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the USS Liberty coverup hook, line and sinker.

How right were they then?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 8, 2013)

Big difference between a ship coming under fire and 3000+ civilians killed........

And for your information I do not accept the Official line on the USS Liberty.... But I don't know what happened either...


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 8, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > So we have three videos made by some unknown voices and a blog by someone whose profile has been removed..
> ...



You do struggle with the idea that not everyone who doubts your CTs - and you just admitted to being an "Internet physicist" - is an OCT and NIST defender. Let me say this very slowly:
One need not believe the official POV to find your CT silliness to be just that ... silly.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 8, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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


Did not, learn to comprehend what you read and apply the intended interpretation instead of what you want it to be. Do you understand that not everyone believes in your CT?
The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that I can offer a better presentation, while you scamper and hide behind false and weak premises, that you don't even have the capacity to explain!

Tell me why it is you believe in such a wild CT, like this one-
Seriously watch it, it's short enough to accommodate your attentions spans, and actually mentions almost everything that your looney CT consist of.

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


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 9, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> And yet there is still no physical proof. Such a huge operation and no physical proof nor one whistle blower...
> 
> And the Bush administration couldn't keep a wire tap secret.....
> 
> Thinking people just won't buy it......



Proof! He says LOL! Look at the buildings and how they came down so quickly, there's your proof right in front of you everytime you watch one of the many videos in existence.  But you'll have to exercise a few brain cells and re-watch the videos.
No Ollie you don't get it precisely because you don't think, or even bother to try to comprehend.
 Hell ask you kid/grankids for help, geezus, man we can't help it that you don't even want to try to grasp even a little bit of it.
But,  bet your ass you'll swallow every bit of BS and propaganda that comes down the pipe from NIST and the gubment, even though you are "no expert" and can't figure out their version or technical explanation either....

Look Ollie, once again we'll agree to disagree, but don't ask me for proof or to show you why we feel we have been bamboozled again, because I have produced what we know are the basics, and I would have given my thoughts on the other aspects concerning the attacks and why I feel they were a false flag event. But you just can't leave out the very important and primary reasons why these so called truth groups sprang up in the first place.

I say "so called" because some of them are just too way out there to be logical, and some of them are actually controlled opposition.
 I don't subscribe to the no planes shit, and I don't subscribe to the directed energy DEW stuff either, or Zeta alien bullshit, or the fucking reptilians etc....That is the type of shit that is being used to make the honest well meaning, and sincere folks look like them...Kooks.

The science, fuel loads, and physics may be subjects that you and I are not the greatest at, but if we truly want to understand the premise behind the objections to the NIST report and the OCT, and care about this nation and our military, it is important to do our best to understand as much as possible, at least that is how I personally feel about this whole thing.

As for the videos I posted and what they are about,
 I can study it and figure it out, and put together what is being presented to me.
I don't like being stumped on a subject, so I do my best to try to understand things.
Especially important things that concern my country, like the attacks on 9-11, and the wars.
I guess it's from figuring out automotive problems for many years.
NIST was charged with a monumental task and it is shameful what they have done.
They cheated the American people out of a proper diagnosis, and explanation.
I can only imagine the pressure those people had from their bosses, possibly even from the White House. Public opinion was crucial and they were needed to solidify it.
The plan for war was years in the making, and this event would galvanize and rally the people in a quest for revenge against the "ragheads".
NIST helped dupe the American public.
Just like a shady mechanic, or a dishonest lawyer have been known to do.
They get your trust and spit out some explanation they know you wont understand, and  probably wont  bother to check out. You just want your car fixed and move on.
 Sign right here, and come back tomorrow it'll be done by then...I've seen shit like that done, and quit a couple of jobs in disgust over it.
This is the easiest most common everyday comparison I can think of off the top of my head at the moment, of how trusting and easily duped we can be.

Rent the movie  Compliance, and see just how stupid people can be, and the horrible things some people have done when they don't have any fucking common sense, and assume they are being good citizens and following a police detectives orders. I couldn't believe it was a true story so I looked it up, and sadly it was, and the series of events depicted in the movie, went on for years, before anybody had the sense to fucking think, and use some common sense and at least make sure they were talking to a real police detective..This movie is a much better representation of the shear laziness, and lack of diligence and sense, that many Americans display, and you are among them.

Now,
Would you not check out the accuracy of say, a 2000.000 repair estimate before signing away on the dotted line?  After hearing how other folks have been lied to and ripped off, most people I know sure would. I always encourage them to look things up themselves, to verify to the best of their ability what is being done and why, and possibly get another estimate from another shop with different eyes examining the problem. Just like we need a fresh set of objective eyes to re-examine the 9-11 attacks.

Why is it that we are so quick to accept something that is a million times more important, like the 9-11 attacks and their explanation of events and the causes, that requires the blood of our people in the wars it was used to initiate? Because people are conditioned to trust their government authority figures, without question. We want desperately to be able to believe in something that is benevolent and truly cares about us, it's human nature. But it's just like an abused wife/girlfriend that always goes back to her abuser, we the public make ourselves believe in unrealistic outcomes and continue to trust liars and our abusers.

In order to fully understand why we feel the way we do about the whole NIST report and the OCT in general, you have to understand the explanation that science and physics is at the heart of, and that includes stuff like fuel loads, conservation of momentum, available kinetic energy and things like that, and if you aren't willing to go there, then you really have no place to call us out, and call us kooks and or liars and tin foil hatters etc...
We at the very least put some time into this, and not just wave it away. You may want to believe in things that you don't understand, but many people don't, and those that do want to comprehend, they put the time in to educate themselves instead of going on some message board and making fools of themselves by proclaiming that the NIST is true, when they don't know what the hell they are even talking about. But hey people like you go with the flow and put popular opinion before common sense, instead of learning what the hell is really going on.

It really is time to stop looking at what other people say, or how many agree with whatever, or whoever and check things out for yourself, or just not participate in this part of the 9-11 discussion.
Go and argue with the hologramers and no planers, or the reptilians instead.

There are more then a few who express their displeasure, and are pissed that they were lied to.
 So many who served, from the PFC's to ex Generals have been brave enough to allow their feelings on this topic to be published..with a few even joining some of the many groups that have sprung up around this whole mess.
But you carry on, after all we're all entitled to our own beliefs, but like I said, don't claim we've never tried to show you why we doubt the 9-11 attacks as told by NIST and some in the government, and how we came to our conclusions.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 9, 2013)

In Planning for years, so it started under Bush 41 or Clinton, so that Bush 43 could start a couple of wars?

Now Vietnam the only excuse they needed was a military target, (One Ship) under small arms fire. And you expect anyone to believe that it would take 3000+ civilian deaths to start a war with Saddam when we were already blowing his shit up? All that would have been needed was one plane to get "hit" by a missile. And boom the war would have been on, No buildings destroyed and no unneeded civilian deaths.

And war with Afghanistan? Why? What purpose other than going after UBL could there have been? There was no other reason for the USA to go into Afghanistan so why manufacture one? 

So you see not only is there no physical proof that the Commissions Report was wrong, There is no motive for any False Flag of this size. In all the years I was a Platoon Sergeant I taught my troops the old adage KISS. Keep it simple stupid. Why take the chance of involving thousands in the planning execution and cover up, when it could have been done with less than 10 people? If war with Saddam was the ultimate goal....

You can show all the mathematics you want, We saw the buildings come down, and it was tragic, but we also have never seen any building fall the way they did from Demolitions. And no Demolitions were found in the debris. 

We see cut girders shown as proof, and we see videos of the recovery people cutting girders....
We hear all the BS about no planes, and we all have seen the planes and or the wreckage.
So there is no doubt the planes did it. You seem to admit that. But there is no proof that they didn't cause all the damage. And seeing the buildings fall doesn't prove anything.

Honestly for someone to plan this operation just to start a war would have been the stupidest things ever done.


----------



## PredFan (Feb 9, 2013)

Yes, the conspiracy is solved. It happened pretty much the way 99% of the US believes it did.

Now we can all go on to something else.


----------



## liarintheWH (Feb 9, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Yes, the conspiracy is solved. It happened pretty much the way *99% of the US* believes it did.
> 
> Now we can all go on to something else.



lol 

BS


----------



## daws101 (Feb 9, 2013)

liarintheWH said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the conspiracy is solved. It happened pretty much the way *99% of the US* believes it did.
> ...


yes your version is.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 9, 2013)

liarintheWH said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the conspiracy is solved. It happened pretty much the way *99% of the US* believes it did.
> ...



You'll find with predfan troll thats how he debates,any facts you show him that prove his ramblings wrong,he ignores and wont address them  and then gets all mad about it and then puts you on ignore.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 9, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > And yet there is still no physical proof. Such a huge operation and no physical proof nor one whistle blower...
> ...



still feeding the paid troll huh? I guess you never get tired of handing his ass to him on a platter huh? Gomer Ollie can only sling shit in defeat like the paid monkey troll he is.


'Thinking people' bought the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the USS Liberty coverup hook, line and sinker.

How right were they then? 

Be careful.Your making way too much since for Gomer Ollie to comprehend there.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 9, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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






That video is REALLY the only thing that needs to be shown when proving it was an inside job but you dont REALLY expect paid shill Gomer Ollie to watch it when he hasnt all these years thats we been showing it now do you?

Paid trolls Gomer Ollie,Sat it and frady cat deniar  predfan troll crack me up to know end,they always tell lies they have debunked us when they always run off with their tail between their legs like the chicenshit cowards they are everytime we ask them to debunk that short five minute video.all they ever come back with is pathetic one liners in defeat.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 9, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



Except I don't have a CT, Princess, nor do I wear a foil hat as you so clearly do. Unlike you CT loons I don't fabricate, post or defend any 9/11 CT. I do have far greater doubts about your amateurish, self-serving conclusions than I do about those of rational, qualified, professional investigators.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 9, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> In Planning for years, so it started under Bush 41 or Clinton, so that Bush 43 could start a couple of wars?


 Do you find it so hard to believe that there is a very powerful group of men that not only outlast Presidents, but control them?


> Now Vietnam the only excuse they needed was a military target, (One Ship) under small arms fire. And you expect anyone to believe that it would take 3000+ civilian deaths to start a war with Saddam when we were already blowing his shit up? All that would have been needed was one plane to get "hit" by a missile. And boom the war would have been on, No buildings destroyed and no unneeded civilian deaths.


1. It took about that many on December 7, 1941. 
2. Those buildings had to go for the same reason Hitler torched the Reichschtag, it had to be SPECTACULAR. 
3. Additionally, they housed all the records and all the investigations into TRILLIONS of dollars of scams, cons and coverups from the SEC to the FBI. 
4. Oh, I almost forgot, there was the multi-BILLION dollar asbestos abatement issue in BOTH towers.


> And war with Afghanistan? Why? What purpose other than going after UBL could there have been? There was no other reason for the USA to go into Afghanistan so why manufacture one?


 Google 'trans-Afghanistan pipeline'...


> So you see not only is there no physical proof that the Commissions Report was wrong, There is no motive for any False Flag of this size. In all the years I was a Platoon Sergeant I taught my troops the old adage KISS. Keep it simple stupid. Why take the chance of involving thousands in the planning execution and cover up, when it could have been done with less than 10 people? If war with Saddam was the ultimate goal....


It didn't take thousands, it took maybe a couple dozen, all of whom profited quite handsomely.


> You can show all the mathematics you want, We saw the buildings come down, and it was tragic, but we also have never seen any building fall the way they did from Demolitions. And no Demolitions were found in the debris.


1. The fact is they came down exactly as planned. The towers were 'Shock and Awe', while Building 7 was a typical demo. 
2. Evidence of demo, in the form of thermate residues, WAS found in the rubble, and the 'pile' had molten metal at it's base for WEEKS. 
3. The debris was shipped to China and 'recycled' just as fast as they could haul it off.



> We see cut girders shown as proof, and we see videos of the recovery people cutting girders....


 How did over 100,000 linear feet of continuous core columns get cut up into manageable, non-weightbearing pieces PRIOR to the collapses?


> We hear all the BS about no planes, and we all have seen the planes and or the wreckage.
> So there is no doubt the planes did it. You seem to admit that. But there is no proof that they didn't cause all the damage. And seeing the buildings fall doesn't prove anything.


Disinformation spread by the perpetrators to confuse, cloud and muddy the issues. It seems to be working just as planned, doesn't it?


> Honestly for someone to plan this operation just to start a war would have been the stupidest things ever done.


It wasn't done "just to start a war", as I've explained above.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 9, 2013)

One the people who reported molten metal were in no position to tell us what it was. Two it has been proven that at least one Photo of so called molten metal was photoshopped. Once you start to fake photos, you've lost all credibility.

And no I do not believe in this phantom group of unknown unseen leaders.

And there is no way in hell you will convince anyone of sane mind that only a few dozen people could have planed executed and covered up this massive operation.......


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 9, 2013)

And please Don't try comparing this to Pearl Harbor.......


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 10, 2013)

OK Ollie, I notice you didn't even respond to several of the points I made, so no cookie for you.

I don't care about a photoshopped picture, Ollie. What did I say about disinformation? I saw video ON THE NEWS showing the molten steel 6 weeks after the towers came down.

I doesn't matter if you believe in the Shadow Government, either. They believe in you, and you're behaving just the way they want.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 10, 2013)

One gets tired of responding to the same old opinions. Please show us where there was molten steel. I'm certain there was plenty of aluminum and maybe lead. But steel? What happened to it? Who removed it without it being shown? Why did someone have to photoshop the glow from so called molten steel to make people believe it? Who determined it was steel?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 10, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> One gets tired of responding to the same old opinions. Please show us where there was molten steel. I'm certain there was plenty of aluminum and maybe lead. But steel? What happened to it? Who removed it without it being shown? Why did someone have to photoshop the glow from so called molten steel to make people believe it? Who determined it was steel?



Listen to the statements of those who were there, Ollie. 

Even Rudy Giuliani states *in this video* that the temperature was OVER 2,000 degrees WEEKS after the collapses.

Pay particular attention to the portion of the video dealing with the 'cross' @ 2:30...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3Ot1JxNdE]Molten Steel At World Trade Center Site/Ground Zero after 9/11. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 10, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> One the people who reported molten metal were in no position to tell us what it was. Two it has been proven that at least one Photo of so called molten metal was photoshopped. Once you start to fake photos, you've lost all credibility.
> 
> And no I do not believe in this phantom group of unknown unseen leaders.
> 
> And there is no way in hell you will convince anyone of sane mind that only a few dozen people could have planed executed and covered up this massive operation.......



The demo rigging alone at the WTC would have taken dozens of workers at least a dozen weeks per building and their work would have been noisy, dirty, noticed and challenged by the union workers who maintain the WTC. Unions are extremely protective of their turf and do not quietly allow others to get some. Add to that all those in positions of power who would have had to be involved at every decision making level, the intermediaries who would have been charged to carrying out the orders from above, our entire MS media, the FBI, the CIA, every independent investigator (pro and amateur) our Justice Dept, etc, etc, etc.
Frankly, to buy into this CT silliness one must abandon all rationality and some here have done exactly that.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 10, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > One the people who reported molten metal were in no position to tell us what it was. Two it has been proven that at least one Photo of so called molten metal was photoshopped. Once you start to fake photos, you've lost all credibility.
> ...


 Are you some kind of expert at building demolition, or are you just talking out of your ass? You do know that there was work going on in those buildings 24/7 for better than 6 months prior to 9/11, right? You do know that it was "upgrading the wiring" for Internet, phones, etc., right?





> ...and their work would have been noisy, dirty, noticed and challenged by the union workers who maintain the WTC. Unions are extremely protective of their turf and do not quietly allow others to get some.


 You don't think union cards can be counterfeited? 





> Add to that all those in positions of power who would have had to be involved at every decision making level, the intermediaries who would have been charged to carrying out the orders from above...


 Really? Like who? 





> ...our entire MS media, the FBI, the CIA, every independent investigator (pro and amateur) our Justice Dept, etc, etc, etc.
> Frankly, to buy into this CT silliness one must abandon all rationality and some here have done exactly that.


You're being ridiculous, Sayit. Ask the FBI about 'Able Danger', and what happens when agents don't 'toe the line'...


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 10, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> And please Don't try comparing this to Pearl Harbor.......


PNAC Document:


> Section V of _Rebuilding America's Defenses_, entitled "Creating  Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process  of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to  be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event*like a  new Pearl Harbor"*


Page 51:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Can't let a good crisis go to waste right?


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > One the people who reported molten metal were in no position to tell us what it was. Two it has been proven that at least one Photo of so called molten metal was photoshopped. Once you start to fake photos, you've lost all credibility.
> ...




you have no clue of the logistics involved..and the fact remains..NIST has no real explanation for the collapse..if you ever read the NIST report you will see they only investigate up collapse * initiation*(how the collapse began)
to avoid the need to explain the entire collapse sequence


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 10, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > One gets tired of responding to the same old opinions. Please show us where there was molten steel. I'm certain there was plenty of aluminum and maybe lead. But steel? What happened to it? Who removed it without it being shown? Why did someone have to photoshop the glow from so called molten steel to make people believe it? Who determined it was steel?
> ...



This is exactly what I am talking about. Not one expert nothing but normal everyday people with their opinions. A picture of the "meteorite with rebar sticking all through the concrete, and yes rebar would have melted long before any steel that they claim made up part of the piece. And the cross? Sorry but it was not welded together during the collapse but during the construction.

You really need to check things out a little closer.....


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqb6vViKBNg]9/11 WTC Melted Steel Samples NIST - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 10, 2013)

Bent, twisted, crumpled, Might have been a piece cut after the fact, in the first 2 minutes nothing shown being melted..........


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 10, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Bent, twisted, crumpled, Might have been a piece cut after the fact, in the first 2 minutes nothing shown being melted..........



it requires very high temperatures to bend steel in that manner well in excess of what should of been present at the wtc...the steel that would of shown temperature well in excess of what was possible from fire where destroyed the rest shows only temperatures well below what is required...

 "Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have_ no evidence_ that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have"

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


----------



## daws101 (Feb 10, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> OK Ollie, I notice you didn't even respond to several of the points I made, so no cookie for you.
> 
> I don't care about a photoshopped picture, Ollie. What did I say about disinformation? I saw video ON THE NEWS showing the molten steel 6 weeks after the towers came down.
> 
> I doesn't matter if you believe in the Shadow Government, either. They believe in you, and you're behaving just the way they want.


do you mean this:
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



that "steel" is red hot but far from molten if it were it would run like thick paint.
the photo proves this.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 10, 2013)

A REAL Crime Scene is Cordoned off and an Investigation is launched that takes months and sometimes years. An Investigation that Bush RESISTED at first.

What was done at ground zero? All the evidence was hauled off and either sold to China or dumped in a landfill in N.J.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 10, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > And please Don't try comparing this to Pearl Harbor.......
> ...


another intentionally misinterpreted phrase...by a debunked think tank.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 10, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Here Ollie, I transcribed the man's words for you so you wouldn't make the same mistake again.

"And there, this cross, is fully extended, melted together with the intense heat, the two beams were never initially part of the same structure. Heat, literally melted them together, and the piece of metal that's draped over it was molten metal that had literally fallen over one of the arms."


----------



## daws101 (Feb 10, 2013)

eots said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


I have read it and you are so wrong it's laughable...


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 10, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 10, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



The materials that could melt at 9/11 temps and fuse two pieces of steel together were present in those office buildings. You do understand the concepts of soldering and welding, right Princess? I, for one, believe you do but you _willfully_ ignore and deny them in order to keep your loony CT love alive. After all, a rational thought would bring your whole CT World down faster than building 7.


----------



## eots (Feb 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



_NIST simply avoids these troublesome issues by placing them outside the scope of its investigation, claiming that "global collapse" was "inevitable" after the "initiation of collapse."_


NIST&#8217;s &#8220;Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center 
Tower&#8221; (hereafter referred to as &#8220;The Final Report&#8221 states its first objective was to &#8220;Determine why and how 
WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft&#8221;

 To determine this The Final Report needs to explain the events following the initial impact until the collapse of the 
buildings is complete.  NIST state that their approach was to simulate the behavior of the tower using &#8220;four 
steps:

1. The aircraft impact into the tower, the resulting distribution of aviation fuel, and the damage to the 
structure, partitions, thermal insulation materials, and building contents.
2. The evolution of multi-floor fires.
3. The heating and consequent weakening of the structural elements by the fires.

4. The response of the damaged and heated building structure, and the progression of the structural 
component failures leading to the *initiation* of the collapse of the towers.&#8221;


http://www.physics911.net/pdf/scott-jones-nist-assumptions-analysis.pdf


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



A debunked think tank? 

Take a look at those involved in it and tell me those neo-cons were 'debunked'...

18 of them were in Bush II's administration, including his VP.

Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scroll 2/3 down for the list.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 10, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



I heard what he said, and i know that it was a cross section that was part of the original building. Try looking deeper into truth.....It *was not* melted together during the collapse.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 10, 2013)

eots said:


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


a non bias non twoofer based report please!




 | P a g e Investigation into modular design within computer games. By Scott Jones BSc (Hons) Computer Games Design A project submitted in partial fulfilment of the ... 
http://www.scottjonescg.co.uk/FYPRe...modular_design_within_computer_games_v1.0.pdf


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 10, 2013)

snopes.com: Ground Zero Cross

Notice how Snopes never refers to the piece as melted together but constantly calls it a "crossbeam".


----------



## daws101 (Feb 10, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> snopes.com: Ground Zero Cross
> 
> Notice how Snopes never refers to the piece as melted together but constantly calls it a "crossbeam".


for any one with eyes the photo itself proves it was not melted
 together.

it does prove however  the old saying "people find what they are looking for even when it's not there"


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > OK Ollie, I notice you didn't even respond to several of the points I made, so no cookie for you.
> ...



How hot must that steel get to be 'red hot', and how is it possible to maintain that temperature for 8 weeks in a pile of rubble with no oxygen?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 10, 2013)

And what has to have caused it to be so hot? Thermite burns out in a few seconds.........


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 10, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Now you have me wondering. How do we know that is steel, how do we know it's been like that for 8 weeks and how does anything without oxygen maintain 'red hot' for 8 weeks? I would think your "highly developed" cynicism would be asking these questions without my prompting. Just sayin'.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 10, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Now you have me wondering. How do we know that is steel, how do we know it's been like that for 8 weeks and how does anything without oxygen maintain 'red hot' for 8 weeks? I would think your "highly developed" cynicism would be asking these questions without my prompting. Just sayin'.


*Jet fuel* kept it hot for 8 weeks! What ya' stupid?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 10, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Now you have me wondering. How do we know that is steel, how do we know it's been like that for 8 weeks and how does anything without oxygen maintain 'red hot' for 8 weeks? I would think your "highly developed" cynicism would be asking these questions without my prompting. Just sayin'.
> ...



I sure hope you're kidding.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 10, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


Temperature of a "Red Hot"Object

The Physics Factbook
Edited by Glenn Elert -- Written by his students
An educational, Fair Use website

topic index | author index | special index


Bibliographic Entry

Result
(w/surrounding text)

Standardized
Result

Faughn, Jerry S., Serway, Raymond A. College Physics: Fifth Edition. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1999. "Wien's displacement law:
&#955;maxT = 0.2898 × 10-2 m.k" 555 °C 
"Red Heat." Dictionary of Science and Technology. New York: Larousse, 1995. "As judged visually, a temperature between 500 °C and 1000 °C." 5001000 °C 
Hodyman, Charles D., Lange, Norbert A. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Cleveland, OH: Chemical Rubber Co., 1924. 
Color Temperature 
°C K 
Incipient red heat 500-550 770-820 
Dark red heat 650-750 920-1020 
Bright red heat 850-950 1120-1220 
Yellowish red heat 1050-1150 1320-1420 
 6501150 °C 
Process Associates of America. Metal Temperature by Color. 
Color Approximate Temperature 
°F °C K 
Faint Red 930 500 770 
Blood Red 1075 580 855 
Dark Cherry 1175 635 910 
Medium Cherry 1275 690 965 
Cherry 1375 745 1020 
Bright Cherry 1450 790 1060 
 500790 °C 

An object, at a certain temperature can emit radiation. This type of radiation is known as thermal radiation. The color of the radiation is dependent on the temperature and (according to Serway and Faughn) the properties of the object. As the temperature increases, the object begins to emit light.

The thermal radiations comes from accelerated charged particles near the surface of the object. The charged particles would emit radiation. This is the classical theory of thermal radiation.

A black body is an ideal system that absorbs all of the incident radiation on it. As the amount of energy it emits increases, so does the black body's temperature. As the temperature is increasing, the acme of the distribution move towards short wavelength. This obeys Wien's displacement law.

&#955;maxT = 0.2898 × 10-2mK

Where &#955;max is the wavelength at which the curve peaks and T is the temperature at which the object would emit radiation.

2.obviously you don't know or forgot the  three things a fire needs 1.fuel 2. ignition source 3. oxygen .
lose any one of those you have no fire.
so logically there must have been oxygen.  
so your bullshit about no oxygen is just that, bullshit.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 10, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Now you have me wondering. How do we know that is steel, how do we know it's been like that for 8 weeks and how does anything without oxygen maintain 'red hot' for 8 weeks? I would think your "highly developed" cynicism would be asking these questions without my prompting. Just sayin'.
> ...


of course you say that! since it was not thermite (none was ever found) the only other thing was the millions of tons of gypsum board, plastics, paper, cardboard, clothing, human flesh etc...


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


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


That's it! All that Human Flesh and Warm Weather gear kept it red hot for months! Mystery solved!


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 10, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> And what has to have caused it to be so hot? Thermite burns out in a few seconds.........



I don't know, Ollie, that's why I asked...


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 10, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Why do you think my sentence ended in a question mark, Princess? 

Your 'prompt' seems a bit tardy, since you quoted the question...


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> obviously you don't know or forgot the  three things a fire needs 1.fuel 2. ignition source 3. oxygen .
> lose any one of those you have no fire.
> so logically there must have been oxygen.
> so your bullshit about no oxygen is just that, bullshit.



The workers on the pile spoke of these things erupting into flames when exposed to air, so obviously there was MUCH LESS oxygen available while this red hot steel was buried.

What fuel was available to this red hot steel that it would burn in a LOW OXYGEN environment
for 8 weeks?

Fucking sanctimonious prick.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 10, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > obviously you don't know or forgot the  three things a fire needs 1.fuel 2. ignition source 3. oxygen .
> ...



Nothing that would have brought down those buildings in seconds........


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



Funny, I've worked with gypsum board most of my life and I've NEVER seen it burn. 

In fact, 5/8 inch gypsum board, used in almost ALL commercial applications, is fire rated for 1 hour. IOW, it doesn't burn at all, rather it takes a typical fire (plastics, paper, cardboard, clothing...wood, too) an hour to break it down to the point that it crumbles, but it NEVER ignites.



> FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARD DATA
> &#61623; Flash point - None
> &#61623; Lower Explosion Limit - None
> &#61623; Upper Explosion Limit - None
> ...


http://www.americangypsum.com/pdfs/msds.pdf


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 10, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Deflection noted, care to try again?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 10, 2013)

No deflection to it. All the things in an office building is all that was there to fuel any fires. The jet fuel would have been gone almost instantaneously and any explosive or cutting material you can dream up would have been gone within seconds. So what is left? Fiberglass, plastics, wood, rubber, etc etc etc........


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 10, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> No deflection to it. All the things in an office building is all that was there to fuel any fires. The jet fuel would have been gone almost instantaneously and any explosive or cutting material you can dream up would have been gone within seconds. So what is left? Fiberglass, plastics, wood, rubber, etc etc etc........



And is it your contention that amidst all the concrete, steel and gypsum enough of those flammable materials gathered together AT THE BOTTOM of the pile and burned for 2 months in a low oxygen environment?

Seriously?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 10, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > No deflection to it. All the things in an office building is all that was there to fuel any fires. The jet fuel would have been gone almost instantaneously and any explosive or cutting material you can dream up would have been gone within seconds. So what is left? Fiberglass, plastics, wood, rubber, etc etc etc........
> ...



Well there wasn't anyone down there with a pack of matches........

Seriously,  the fires smouldering under the rubble could not have had anything to do with any controlled demolition....Simply a natural side effect of the collapse.
 There simply isn't any other explanation......


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 10, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> And what has to have caused it to be so hot? Thermite burns out in a few seconds.........



Whatever it was, was able to achieve temperatures hot enough to turn whatever metal it contacted red hot, and according to witnesses, hot enough to melt metal.

 It is well known that thermite/mate is able to be used underwater, where it burns with out the aid of surrounding oxygen, as it has its own oxygen supply. This is one of the reasons it is speculated it was one of the incendiaries used at the WTC.
Speculation has revolved around the nano thermite/mate.
 NIST has done much research with respect to the nano technology compounds, so they are familiar with this, and it's rather strange they seemed to act as though it is some obscure chemical.
Whatever was used was super hot, and required little to no oxygen. 
It is amazing when watching videos of the towers seemingly exploding, and ejecting tons of massive steel components away from the building, while observing the rapidness of their descents, and the squibs that protrude way down below the collapse fronts. 2 huge buildings destroyed with equal manifestations, coming down through the parts of themselves that were built with so much more reinforcement....and to observe the lengths that NIST and others have gone to in trying to obscure reality is even more shocking.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 11, 2013)

I don't know how much real research anyone on these boards actually do. ( I expect very little independent study) But I happen to do a lot of reading on different subjects. And I don't claim to be an expert, but I have read about 18 different Papers and reports about nanotechnology (not related to 9-11), and the earliest 2 articles I have found were dated in 2001.

FYI.......


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 11, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Well there wasn't anyone down there with a pack of matches........
> Seriously,  the fires smouldering under the rubble could not have had anything to do with any controlled demolition....Simply a natural side effect of the collapse. There simply isn't any other explanation......


So you're saying that all that stuff coming down from the Towers *rubbed together* and created all that heat that lasted for months eh? That's a "Natural Side Effect of the Collapse" huh?

And *YOU* come in here and make fun of *US? *


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 11, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Well there wasn't anyone down there with a pack of matches........
> ...



Please tell us of your great wisdom and explain what caused these fires to smoulder for weeks......

We could always use a laugh to start the week with......


----------



## paulitician (Feb 11, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Well there wasn't anyone down there with a pack of matches........
> ...



True Believers are True Believers. And obviously Ollie is one of them. They'll always truly believe Big Brother knows what's best and is here to help. You'll never get through to those people. They're lost causes. But there is hope. Many others are open-minded and willing to ask questions. And those are the people worth trying to reach. So don't bother with Ollie anymore. His Authority-Worship Brainwashing is just way too thorough. You're not gonna get through. Direct your energy towards people who are willing to ask questions. Just my thoughts anyway. Keep fighting the good fight.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 11, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > And *YOU* come in here and make fun of *US? *
> ...


Make a list of things that would smoulder for months *by themselves* and think about it.

Concrete and Steel "rubbing together" aint one of them!


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 11, 2013)

paulitician said:


> True Believers are True Believers. And obviously Ollie is one of them. *They'll always believe Big Brother knows what's best and is here to help. *You'll never get through to those people. They're lost causes. But there is hope. Many others are open-minded and willing to ask questions. And those are the people worth trying to reach. So don't bother with Ollie anymore. His Authority-Worship Brainwashing is just way too thorough. You're not gonna get through. Direct your energy towards people who are willing to ask questions. Just my thoughts anyway. Keep fighting the good fight.


That's where I disagree. Ollie was in the Military so *he know first hand* how wasteful and stupid the Gov't can be. There's a chance he'll wake up when things get really bad here shortly.

The problem is he has a *huge* emotional investment at stake. He thinks that him serving Honorably for 20+ years means that the US Gov't is Honorable too. Nothing could be further from the truth, he's just Highly Compartmentalized.

He's like the Bank Teller that thinks he's guilty by association if a Middle Management figure was found guilty of Embezzlement so he won't say anything about other fraudulent acts he knows of, or is suspicious of.


----------



## paulitician (Feb 11, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > True Believers are True Believers. And obviously Ollie is one of them. *They'll always believe Big Brother knows what's best and is here to help. *You'll never get through to those people. They're lost causes. But there is hope. Many others are open-minded and willing to ask questions. And those are the people worth trying to reach. So don't bother with Ollie anymore. His Authority-Worship Brainwashing is just way too thorough. You're not gonna get through. Direct your energy towards people who are willing to ask questions. Just my thoughts anyway. Keep fighting the good fight.
> ...



I hear ya. There's a slight chance he'll come around. But i doubt it. He's an Authority-Worship zealot. It's all he knows. He was trained to shut up and obey. And i don't think that training can be reversed at this point. It's very likely too late for that to happen. But hey, you go ahead and try if you want. That's your call i guess. Good luck.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 11, 2013)

paulitician said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Instead of attacking, why don't you tell us what smouldered for weeks after the collapse.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 11, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > obviously you don't know or forgot the  three things a fire needs 1.fuel 2. ignition source 3. oxygen .
> ...


as I stated before there were millions of tons of gypsum wallboard, plastics, wood,  paper, cardboard, ink, toner batteries.. just to name a few...
ever hare the term "banking a fire"? 
if you had you'd know how a fire could burn for weeks in a low oxygen environment 
also Mr. one live brain cell try googling coal mime fires.. some have burned for decades.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 11, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > And what has to have caused it to be so hot? Thermite burns out in a few seconds.........
> ...


did you miss the point about thermite burning out after a few seconds even if there were tons of It,  it would not last more then a few hours,  [ame=http://youtu.be/dkODHlDQpeU]National Geographic Science & Conspiracy Part 5 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 11, 2013)

But that's not fair national Geographic was obviously in on it.......... LOL


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypl6mhb0-4U]National Geographic Science & Conspiracy Part 6 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Politico (Feb 11, 2013)

(Pulls out paddles)

*Clear!*

Ok good to go for another 50 pages.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 11, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CLCwkcHdmw]National Geographic Science & Conpsiracy Part 7 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Feb 11, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> But that's not fair national Geographic was obviously in on it.......... LOL
> 
> 
> National Geographic Science & Conspiracy Part 6 - YouTube


 they were in on the moon landing too and we all know that was a fake!


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 11, 2013)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You obviously missed my post explaining to you that gypsum DOESN'T BURN!

Coal is VERY combustible which is why it's used for home heat, power generation, etc.

IOW, it AIN'T gypsum!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 11, 2013)

So what was burning? Why is it none of the CT crowd wants to name this?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 11, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> So what was burning? Why is it none of the CT crowd wants to name this?



I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, but I'll do it at least this one more time...

*I DON'T KNOW, BUT IT WASN'T OFFICE FURNITURE!!*


----------



## daws101 (Feb 11, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



 Print this article

How to Fireproof With Drywall thumbnail	Using the proper drywall material improves fire resistance for home walls. 

Drywall, sometimes called gypsum or sheetrock, does naturally provide some fire resistance. The predominant material in the drywall sheet, gypsum, does not burn. However, the paper the sheet is encased in does burn and heat does transfer through the drywall, increasing the possibility of combustion within the wall


Read more: How to Fireproof With Drywall | eHow.com How to Fireproof With Drywall | eHow.com

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Myths - Iron Burns!!!


Ancient Wisdom about burning iron:



Thomas Aquinas and other theologians remarked on the famous burning property of Iron:



Aquinas maintains that:


The head causes an influx of sensation and motion to all members of the body. ... omeone can understand to flow into (influere) in two ways according to the spiritual sense and mode. One mode as principal agent: And thus it belongs to God alone to provide an influx of grace in the members of the Church. In another mode instrumentally: And thus even the humanity of Christ is a cause of the said influx; because as Damascene says ... as iron burns on account of the fire conjoined to it, so were the actions of the humanity of Christ on account of the united divinity, of which the humanity itself was an instrument. Christ, nevertheless, according to the two last conditions of head [governance, influence] is able to be called head of the angels according to human nature, and head of both according to divine nature; not, however, according to the first condition [namely, sameness in nature], unless one takes what is common according to the nature of the genus, according as man and angel agree in rational nature, and further what is common according to analogy, according as it is common to the Son along with all creatures to receive from the Father, as Basil says, by reason of which he is said to be the first-born of all creatures, Col. 1:15.16   The Catholic Faith, Scripture, and the Question of the Existence of Intelligent Extra-terrestrial Life



DAMASCENUS, (lib. 3, cap. 17) wrote:


    "For not according to its [the flesh's] own operation, but by the Word united to it, He wrought divine things, the Word displaying through it His own operation.  For glowing iron burns not by possessing in a natural manner the power to burn, but by possessing this from its union with the fire.  Therefore in itself it was mortal, and on account of its personal union to the Word, quickening."   Index of /pub/resources/text/wittenberg/concord/web
 augsc-05.html


19th Century:


"Iron commences to 'burn' at 2500[F], while at the end of the operation in the Bessemer process, when the temperature reaches some 3000[F], the iron burns violently, as demonstrated by examination of the Bessemer flame with the spectro- scope. (See p. 46, Vol. II.)"

Paints Made of Copper. [Manufacturer and builder / Volume 3, Issue 6, June 1871]

Manufacturer and builder / Volume 3, Issue 6, June 1871



"At 1000C iron burns as easily as wood."  Learning-Org Sep 2001: Reflections on September 11 LO27277



Iron smiths (Blacksmiths) modern and ancient are aware that glowing Iron Burns:


"With bellows blowing additional air through the fire, it can reach temperatures of about 3,000° Fahrenheit. Iron burns at 2,800°, however, so the smith has to be careful to not ruin his work!    The smith's fire contains too much oxygen to allow iron to melt; as it approaches its melting point the iron burns instead."

http://www.osv.org/cgi-bin/CreatePDF.php?/tour/index.php?L=12&PDF=Y




Also of note:  Faraday's lectures and a demonstration of iron powder burning incandescent in air (and more brightly in pure oxygen):  http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/MOD/1859Faraday-forces.html  ("Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith, and was born at Newington Butts


----------



## daws101 (Feb 11, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > So what was burning? Why is it none of the CT crowd wants to name this?
> ...


you have no proof it wasn't .


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 11, 2013)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


The PAPER? Yeah, you run with that... 


> "Iron commences to 'burn' at 2500[F],
> "At 1000C iron burns as easily as wood."
> "*With bellows blowing additional air through the fire*, it can reach temperatures of about 3,000° Fahrenheit. Iron burns at 2,800°,



Jet Fuel

SLCOJet Fuel is a type of aviation fuel designed for use in jet-engined aircraft.

The most common fuel is an unleaded/paraffin oil-based fuel classified as JET A-1, which is produced to an internationally standardized set of specifications. In the United States only, a version of JET A-1 known as JET A is also used.

The only other jet fuel that is commonly used in civilian aviation is called JET B. JET B is a fuel in the naptha-kerosene region that is used for its enhanced cold-weather performance. However, JET B's lighter composition makes it more dangerous to handle, and it is thus restricted only to areas where its cold-weather characteristics are absolutely necessary.

Specifications:

Flash point                                     38°C
Auto-ignition temperature               210°C
Freezing point                                -47°C (-40°C for JET A)
Open air burning temperatures        260-315°C (500-599°F)
Maximum burning temperature        980°C (1796 °F)
Density at 15 °C (60 °F)                  0.775-0.840 kg/L
:: ME Petroleum :: Jet Fuel

In other words, even at MAXIMUM burning temperature it doesn't get hot enough to ignite iron.

Try again?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 11, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


it was not the jet fuel that kept the fire burning
nice job of cherry picking that's soo twoofer of you!
the office furniture deny was more than hot enough to set the steel burring.
guess you've never been to Manhattan there is an almost constant wind off the river and the Atlantic to fan the fire.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 11, 2013)

Gee it wasn't the stuff in the building but they don't know what it was..........

It was all the stuff that was in the building..... And nothing else..... Except for a little bit of stuff that was on the planes......


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 11, 2013)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


Please name me the component of office furniture that burns at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit.
Please explain to us how the wind was getting under and through 12 stories worth of debris.

TIA


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 11, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Please tell us what else it could have been? Jet fuel burned up within minutes and if there had been any thermite it burned up in seconds. C4 would have went boom. So what else is left? You don't have to be Einstein here......


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 11, 2013)

daws101 said:


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


No but you seemed to have missed  out on a few years worth of discussion on these boards, that this video and the strawman argument it tries to make has been totally fucking answered and debunked long ago!
You once again display a lack of knowledge and display an ignorant lack of up to date information...It ain't sparkler thermite that is being claimed was used you fucking dummy!

The narrator of this videos states "the real evidence of any CD is in the aftermath"
well this is disingenuous of her to say, as we all know the majority of the steel that should have been analyzed was immediately taken away, and made unavailable for inspection and diagnosis. Take away the evidence, then say there was no evidence?

No "detonators or "tell tale signs" she says....Well what the fuck do expect to find, if A-
the majority of the steel was hauled away and NOT made available for detailed analysis, and 
B-They admitted they didn't even bother to look for any signs of a CD in the first place!

This video is evidence of the slight of hand and deception that took place while saying there was no evidence because there wasn't much to inspect.
However FEMA did mention the eutectic pieces of steel that they admitted left them puzzled.

*Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field. The first appeared to be from WTC 7 and the second from either WTC 1 or WTC 2. Samples were taken from these beams and labeled Sample 1 and Sample 2, respectively. A metallurgic examination was conducted. * 
*
 Summary for Sample 1
The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
 The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel. 
*

No mention of this readily available fact about what FEMA found in your video..

And to equate a child's sparkler with what is alleged to have been found in the WTC dust in nano form!! At least she admitted how fucking hot it burns...4500 deg. F.

And again in this video, they use 100's of lbs. of thermite while avoiding the allegations that a military grade of nano thermate would be the better and most likely compound used ...Not the same shit that is used in children's sparklers!!
This video and the absurd, disingenuous explanations may be sufficient for those of you that don't know, or most likely refuse to admit that there is a military grade of nano thermate that has been used for decades, but for those of us who have looked into this further we know better, and most likely so do the people that put this strawman video together.
Anyone who has been following this should know by now of the allegations that
the compound that has been theorized to have been used does not have to be in 1000's of lbs, or has to be held in place..
.And yes thermite/mate has been used to burn through steel beams..Good God this video and the BS in it has been debunked, and thrown in the garbage bin of discussion because it is based on lies, and is nothing more then a strawman argument, and is just as much bullshit as them declaring that there was "nothing in the debris to indicate a CD was ever found" for the reasons I stated above-- no steel to examine, and no one bothering to look for evidence of a CD, even though the "collapses" had many of the tell tale characteristics of one..

Furthermore, you people are asking someone on a message board what kept the rubble piles burning??
Are you fucking serious?? We all would like to know the answer to that question, and we all depended on NIST or someone to explain this to us, but how can you expect an answer when they denied these molten rubble piles even existed?? 
This video is but one of a long line of  examples of evasiveness and strawman tactics they, and NIST have used to avoid the real issues while ignoring evidence or refusing to even acknowledge other facts that make their theory total fucking BS, and physically impossible.

Why don't you people stop with the non sense and strawman tactics and try to find out and explain how these massive steel structures could fall in on themselves, through the path of MOST resistance, in such short amount of time???
NIST hasn't explained any of this with any scientific clarity, yet you fucks expect us to explain what they were supposed to???

But at least you people have at last admitted to the existence of these peculiar rubble pile fires, and the molten metal they produced, I'll give credit for that and though your guesses are extremely ridiculous,(wood, Gypsum board??) you are at least past being fearful and ignoring them and at least trying to tackle it and think it through, so some progress is being made!!! 

But NO....wood and office furnishings are not very likely to continue to burn for 3 months, and be unable to be extinguished even with 1000's of gallons of industrial Pyrocool being applied. But don't feel bad, many other people are just as frustrated if not more about this, as we truly were looking forward to a viable and reasonable explanation to this oddity, but NIST decided to ignore a lot of things.

 The fact remains that something was used that assisted the demise of those 1/4 mile vertical humongous hirises, and the WTC 7. There is no doubt about that, and ignoring this fact does not explain it away, or makes it a non issue.

* Enhanced Explosive Materials Using Nano-Particulate Metal Fuels
Summary:
Metal fluorocarbon mixtures have been recognized since World War II as highly reactive pyrotechnics. Their use as explosives, however, has, until recently, been limited due to the inherently low reaction rates of the metal particles with the fluorocarbon material. Scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory have discovered that these slow reaction rates can be greatly enhanced by substituting nano-sized aluminum for the conventional micron-sized metal powders, enabling various applications heretofore not possible with metal fluorocarbon mixtures. *

*Since metallic fuels have long been used in rocketry and ballistics, there is a great deal of information on the subject that operatives planning the 9/11 attack could draw upon. Additionally, they would be able to take advantage of recent advances in nano-thermite research by some of the same entities that were involved in the official WTC investigations. *


*Nano-Thermites and NIST: Connections

By reading NIST's responses to questions about the use of aluminothermic incendiaries, one could get the impression that NIST's investigators had never heard of super-thermites or nano-thermites. Their August 2006 FAQ asserts:
Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening.

But, as Kevin Ryan points out in his July 2008 article The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites, NIST, including its leadership, has been on the forefront of research into advanced aluminothermic mixutures, also described as energetic nanocomposites, metastable intermolecular composites, and superthermites.

The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites

Perhaps this explains why NIST's answers to questions about aluminothermic arson seem so transparently disingenuous, and why NIST avoided even mentioning the material in Appendix C of FEMA's Report. *

And also not mentioned in your BS video....

9-11 Research: Aluminothermic Technology


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 12, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



At least you're willing to admit that the jet fuel burned up in minutes, certainly not enough time to weaken massive steel beams...


----------



## editec (Feb 12, 2013)

Conspiracy or SNAFU, either way the government completely failed us.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 12, 2013)

Ever heard of Fresh Kills?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 12, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdMqX_F66rE&feature=endscreen&NR=1]Fresh Kills (Landfill) - WTC Debris Burial Ground, pt. 1 - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1aXxIVitZU]Rare pieces of wtc debris w "plane" parts. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 12, 2013)

But there was no investigation.......


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 12, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> But there was no investigation.......


No, there was no *Proper* investigation.

Sending all the steel immediately to China then putting the rest of the wreckage in a landfill is *not* part of a *proper* Investigation.

9-11 Research: NTSB Reports


> In late 2001 and early 2002, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) filed reports detailing information of the four commandeered flights, based on a combination of air traffic control recordings and, in the case of United Flight 93, the plane's flight data recorder. However, these reports remained hidden from public view for years. Even today, the entries in the NTSB database for the 9/11/2001 crashes state:
> The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and this material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 12, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Straw Man alert! 
No one said it was the jet fuel that destroyed the horizontal beam's connections to their vertical supports. Stop playing amateur physicist here and get busy compiling your case, Princess. There's big bucks, fame and glory awaiting those who can recover that insurance money.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 12, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> But there was no investigation.......



  
Obviously.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 12, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > But there was no investigation.......
> ...



Evidently your case is based on a LIE. None of the steel was "sent immediately to China," not all of it was recycled and it took 8 months to remove the last of the steel from the site. No wonder you dabble here instead of preparing your case for trial ... you have no case.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 12, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


Bullshit Alert! NIST said it!
FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation


> (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns,  dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and  steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and  (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited  multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees  Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) *significantly weakened the floors  and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged  and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. *This led to the inward  bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1  and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the  towers.


I'm still awaiting PM of your personal info but I'm having serious doubts as to your ability to argue ANY case.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 12, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Evidently your case is based on a LIE. *None of the steel was "sent immediately to China"* and it took 8 months to remove all the steel from the site. No wonder you dabble here instead of preparing your case for trial ... you have no case.


More Bullshit from the uninformed! From Jan 2002:
Baosteel Will Recycle World Trade Center Debris


> A shipment of scrap steel from New York's collapsed  World Trade Center will arrive in Shanghai tomorrow, according to media  reports. The steel was bought by Shanghai Baosteel Group Corp. and several other domestic mills, which are always eager to buy scrap metal.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 12, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


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



We really do need some reading comprehension skills. Jet fuel ignited does not mean jet fuel.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 12, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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


You really need reading comprehension skills. Jet Fuel means Jet Fuel. You wanna' say the Jet Fuel ignited *something else* that burned hotter? What would that be? Phone system? Office Furniture? Post-It Notes?

Remember: *You* also stated previously that Concrete and Steel "rubbing together" on the way down would cause the wreckage to smolder for months.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 12, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


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



Dayam. You're waaay too stupid to play with a computer. Your source clearly states the fires which damaged the structure were _ignited_ by the jet fuel. No where does it state that the jet fuel brought down the buildings. You continue to prove why, after 11 years of Internet braying, not one CT has been strong enough to make a winable civil court case. You'll are just too stupid but thanks for playin'.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 12, 2013)

Quote=Mad Scientist
Sending all the steel immediately to China then putting the rest of the wreckage in a landfill is not part of a proper Investigation.



Mad Scientist said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Evidently your case is based on a LIE. *None of the steel was "sent immediately to China"* and it took 8 months to remove all the steel from the site. No wonder you dabble here instead of preparing your case for trial ... you have no case.
> ...



Thank you for proving my point and disproving your own. None of the steel was "sent immediately to China" and not all, as you also falsely claim, was sent to China. No wonder you dabble here instead of preparing your case for trial ... you have no case ... just lame CT lies.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 12, 2013)

The point is that a proper analysis was not done, period. And to nitpic about the jetfuel! Man it was touted all over the MSM, the internet, by the "experts" and parroted by the pundits that the jetfuel was too much and too hot for the steel to withstand..
Now when one researches the properties of construction grade steel, you would find that this accelerant,
Was spread by the plane impacts in a asymmetrical, unpredictable manner, much of it was consumed upon impact, and whatever was lit by it, could not have survived so far underground for 3 months, nor could have produced the seemingly opposite of asymmetrical damage, by producing a more symmetrical downward collapse, which would indicate, more or less equal temps at equal time duration at the major supporting points of the buildings...So what we have here is the fact that the temps were NOT hot enough to cause the damage to the steel, BUT were extremely hot enough to burn for 3 months and not able to be extinguished by water or thousands of gallons of Pyrocool...
It's a mystery that hasn't been explained for a variety of reasons.
Hats off to you guys for acknowledging this mystery after years of denying it like NIST. This is but one of the things we are wanting to know as well.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 12, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Sadly they will never ever let this be a case. It is evident by them ignoring what ever is tried to be presented to them..


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 12, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> So what was burning? Why is it none of the CT crowd wants to name this?



I don't know why the OCT crowd would not try to answer this. It's fucking obvious something other then jetfuel was used to cause the rapid descents..This is another part that is avoided in their explanations....The only thing that comes to mind is the military grade nano thermate
that was mentioned years ago..
*
"Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? . . . NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel." -- NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006 *

*The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has had considerable difficulty determining a politically correct sequence of events for the unprecedented destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11 (Douglas 2006, Ryan 2006, Gourley 2007). But despite a number of variations in NIST&#8217;s story, it never considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with explosive and thermite materials. 

The extensive evidence that explosives were used at the WTC includes witness testimony (MacQueen 2006), overwhelming physical evidence (Griffin 2005, Hoffman et al 2005, Jones and Legge et al 2008) and simple common sense (Legge 2007). There is also substantial evidence that aluminothermic (thermite) materials were present at the WTC (Jones 2007), and the presence of such materials can explain the existence of intense fire where it would not otherwise have existed. Additionally, despite agreement from all parties that the assumed availability of fuel allowed for the fires in any given location of each of the WTC buildings to last only twenty minutes (NIST 2007), the fires lasted much longer and produced extreme temperatures (Jones and Farrer et al 2008). *

*These inexplicable fires are a reminder that the WTC buildings were not simply demolished, but were demolished in a deceptive way. That is, the buildings were brought down so as to make it look like the impact of the planes and the resulting fires might have caused their unprecedented, symmetrical destruction. Therefore, shaped charges and other typical explosive configurations were likely used, but there was more to it than that. Those committing the crimes needed to create fire where it would not have existed otherwise, and draw attention toward the part of the buildings where the planes impacted (or in the case of WTC 7, away from the building altogether). *

*This was most probably accomplished through the use of nano-thermites, which are high-tech energetic materials made by mixing ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum and UFG metal oxides; usually iron oxide, molybdenum oxide or copper oxide, although other compounds can be used (Prakash 2005, Rai 2005). The mixing is accomplished by adding these reactants to a liquid solution where they form what are called &#8220;sols&#8221;, and then adding a gelling agent that captures these tiny reactive combinations in their intimately mixed state (LLNL 2000). The resulting &#8220;sol-gel&#8221; is then dried to form a porous reactive material that can be ignited in a number of ways.

The high surface area of the reactants within energetic sol-gels allows for the far higher rate of energy release than is seen in &#8220;macro&#8221; thermite mixtures, making nano-thermites &#8220;high explosives&#8221; as well as pyrotechnic materials (Tillotson et al 1999). Sol-gel nano-thermites, are often called energetic nanocomposites, metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) or superthermite (COEM 2004, Son et al 2007), and silica is often used to create the porous, structural framework (Clapsaddle et al 2004, Zhao et al 2004). Nano-thermites have also been made with RDX (Pivkina et al 2004), and with thermoplastic elastomers (Diaz et al 2003). But it is important to remember that, despite the name, nano-thermites pack a much bigger punch than typical thermite materials. *


The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites

This or what else could it have been???


*The Commerce Department&#8217;s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST &#8211; formerly the National Bureau of Standards, NBS) is a measurement standards laboratory, expected to produce scientifically verifiable, not falsified, analysis.*
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/09/911-mythology-the-big-lie-of-our-time/


----------



## daws101 (Feb 12, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


hey slap dick! office furniture is made up of several components all of which burn.
I'll type this slow as your conative abilities are low.
have you ever built a bon fire? what you don't seem to get is the more fuel you ad the hotter a fire gets despite the fact that some materials don't burn as hot as others.
also there's a little thing called heat transfer.
as to the wind, unless the wreckage was a solid  mass (it was not) there is no reason  that the wind not fan the fires.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 12, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


 more 911 toof nonsense  it's all specious conjecture and no testing!


----------



## daws101 (Feb 12, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


it's no admission, it's a statement of fact no one has ever denied .
all of the wtc buildings were damaged directly or in directly by the planes.
to deny this is just plain idiocy.
the point is, you've made no brownie points thinking that you've somehow got an admission of a cover up!


----------



## daws101 (Feb 12, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > So what was burning? Why is it none of the CT crowd wants to name this?
> ...


a tip: any "so called evidence" presented by any thing with the pre fix 911- followed by truth , mythology, review, etc...is not credible.


----------



## dblack (Feb 12, 2013)

Was that supposed to make any sense?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 12, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



If that's what you want to think I meant you go right ahead, but there is a major difference between the terms Jet Fuel and jet fuel ignited..... And if you refuse to accept that then you are loonier than even I thought....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 12, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> The point is that a proper analysis was not done, period. And to nitpic about the jetfuel! Man it was touted all over the MSM, the internet, by the "experts" and parroted by the pundits that the jetfuel was too much and too hot for the steel to withstand..
> Now when one researches the properties of construction grade steel, you would find that this accelerant,
> Was spread by the plane impacts in a asymmetrical, unpredictable manner, much of it was consumed upon impact, and whatever was lit by it, could not have survived so far underground for 3 months, nor could have produced the seemingly opposite of asymmetrical damage, by producing a more symmetrical downward collapse, which would indicate, more or less equal temps at equal time duration at the major supporting points of the buildings...So what we have here is the fact that the temps were NOT hot enough to cause the damage to the steel, BUT were extremely hot enough to burn for 3 months and not able to be extinguished by water or thousands of gallons of Pyrocool...
> It's a mystery that hasn't been explained for a variety of reasons.
> Hats off to you guys for acknowledging this mystery after years of denying it like NIST. This is but one of the things we are wanting to know as well.



So you are saying there was something that did not belong under that debris pile causing the fires? Are you sure you want to go with that?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 12, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



Ah ... "they." If you open your eyes you will find a number of large cases which have and continue to wend their way through our courts. I no longer believe you guys are simply ignorant of the truth ... I now believe you are inveterate liars.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 12, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



I don't think anyone gives a fuck what you believe, I know that I certainly don't.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 12, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > So what was burning? Why is it none of the CT crowd wants to name this?
> ...



What you have succeeded in proving is that despite legions of 9/11 CTs - some of whom are professionals in their field - and an almost infinite number of web sites dedicated to proving 9/11 was something other than what we've been told, not one has found a smoking gun which would give their speculation, pseudoscience and fabrications at least some legitimacy. Eleven years of braying and still nothing. Amazing! Carry on, Princess.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



The CT's desperation is evidenced by their shrill delusions. Pathetic, really.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 12, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Hardly seems possible but there it is.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 12, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Give us some insight as to why you consider what is available that counters your version of the CT, nothing? You certainly haven't posted anything that does, and all that you do is simply rely on the fact that Federal courts have been ignoring the evidence that you don't even have the guts to respond to directly.
They way you see it, is if the US government, you know the entity that is basically the defendant in this case, doesn't want to defend itself against the allegations that are being made, then there is no case..You never address the proof that is presented against their narrative....You simply hide behind the fact that if they wont even consider the evidence or facts against them, you don't have to respond or address what we and others have to say...You are nothing but a pussy, and a coward...Hows about you engage in what is presented by posters in this thread and the scientific, and physical facts that we point to  and the anomalies of what happened instead of hiding behind skirts and strawmen?

This is what you OCT lunatics do....Always avoid the facts presented in these threads and hide behind the skirts of NIST...What a bunch of sorry, sissy little bitches you all are!


C'mon now you little fucking twink, address the facts that we put up with some of your own!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 12, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



The desperation of you sissy's is evident, as you never ever respond with anything other then cowardly evasion. We are discussing the jetfuel, and its effects and this is all you have as a response? It's the same with all of your posts, and idiotic threads. You are terrible at advancing the lunacy of your conspiracy theory, and always hide behind false premises, and BS speculation. How about you explain why you theorize that the jetfuel could actually have been the cause of the 3 month long rubble fires?
Or how about you substantiate your position that it is possible for 2 massive hirises to  explode, and accelerate their collapses through the path of most resistance? Or how about you substantiate the reasons why you believe that the NIST report is correct, even though we have pointed out evidence of how they lied about their fuel loads, and left out the shear studs in WTC 7 in 2008?

You don't, and I'll bet you won't because you are a coward, pussy little trolling twink, that can't even fathom a coherent response and run away from a challenge in this discussion.
You have been discredited, and exposed as another idiot that knows nothing about what is even being discussed in this section of the USMB.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



This is only the opinion of another pussy that wont even present anything that substantiates his opinion, so why should anyone believe you? You've presented nothing that backs up your absurd  feeble minded opinion, and never have..


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Why do you constantly deny what so many people already know? And..if you deny what so many people know, and insist that they are somehow wrong, it is customary in discussions on line or in person, to stand your ground and prove your point.
You always seem to point out how everyone is wrong but you never point out how it is that you are right....Whats the matter dawgshit....have you nothing that  substantiates any of your stated positions? 
You run from a challenge like a little girl who just saw a spider!! You make no "brownie" points of your own thinking you somehow proved whatever point you were thinking you made!


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 13, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



Like you I am neither a physicist nor engineer. Unlike you I don't pretend to be.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 13, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


the wtc towers did not explode. that  intentional misstatement of fact  destroys any imagined credibility your fantasy HAS.
A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
your whole argument is based on a false and unprovable premise I.E. the government did it.
you have no proof of this , therefore any speculation, report, story, stemming from that false premise  is also false.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 13, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


there's that old non point, point you always fall back on when your ass is in a crack .
this so many people you rave about is in reality very small, so small in fact it's not even 1 tenth of 1% of the US population. 
it's getting smaller all the time.
as to standing my ground, I've done that in the only way that matters.
I present the facts.
by presenting them ,it's a given that I agree with them, they substantiate themselves.
you on the other hand,  yammer endlessly about substance  yet in reality you've presented nothing that could be remotely classified as substantive.
it's all subjective, specious, bias bullshit.
so shut the fuck up about substance, you got none.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



Bullshit, to anyone that objectively observes the pictures and better yet the videos, they are exploding, and ejecting tons of steel components considerable distances away.
The required energy to do this AND crush the lower buildings resistance is not consistent with a natural, asymmetrically damaged building, the energy involved can not regenerate itself idiot! Plus where is the jolt, that should have taken place as the descending top halves made contact with the more robust lower sections of the undamaged parts??

But as always, you of course must deny the obvious and what your own eyes see. 
The same way that NIST denied the obvious and pretended things relevant to the WTC did not exists, therefore they assumed they didn't have to answer anything about it, and YOU hide behind they're denial, and obfuscations, and never answer or respond directly to what we post that sheds light on this..
You start with a false premise, that concerns the fire temps, and steels properties, and leave out anything that has to do with what actually is expected to happen when 2 masses collide. You do not think, and do not care to try to put what we are saying together. We provide much more information and facts, while you ignore the biggest and most obvious oddities about the collapses.
You can't win an argument by leaving out facts pertaining to it dipshit!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


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


----------



## daws101 (Feb 13, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


the deeper the bullshit the longer the post.


----------



## paulitician (Feb 13, 2013)

Big Brother is good and knows what's best for you. And if you believe otherwise, you're an 'America-Hating Tinfoil Hat-Wearing Nutjob.' 

That sums up the loyal Goose Stepper sentiment. You're never gonna get through to most of em. The best you can hope for, is that you get through to a few.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThLaswlmDSQ]9/11: A Conspiracy Theory - Everything you ever wanted to know about 9/11 in under 5 minutes - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Feb 13, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 13, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



You don't have to be a physicist, or engineer to grasp the basics, and the ones that NIST avoids...What are you afraid of? You boast of your representation abilities, like some off the wall narcissist, but you can't even muster the ability to learn what the first, and most important, and glaring issues are, that dismisses the conspiracy theory that you believe in
as extremely inaccurate, not workable, and places it at an extremely low level of possibility and even remotely close to being anywhere near accurate.

You are lame, and lazy and hide behind a theory that has been exposed as being full of flaws, in its data, evidence collection, and results, especially the results of WTC 7, specifically the computer simulation, and its hidden data...

You avoid the basic issues, by hiding behind weak opinions that do not at all dismiss the facts that we posted. We ask you to substantiate your positions with some insight, and you refuse to, while thanking others that do the exact same thing as you do.
You simply generalize this topic as another "CT", while feining ignorance, about what WE post. One can reasonably infer then, that you also don't have the capacity to understand that which you claim to believe in, IE: the NIST theory!
So how is it you DO understand what the NIST is theorizing, but claim ignorance to the information others have against it???

You avoid this glaring discrepancy at every step, and every post that challenges your insane CT is met with non answers or excuses while you are admitting you are simply too dumb and can't understand things, this truly reflects very poorly on you, and shows what a dumb, non thinking, coward pompous twink you are.
So to summarize your stance on this topic, we can infer that you are too dumb and or lazy to study what the main objections are to the wild conspiracy theory that you wholeheartedly believe in, while believing that your CT is correct....while not even knowing what it is really about, or what it even consists of??? 
You are all talk, and no substance and are a very weak link among the OCT worshiping tin foil hatters!!!

From a tyrant who knew a thing or two about mass propaganda and how it applied in his era, and in your case....now.

*All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. Adolf Hitler*

This statement fits you like a glove, twinkie!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



The shorter your post, the more correct we are about you, dipshit! 
Again an epic dodge, and fail. You can't even muster a defense against the claims I made against YOU!!! What a pussy you are!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


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


----------



## paulitician (Feb 13, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



Probably time for him or her to whip out one of their Sock Trolls. The countdown is on till the SAYIT/Candyass/del Socks show up. 5 4 3 2...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 13, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w]9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center's Collapse Explained - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 13, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



You now have the opportunity to repost anything of mine in which I boast of any of my abilities. Like all your silly CT "facts" my alleged boasting is simply another of your ever-growing list of fabrications. Your entire life is just lies piled on lies. Pathetic, but you are a complete waste of a human being. Carry on, Princess.


----------



## paulitician (Feb 13, 2013)

Ha Ha! Right on cue. One of dawgshit's Sock Trolls shows up. So predictable. Man, can i call em or what? lol!


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 13, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


----------



## paulitician (Feb 13, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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


----------



## daws101 (Feb 13, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


you would think that, but it has about much credibility as all the other shit you post. 
no need to muster anything lol  I'm immune to mental disorders and bogus challenges 
lol1


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 13, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Your offer to represent people, that you obviously feel you are competent about your abilities enough to offer on a message board, but sadly in disgrace now you back track and try to slither and slide away from your grandiose illusion like the little twinkie  slimely slug that you have been exposed to really be, but for anyone who wishes to undertake a search, there is evidence of this but you have been discredited and are nothing but a bore. You continuously respond with meaningless BS, and run away from the challenges posed to you, carry on with your little fantasy, twinkie, your are at least providing some good humor.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 13, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> 9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center's Collapse Explained - YouTube



Ollie I watched your video and contains so much unproven BS it really is amazing. It is based on the NIST report, that yous seem to not understand, but feel that the crap that is in it is somehow substantiated because it is being parroted in a video.

It is answered, exposed as BS and destroyed with the following--


Many many people who were considered authorities, initially came out and said that the fires from the jetfuel were simply too hot and too extreme for the steel in the buildings to handle. This was touted all over the papers, TV and the MSM in general. This immediately gave the public a sense that it was truly the case and seemed to provide an adequate explaination to many people who never worked with fire, steel or torches.

Even knowing that this initial knee jerk explanation was false, I considered the weakening of the steel as a pssible explanation. But again, having worked with steel and other metals, and using a torch as a primary tool for years, I knew that the high temperature that was needed to weaken steel, especially the kind used in massive hirises, had to be applied at relevant positions of the supporting structures, for enough duration, at the same time to cause the kind of more or less symmetrical collapse that was witnessed.
I also know from experience that steel transfers heat away from the flame contact point, and distributes the heat to the cooler parts of it.
Example...take a piece of metal...even a frying pan, and heat it up, and you will burn your hands just by grabbing the handle. The longer the "handle" the cooler it will be at its end, because of it having more mass (handle) to distribute the heat...

Weakening of the steel in these massive buildings, when the above facts are taken into consideration, would take time in order to properly apply the nessesary heat and the corresponding high temps required to overcome the steels properties. If anything we should have witnessed, a gradual weakening evidenced by tilting, or toppling to the side of the building that was being most effected at the time.

NIST claiming that the fires and the temps were sufficiently attained in these massive structures, is one thing, but proving it is another thing that they failed to do.
They also claimed that a rapid collapse, especially one that could come anywhere near FF or FF acceleration, would be impossible due to the building providing  a natural resistance to the collapsing parts...
If one is serious about this, you must take into account tha fact that these buildings,like many others were designed with a safety factor that went above and beyond they stated capabilities, and will provide further resistance and strength against such damage.

As well, NISTs scientific data contradicted their own theory:  This is not science; its Bush science!

·        Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F) despite pre-collapse exposure to fire[55]

·        Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C)[56]

·        Lab tests showed: Minimal floor sagging[57]

·        NIST found that there was no floor collapse[58]

·        The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th.[59]

NIST claims that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the steel, yet their own tests showed that it was not.  This evidence strongly indicates that the WTC towers should have remained standing, and is supported by the claims of the building designers.

The video then gets into the claim that the WTC 's steel was not encased in concrete. However, anyone who has ever tried to cut steel that had concrete around it or near it, would know that when concrete is poured, it dries with moisture trapped within it.
Take a torch to it and it will gall and explode, and if you're not wearing eye protection, you run a huge risk of damaging your eyes with the exploding debris.
Concrete is used when a thinner gauge of steel, or rebar is being used. When the extreme heat of the fire attacks the concrete, it explodes and exposes the weak steel or rebar underneath it.
This steel, being thinner can be overcome much more readily compared to a  larger more robust piece that was used in a building like the WTC towers.

This is why you will see in thevideo of the Windsor building in Madrid, Spain, a 32-story tower framed in steel reinforced concrete.
 At its peak, the fire, which burned for almost a day, completely engulfed the upper ten stories of the building.  This building is used to try to dispell historical facts, that steel buildings do not experience complete global collapses when attacked by fires.
During the night the building shedded larged pieces, which crashed to the ground.
The fire apparently caused the collapse of the top floor spans surrounding the still-standing core structure of the ten uppermost floors. As in the case of the other large skyscraper fire since 9/11/01, fears of total building collapse in the case of the Windsor fire were widely reported.    Those fears would again prove unfounded. 
In fact, comparisons between the Windsor tower and the WTC Towers are limited because of the very different structures of these buildings. The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick. Severe fires in other skyscrapers which, like the WTC Towers, were 100% steel-framed, have not produced even partial collapses. 
In contrast to the WTC Towers, the Windsor building was framed primarily in steel-reinforced concrete, with columns of concrete reinforced by thin sections of rebar.   The concrete pillars in the Windsor building are clearly visible in the photographs showing the intact core exposed by the collapsed facade. The very light construction of the perimeter, described below, makes it clear that the core was the main load-bearing component of the building. 

 Steel is a good conductor and concrete is a poor conductor of heat. Thus in a fire, a steel frame will conduct heat away from the hotspots into the larger structure. As long as the fire does not consume the larger structure, this heat conductivity will keep the temperatures of the frame well below the fire temperatures. The same is not true of steel-reinforced-concrete structures, since concrete is not a good thermal conductor, and the thermal conductivity of the rebar inside the concrete is limited by its small mass and the embedding matrix of concrete.
    Fires can cause spalling of concrete, but not of steel. This is because concrete has a small percentage of latent moisture, which is converted to steam by heat. Thus, a large fire can gradually erode a concrete structure to the point of collapse, whereas a fire can only threaten a steel-framed structure if it elevates steel temperatures to such an extent that it causes failures.
The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours, can produce the collapse of parts of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial. 

The partial collapse events of this particular building, spread over several hours (which burned for almost a day), contrast with the implosion of WTC Building 7 in 7 seconds, and the total explosive collapses of each of the Twin Towers in under 17 seconds. 

The video states, and agrees with the NIST claim that the foam fireproofing was blown away from the steel due to the planes impact.
NIST tests its theory by fireing a shotgun at a piece of metal in a box covered with fireproofing. 
NIST provides no argument to support the idea that the jet impact would act like so many shotgun blasts.
Tests demonstrate that the fireproofing would not be knocked off. It would have to be sheared off. 

NIST claims that fire-proofing was widely dislodged by the planes.  This is a central argument of the NIST study.  How did they prove this? They fired multiple shot-gun blasts at fireproofing samples.  Kevin Ryan shows it actually disproved their theory:

It took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been [like] thousands of shotgun blasts [to cover] the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel.[74]

NISTs own photographs clearly show that the shotgun blasts only removed the fireproofing where the bullets had hit.[75] This deceptive experiment actually leads to evidence which contradicts one of the primary arguments of their theory![76] Unfortunately for NIST, there are no classes taught in Bush science.[77]  This example shows that on occasion, NIST cant even prove their own theory with fake and misleading experiments!

The video goes on to state how many columns were damaged, but fails to mention that NIST examined the column loss from the planes as part of their theory.[60] However, leaves out that [NIST] admits that only a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. This is nowhere near the number of columns that the designers claimed could have been removed without causing a problem.[61]

Buildings are designed to redistribute loads; this was even more so in the WTC towers: NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle: increases of 2000% above the design live loads.[62]

So far this video assumes that no one will fact check their claims, which apparently you did not.
Your video also claims that
"Unlike most office fires, the crashes piled debris up against the furthest walls and corners, providing fuel for persistent fires, right at the most vulnerable points in the building"

Seriously, the corners of the towers consisted of massive perimeter walls comprised of dense grids of vertical steel columns and horizontal spandrel plates. These, along with the core structures, supported the towers.
the perimeter wall structures were assembled from pre-fabricated units consisting of 3 column sections and 3 spandrel plate sections welded together. Adjacent units were bolted together: column sections were bolted to adjacent columns above and below, and spandrel plate sections were mated with adjacent sections on either side with numerous bolts.
There were 59 perimeter columns on each face of the towers, and one column on each corner bevel, making a total of 240 perimeter columns in each tower.
Like the core columns, the thickness of the perimeter columns tapered from the bottom to the top of the towers. 

You can hardly call these the "most vulnerable points of the building" To do so is a bald face lie. and again assumes you are too stupid to research the construction and fabrication of these behemoths..

Notice the imprtant facts that these buildings , like most others are constructed in a tappered fashion, with the stronger, more thicker and robust components starting at the bottom, then the middle, and finally the thinnest of the steel and components at the tops..
So to think that these stronger parts,, that were not effectted by plane impacts or fires, would just move out of the way and wilt allowing such rapid decents is extremely ignorant.

The posted video has a fire temperature simulation pre collapse of the south tower that when you look at what NIST reports about fire temps such as--
 Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F) despite pre-collapse exposure to fire[55] and 
Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C)[56] 
 The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th.[59]

NIST claims that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the steel, yet their own tests showed that it was not.  This evidence strongly indicates that the WTC towers should have remained standing, and is supported by the claims of the building designers.

So we know that steel doesn't begin to melt until it reaches 2750 D. F, but loses half its strenght around 1100D F.
But the temps are not substantiated and even discounted by they're own testing.
Furthermore, it only the impacted parts of the buildings did attain the required temps to cause this damage, then how is it explained that the thinner weaker parts fell into the more stronger robust, unaffectted parts, with no resistance??? 

NIST responds:

the momentum of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass [Note: this claim contradicts a basic law of physics].  The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.[64]

According to NIST a building which supported its own weight for 30 years cant resist the momentum from the collapse even a little.  NIST claims a small portion of the building is enough to result in crushing the rest the building at free fall speedas if the bottom portion of the building provided no more resistance than the air in the sky. This is called creating your own scientific reality.[65]  You cant ignore fundamental laws of physics simply because they are inconvenient to your theory!  Normally, (although not in Bush science) you are supposed to abandon your theory when it is this easily disproved.

We observe no jolt when the 2 masses impact each other, and we see a rapid decent and collapse front, when physical laws dictate there most asuradly would have been.
NIST's assertion that the Tower's intact structure was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass is absurd. It:
Requires us to believe that the massive steel frames of the towers provided no more resistance to falling rubble than air.
Ignores the fact that the majority of rubble fell outside the towers' footprints, and hence could not contribute to crushing.
Is unsupported by any calculation or logical argument.[67]
Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum  one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors  and intact steel support columns  the fall must be significantly impeded [i.e. slowed down] by the impacted mass.[68]

You don't have to be a physics expert to understand that,
 It is clear that NIST didnt even attempt to explain how the towers completely collapsed[69] because they couldn'tthey would have to make reference to conservation of momentum, which would completely disprove their entire theory.  This is a perfect example for why the NIST report is unscientific and is completely worthless.

NIST tells us that steel heats up in a hurry when exposed to fire, but expects us to not consider steels thermal conducyivity which draws heat away and would be expected to spread around the 90,000 tons of steel that each tower consisted of. 
They allude to fireproofing as being highly essential, but don't want you to consider that fireproofed or not, no hirise steel building fire has ever caused a total collapse anywhere, anytime in history. Their own "shotgun" testing doesn't conclude their claims, they exageratted their fuel fire loads, and the their own report itself contains evidence contradicting the claims.

The first section of the report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.  
And you idiots that have been saying that rubble fires were asisted by gypsum boards will be surprised to know that
according to NIST the gypsum board actually is mentioned as being a protecting  influence-

"Aside from isolated areas, perhaps protected by surviving gypsum walls, the cooler parts of this upper layer were at about 500 ºC, and in the vicinity of the active fires, the upper layer air temperatures reached 1,000 ºC. The aircraft fragments had broken through the core walls on the 94th through the 97th floors, and temperatures in the upper layers there were similar to those in the tenant spaces. (p 28/78)"

 Note the absurdity of asserting that the fires in the core were as intense as those in the tenant spaces when the core:
Had very little fuel
Was far from any source of fresh air
Had huge steel columns to wick away the heat
 Does not show evidence of fires in any of the photographs or videos!!!

Furthermore, NIST's suggestion of extremely high core temperatures is contradicted by its own fire temperature simulations, such as the one illustrated on the right, which show upper-level air temperatures in the core of mostly below 300 ºC. 
NIST Conceals the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers

NIST apparently ignored thermal conduction within its model of the steel structure. Since steel is a good conductor of heat, and the steel in the Twin Towers' structures was well connected, their massive steel structures would have drawn heat away from the parts that were exposed to fire. The Report describes a model of "The Fire-Structure Interface", and describes the computation of heat transfer between the air and the steel structure, but it does not mention the conduction of heat along spans of the steel structure. (p 131-2/181-2) The suspicion that NIST simply ignored the conduction of heat within the steel is corroborated by the Report's disclosure that they used heat transfer tests on isolated steel elements to calibrate their model. (p 134/184) !!!
Talk about hypocrisy...

So we get detailed computer simulations of how the planes were shredded by the impacts, but when it comes to the collapses, but yet elsewhere and mentioned above in their report they clearly state that the aluminum planes caused the destruction of supporting beams and columns????

[NIST] admits that only a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. This is nowhere near the number of columns that the designers claimed could have been removed without causing a problem.[61]
 Anyone else see their hypocrisy???

As far as the actual collapses are concerned, the most quantitative thing we get is "tremendous energy of the falling building section." Why are there no calculations of the approximate amount of energy? How can 2 masses be able to crash into each other, and the one with the least amount of debris crush the more stroner and undamaged one, in such short amount of time as to suggest it was going through air???

It is clear that NIST presupposed that its assumptions would go unnoticed and unchallenged. It attempted to jumble
and confuse, and at first glance they do a halfway good job of this, but when their theory is analyzed and its ways of reaching their conclusions are looked at in greater detail, it is clear that this was a huge undertaking at decieving the public, by hiding other more relevant conclusions and theories, in a maze of confusing scientific mumble jumbo.

But the main question one only need to keep asking when trying to decipher this mess, is how could the lowere parts of these massive steel structures that were undamaged br overcome by lighter, less mass, IN THE SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME, on 3 occasions on the same day..This NIST has never bothered to answer, because it hoped you would not even bother to ask.
The proof of their deception is mixed within their reports and analysis, and it does not make sense.
Steel buildings do not explode into dust because of fires, and produce the results that WERE WITNESSED.
The video only tries to reinforce the unprovable, and false NIST report, which I have pointed out in this post
is not scientically sound, and does not even mention the physical laws, or the properties of steel. Of course the steel
didn't melt, it only took years for you people to finnally admit to this, but your new claim that the steel only had to be weakened is just as much hogwash, and actually further disproves iminate global collapse because it takes time to weaken steel.....And not all of it was weakened...Kinetic energy can only be used once..Where did the resistance go???
NIST Conceals the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers
9/11, NIST, and ?Bush Science?: A New Standard For Absurdity | 911Blogger.com


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 13, 2013)

Yes the same BS, I read about 3 paragraphs....

Now go ahead and explain how the buildings were basically sucked in up to 50 inches if the floors weren't buckling? And you cannot deny this because it can be seen in the video evidence.....

Yes people can be wrong, but that doesn't mean that you are always right... 

Far from it in fact.....


----------



## daws101 (Feb 13, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center's Collapse Explained - YouTube
> ...


edited for wall of text and pseudoscience.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 13, 2013)

Yeah he links to a guy who believes that the two towers were brought down 2 different ways, and that WTC7 was a conventional demolition.

Same guy claims there was partial unreacted thermite particles found. 

I never heard of thermite that only partially reacted, Once it's lit, it's gone, in seconds......

And of course we all know that there is no audio of demolition explosions.....


----------



## daws101 (Feb 13, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Yeah he links to a guy who believes that the two towers were brought down 2 different ways, and that WTC7 was a conventional demolition.
> 
> Same guy claims there was partial unreacted thermite particles found.
> 
> ...


all his links are non sense ,if Google the  guy's name he's right up there with prof gage and Dillon.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 13, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Yes the same BS, I read about 3 paragraphs....
> 
> Now go ahead and explain how the buildings were basically sucked in up to 50 inches if the floors weren't buckling? And you cannot deny this because it can be seen in the video evidence.....
> 
> ...



I've never seen any video of that... Got a link?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 13, 2013)

You again avoid the facts regarding how NIST obtained their data, how they manipulated the data, how their testing failed, and how they never explain the lack of physical laws that prove the impossibility of their theories.
Attacking the messenger is a weak and cowardly way to debate the facts that I have taken the time to present to you again, and as always you people show you haven't got the guts to debate the real issues.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 13, 2013)

[ame=http://youtu.be/qLShZOvxVe4]9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed - YouTube[/ame]
a sister jones pseudoscience rebuttal in  5....4....3.....2....


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> 9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed - YouTube



NIST admits WTC 7 experienced FF. The towers fell through the path of most resistance, explain that.
According to your video FF would be 9.22 seconds. The 9-11 commission states they fell in 10 secs. You people state the 9-1 commission is right. So which is it?
The towers have been estimated to have descended anywhere from 12-15 seconds. They should have according to proper calculations taken around 55 seconds. What removed the resistance that NIST assured us would be present?
 It is you that believes in pseudoscience that can't be substantiated. Not even in your videos lol!


----------



## daws101 (Feb 13, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed - YouTube
> ...


Towers Collapse - Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and controlled demolition


----------



## daws101 (Feb 13, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed - YouTube
> ...


you might wanna try that again since you're wrong AND i'm about to make you look like a bigger asshole.
south tower 15.28 sec no free fall..
north tower 22.02 sec no free fall...
got a stop watch? you can time it yourself.
but you won't you're far to busy rationalizing your bullshit.
seems math is not your strong suite


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 13, 2013)

Try responding to the post I to Ollie and to which you responded with nothing but calling it pseudoscience. Point out where the pseudoscience is?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 13, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Yeah he links to a guy who believes that the two towers were brought down 2 different ways, and that WTC7 was a conventional demolition.
> 
> Same guy claims there was partial unreacted thermite particles found.
> 
> ...



You miss the video I posted with the firemen on the payphone and the explosions in the background? It's in this thread...

Or this one of the firefighters telling how the lobby exploded?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1zED8dy63w&feature=player_embedded]9/11 Firefighters Reveal Bombs Destroyed WTC lobby - YouTube[/ame]

Or this one from CBS reporting the explosions?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rIvm0GDbCQ]CBS Report On 9/11: Ground Level Explosion Caused WTC To Collapse - YouTube[/ame]

Or Michael Hess, who worked for the city in WTC 7...

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


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 13, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Yes the same BS, I read about 3 paragraphs....
> ...



Sure, look up a few posts there's your video....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 13, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> You again avoid the facts regarding how NIST obtained their data, how they manipulated the data, how their testing failed, and how they never explain the lack of physical laws that prove the impossibility of their theories.
> Attacking the messenger is a weak and cowardly way to debate the facts that I have taken the time to present to you again, and as always you people show you haven't got the guts to debate the real issues.



Nice try, but as normal you have no answer to the obvious visual clue of what was happening to the steel in those buildings. And the reason you have no answer is because the only answer is the one provided to you by the reports you refuse to accept. Carry on..........


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



Ok like I said they have been estimated at various collapses, but you of course don't post a link to again substantiate your claims.....so....Why does the holy grail of 9-11, the 9-11 commission panel state they fell in about 10 seconds? Or do you admit that this is wrong on their part nowadays?
BTW, 15-22 secs, is still way to fast, for it to be physically possible asswipe, wanna try that again?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 13, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed - YouTube
> ...



911 commissions is not a technical report. The fact is the CT claims of free fall are all fail. Even when you claim that NIST admits freefall for WTC 7 you lie. They admit that the facade reached freefall for just over 2 seconds. The facade is not the building....Only a small part of it. Now go ahead and tell us why most truther videos cut out the first 8 to 9 seconds of the collapse of WTC7......


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 13, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



No Ollie, the video that actually explains "how the buildings were basically sucked in up to 50 inches"...

I'd like to see that and the explanation of how that measurement was made. Surely one of you 'debunkers' has a link to something that you consider so important, right?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 13, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah he links to a guy who believes that the two towers were brought down 2 different ways, and that WTC7 was a conventional demolition.
> ...



There were hundreds of secondary explosions, as you would expect in an office fire. Ever hear a battery explode? Or a can of spray paint? hair spray? Or any of a thousand different things that would have been in those buildings, for all we know that was a car gas tank exploding while the fireman was on the phone.

Now what was the timeline for Mr Hess? What time was the explosion that he thought trapped him? Obviously it didn't as he's still here, and the guy that was with him tells a whole different timeline. I would find Hess's timeline but i can't get through the 3 million truther posts to actually find the facts.... At least I don't feel like hunting it up tonight...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 13, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



OK I'll school you again........

At about 6 minute mark on this video, though you can learn from much more of it......

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmIjDfpTeMc]Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists part 1 of 7 - Free fall and how the towers collapsed - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 13, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Thank you for that. Now can you explain how those few collapsing floors managed to make it all the way to the ground in 15 seconds? Or how they managed to expel multi-ton sections of the building several hundred feet LATERALLY?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 13, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Nope I can't do that. Never pretended I could. And you don't believe the majority of the experts who have so what can I say......


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 13, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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



But...but I thought you all said the 9-11 commission report was correct on the major points....surely the destruction of the buildings that were attacked is considered a major point no?
Look brickhead....It's no use trying to argue about FF at the towers, I have already long ago noticed that it was not..However even 10-22 seconds for such robust, massive steel buildings, that had much of the top parts of them ejected away, or turned into dust, and therefore was not even part of the mass pushing down on the lower parts....IS STILL WAAAY TOO FAST, FOR A KEROSENE FIRE TO HAVE CAUSED.
Calculations that take into account the mass of the building, dictate at least....at least 55 seconds.
And with building 7... Are you seriously not thinking that all 58 perimeter columns and most of the 25 core columns over eight stories had to be taken out in order for it to come down at ff speed?
Why would such a highly regarded and prestigious agency like NIST leave out something that a lowly simpleton high school physics teacher made them have to admit to and reverse??
Why would NIST say the shear studs that they mentioned were in abundance in 2004,al of a sudden are gone from their 2008 report?

You people will argue that alot was going on inside WTC 7 between the end of the collapse of the penthouse and the beginning of the collapse of the main building. They have provided no evidence for that argument. Indeed, if there had been significant movement inside the building after the collapse of the penthouse, this should have resulted in some movement or deformation of the building visible from outside.
The penthouse collapsing can be observed and considering what was attached to it, not surprising. After all it is said to have been attached to a line of columns on the east side that were taken out, and the collapse with FF ensued.
Taking out the support structure is usually required in a CD. Actually a CD better explains the characteristics observed, and does not require the all the BS lies and mental gymnastics,or having to lie about and declare "a new phenomena!!!!" just being discovered called thermal expansion, and in order to make even a teeny tiny bit believable they had to remove the shear studs from the building...

The only evidence NIST provides to support their theory is in the form of a computer model. While it could possibly be argued that the model does show some buckling occurring over eight stories, it most certainly does not show a period of free-fall. So NISTs theory has absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever for the fact of free-fall. In other words the NIST theory cannot explain key empirical data.
They could of course allow the data to be revealed so other engineers,physicists, and construction project chiefs could build their new buildings in much_* safer *_ways and provide closure for this debate once and for all...but no they refuse to do this, and it's no wonder they are scared to, they have much to hide.
So because the NIST model cannot be verified, it is meant to be taken on faith. The NIST model, then, is faith-based, not science-based. 
Since NISTs theory does not explain fundamental facts of the WTC 7 incident and other important facts are so far no able to be replicated, we can categorically state that NISTs theory is in no way scientific. At best, it could be referred to as faith-based pseudo-science. Since the NIST theory is in no way scientific, competent conscientious scientists must reject it in favor of a science-based theory.

Besides... If the whole damned building relied so much on just one fucking column...how many CD devises do you think it would have taken top cause its total, global collapse?

See the truth needs no covering up and hiding, but lies? Well they are always kept covered up.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 13, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Im pretty sure not many of us could either Ollie...But given what is known about fire, steel the NIST failed testing, the fact that wtc 7 penthouse was attached to a row of internal columns including the ones that NIST says supported it, but had to be simultaneously taken out in order for the building to achieve the 100 foot FF.....do you still think they got it right??

I mean you call them the experts, and admit they could be wrong....they obviously proved that they did by having a high school teacher point out their "mistake"....


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 13, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



How about we just say fuck of that shit, and have someone simply replicate the computer simulation for 7?...They might save some lives if they educate engineers about how "dangerous" this type of building construction can be due to the_ ever present _thermal expansion!
.How about they explain why the shear studs were removed from their report, that would have prevented any thermal expansion?
Why hasn't thermal expansion caused any other less fortified steel buildings to globally collapse?
How come you believe in shit you don't even try to understand  especially when it involves the nation you swore to protect, and the wars that the most traumatic event in your lifetime has caused??

Look at these massive marvels being built....And you people act like these steel behemoths can be exploded, pulverized, and "collapsed" in 10 to 20 seconds....each??
By fucking kerosene???


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 14, 2013)

I have listened to the arguments from all sides.

I have made what I believe to be the correct decision.

You may keep believing in your conspiracy all you want, yet you still cannot make your theory explain how those buildings sucked in like that.

Also you can't give us the time line for Mr. Hess.

Nor can you explain why there was no audio of demolition charges for building 7. 

And so many other things....

But then I admit there are things i can't explain either, but then I admit I'm not an engineer and do not pretend to understand the physics. But I accept what the majority of those people tell me instead of the minority.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



Nor is reality but she can whoop up a foil hat at free-fall speed.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 14, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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



Lemme guess: because the cut out vid destroys their loony tunes CTs faster than a speeding bullet?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 14, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> I have listened to the arguments from all sides.
> 
> I have made what I believe to be the correct decision.


 You may have heard them but you still admit you don't understand what the arguments are about..or why there even are arguments and objections.
You're entitled to have an opinion just like the rest of us, but remember, we at least engaged with you and posted and linked information that reinforces our skepticism. We can't control the fact that you either don't understand it or refuse to try.  



> You may keep believing in your conspiracy all you want, yet you still cannot make your theory explain how those buildings sucked in like that.


 You have to look at the totality of the collapses, and not just focus on one small detail. All 3 buildings had the characteristics of a CD. The bowing of one of them is interesting, and is said to have been the result of the intense heat from fire. The question still remains...how did it get so hot? NISTS own testing on the trusses, that are thought to have been what caused this bowing of the perimeter, were failures, even though they used much hotter temps, on an untreated piece of truss mockup steel..They admitted they used temps to the most extreme...They used shotgun blasts to simulate a plane crash, that failed, all in all, their own testing discounts many phases of their theory.



> Also you can't give us the time line for Mr. Hess.


 What about the timeline? The 9-11 commission got at least 3 timelines from the Pentagon, and they still say they don't know what really happened, but you go on believing them?
I believe Barry Jennings, because like most of the witnesses, they had nothing to gain and everything to lose by telling their version of what happened to them. Hess changed his story, and Jennings is dead like so many other witnesses and whistleblowers have died...



> Nor can you explain why there was no audio of demolition charges for building 7.


 There was, but some are saying that some of the videos that were released were edited muting the sound. There has been proof that other means of cutting through the steel may have been used that wouldn't have produced any high decibel sounds of explosions. Regardless, nitpicking at certain things and cherry picking, does not take away or diminish the fact that 7 had many CD characteristics, and that the "new phenomena" of thermal expansion is a ludicrous theory, that NIST came to only after removing the shear studs from the equation in 2008.
NIST theory is based on faith, and not actual scientific methodology.  



> And so many other things....


 Yes so many other things that are odd, deceitful, unscientific, ignored and hidden from being replicated by others.



> But then I admit there are things i can't explain either, but then I admit I'm not an engineer and do not pretend to understand the physics.


 If you don't understand it then how can you believe and go around parroting the NIST theory? It is your faith in the US governments agencies and the people within it that move you to believe in something you know nothing about. Your attitude is what is counted on to solidify their narrative, and it proves that Americans will believe anything that comes from "official sources".
Have you looked into watching the new released movie called Compliance? It is a true story of the lengths people will go to when they think they are dealing with an "official" source....on the telephone!
It is a prime example of Americans fear, and gullibility.



> But I accept what the majority of those people tell me instead of the minority.


 If you suspected the herd was heading towards a cliff, would you still join them? This feeling of needing to be part of the majority, undermines individualism, and actually hurts our nation. With the way human mentality and emotion has been used in the past, and still used today, it is no wonder the people are easily led in whichever direction that is needed...Mass brainwashing tactics are evident everywhere, from product advertising to political pundits on the MSM circuits. The individual is ostracized  and ridiculed for not "going with the flow" and labels (names) are thrown at them like has been done to so many throughout history.
The facts remain regarding the way those buildings came exploding, and crashing down
and the way that those who were counted on to examine analyze and explain what actually happened, were pigeon holed into providing a less then scientific and physically impossible scenario, and a series of never before happened in history events that would be laughable if not for the real seriousness and life and death consequences they dealt with then, and still do today.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 14, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


it's no estimate shit head.... I posted the clip no other verification is needed it was shot as it happened.

here's the math towers (both) 417meteres or (1,368 ') 
417 meters =0.5 gt^2  
=9.22 SECONDS 
AS TO The 911 commission they got many small things wrong as it was a rush job.
 none of their mistakes are evidence of a cover up or governmental conspiracy.
please present a test or the math that proves that the collapse time are TOO FAST TO BE PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE.
NO TWOOFER  CONJECTURE PLEASE.


----------



## paulitician (Feb 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



Oh calm down there dawgshit/SAYIT/Candyass/del. They have special meds for you Sock Troll assholes. Give em a try.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 14, 2013)

paulitician said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > mr. Jones said:
> ...


hey paulie if you have nothing to add other then calling ever one goose steppers, then shut the fuck up!
Also posts all of what I said, you cherry picking limp phallus.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



It IS an estimation you ignorant fucking tool! The camera was not on the building the whole time for starters. Besides you ignore the point...10,15, 20 seconds is still too fast for such steel behemoths to come down in. Where is the resistance NIST assured us would be present? These were no 
ordinary" collapses, as it is obvious that the mass that was NOT damaged by fire, and NOT damaged by plane impacts and had LARGER, MORE ROBUST STEEL COLUMNS AND BEAMS would have provided RESISTANCE on a much larger scale and caused the collapse front to experience RESISTANCE.

The top half of the tower, is said to have dropped onto this massive, stronger lower part...
There was NO discernible "jolt" or interruption of acceleration of the roofline...
You fail to recognize these glaring oddities.

*Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou, with whose September 13, 2001 back-of-the-envelope theory (with subsequent revisions and additions) NIST largely agrees, have never hesitated to say that the upper block fell. [8] Bazant has likewise been frank about the need for severe impact as the upper and lower structures met: he believes the impact may have been powerful enough to have been recorded by seismometers. [9] In his view, collapse initiation of the lower structure required one powerful jolt.[10] Of course, if there was a powerful jolt to the lower structure there must also have been a powerful jolt to the upper falling structure, in accord with Newtons Third Law.*

Somethings to consider when pondering a collapse said to have been caused by fire gravity-
 Exterior framework sections weighing 4 tons were ejected up to 600 feet l*aterally*. Gravity cannot do this.
 Most of the debris was ejected *outside* the building and did not contribute to the collapse as is required by the Bazant hypothesis.


http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt4.pdf


----------



## daws101 (Feb 14, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


isaid no twoofer conjecture .
the camera did not have to be in the tower to be accurate besides shit head if it had and been recovered it most likely would a shown evidence of a longer collapse time.  not free fall 
as to the powerful jolt to the upper part it was the planes not explosives or thermite.
there is no rule in science or nature that says that the jolts had to be simultaneous or nearly so. 
your twoofer conjecture proves this..     
also shit head, what you are alluding to and failing to prove by your ignorant and obvious line about gravity is that something other than kinetic energy and massive air pressure changes pushed the framing and other debris several hundred yards away from the collapse .
you have no evidence to corroborate this just specious conjecture.
game, set, match!

btw: the Bazant hypothesis. is just that .
where are the test results  to prove the hypothesis is fact not a steaming pile.
oh that's right! you have none.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


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


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 15, 2013)

The sudden release of the pent up energy of the bowing beams (Remember those, the ones you can't explain?)* could *easily have ejected those beams....... Of course I know this will be rejected as I can't do the math and most of the CT folks refuse to accept what can be plainly seen....


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 15, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> The sudden release of the pent up energy of the bowing beams (Remember those, the ones you can't explain?)* could *easily have ejected those beams....... Of course I know this will be rejected as I can't do the math and most of the CT folks refuse to accept what can be plainly seen....



I thought those bowing beams were pulling the walls INWARD, Ollie...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 15, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> The sudden release of the pent up energy of the bowing beams (Remember those, the ones you can't explain?)* could *easily have ejected those beams....... Of course I know this will be rejected as I can't do the math and most of the CT folks refuse to accept what can be plainly seen....



One of the only things that NIST actually came up with that wasn't a part of the Bazant and Xhou theory,was it's claim that the sagging of the floor trusses pulled the outer columns inward and this started the buckling of the columns. 
They tried to validate this theory by putting floor trusses to furnace tests that were run by Underwriters Labs..it was a failure as the NIST  testing showed that the trusses would not have sagged and deformed enough to have had this effect at all.
They actually over exageratted the sagging a lot just to make it fir this theory/guess.

This particular bowing, and what you keep harping on about was easily disproved by
simply looking at the videos. The videos show that the antenna on the roof dropped _before _ even the edges of the roof did, and the antennae were held up by the core
columns.
What this signifies is that the core columns failed before the wall columns did. It also suggests that the hat truss, that connected the core to the wall columns, was severed very quickly at the beginning of the collapse, something that "fire" certainly could not have done.

Looking at the movement of the roof of WTC 1 it shows that it started its downward acceleration apparently with no slow movement, no slow sagging characteristics as one would expect to see if the steel were being slowly damaged and approaching its failure point by fire.
When you say "easily" have ejected those beams..You don't seem to understand that those "beams" were actually outer perimeter columns that weighed 100's of tons and were ejected laterally for great distances. Fire damages steel slowly, it takes time. Not all the building was damaged. The lower portions were constructed of larger, thicker components, that physically should have provided enough resistance to cause  significantly longer duration times of collapse and not a mere few seconds short of actual FF.

The crushing effect of the top, according to the NIST/Bazant theory, is said to have easily overcame the more robust and undamaged sturdy lower parts, without so much as having any resistance to overcome.
Physicists have taken the videos of the tower, specifically the top damaged parts and analyzed it and applied measurements, and calculations, that show it essentially did not hesitate AS IT WAS COMING DOWN THROUGH THE UNDAMAGED BUILDING, and instead showed a constant acceleration that was measured.
FF of the towers was said to have to be 417meteres or (1,368 ')
417 meters =0.5 gt^2
=9.22 SECONDS 
and we have estimates that range from 10 seconds in the 9-11 commission report, to 10 -15 secs. in other estimates. This is said to not be physically possible as the upper block, had parts of it that were turning into dust, and parts were flying off of it AWAY from being part of the crushing down upper mass.
The upper part had to overcome the initial resistive forces of the lower. This would have been visibly noticeable. It was not.

NIST did not bother to explain what happened to the WTC after so called collapse initiation. They simply state collapse was inevitable without even providing any scientific data to back up this assertion...And you people side with an unproven guess that has no data?? 
Another interesting tidbit about the NIST/Bazant theory is that it was written 1-2 days AFTER the "collapses". This is a suspiciously fast time to gather your evidence, do your calculations, and come up with a thesis. There are many things that have been shown wrong about this theory that NIST attached itself to provided in the link I posted and that Dawgshit made a fool of himself over LOL!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 15, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > The sudden release of the pent up energy of the bowing beams (Remember those, the ones you can't explain?)* could *easily have ejected those beams....... Of course I know this will be rejected as I can't do the math and most of the CT folks refuse to accept what can be plainly seen....
> ...


Good catch Guy, I missed that in my over exuberance to squash him and Dawgshit...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 15, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > The sudden release of the pent up energy of the bowing beams (Remember those, the ones you can't explain?)* could *easily have ejected those beams....... Of course I know this will be rejected as I can't do the math and most of the CT folks refuse to accept what can be plainly seen....
> ...



They did. and then they broke loose.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and all that stuff, ever flip a paperclip? Probably not.....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 15, 2013)

As I said you will dismiss anything that goes against what you want the truth to be. You make a claim that they tested the beams to see if they would bow, yet you don't back that up with the test, who did it, when, how? 

You can fucking see the buildings being pulled in, now please tell me if the steel that you couldn't see wasn't bending or bowing how was that possible? What type of demolition could have possibly caused that effect?

Now go back to the Jones's and get an answer.....

Now me, I'm going to take another look at the videos because I swear I saw the whole top secion move as a section and actually tilt before gravity grabbed it and pulled it down. I do not remember any antenna falling before the roof fell. I do believe you are mixing up your buildings, You are adding the 8 seconds that you like to ignore from bldg 7 to the towers.......


----------



## daws101 (Feb 15, 2013)

also note the wording of this sentence:" Hey asshole this has been reviewed by others in the pertinent fields of study, and they had no problem or dismissed it away simply because of who wrote it.."
which begs the question were they all twoofers?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 15, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



So your contention is that a 60' span of flooring attached to both the exterior wall AND the central core would have enough 'spring' in it to push a multi-ton section of outer column over 600' feet laterally?

Really?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 15, 2013)

NIST found that the condition of the steel in the wreckage of the towers does not provide conclusive information on the condition of the building before the collapse and concluded that the material coming from the South Tower was molten aluminum from the plane, which would have melted at lower temperatures than steel. NIST also pointed out that cutting through the vertical columns would require planting an enormous amount of explosives inconspicuously in highly secured buildings, then igniting it remotely while keeping it in contact with the columns.[24] The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center performed a test with conventional thermite and was unable to cut a vertical column, despite the column being much smaller than those used in the World Trade Center.[47] Jones and others have responded that they do not believe that thermite was used, but rather a form of thermite called nano-thermite, a nanoenergetic material which developed for military use, propellants, explosives, or pyrotechnics. Historically, explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited by their relatively slow energy release rates. But because nano-thermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far improved.[48]

The NIST report provides an analysis of the structural response of the building only up to the point where collapse begins, and asserts that the enormous kinetic energy transferred by the falling part of the building makes progressive collapse inevitable once an initial collapse occurs. A paper by Zden&#283;k Baant indicates that once collapse began, the kinetic energy imparted by a falling upper section onto the floor below was an order of magnitude greater than that which the lower section could support.[2]

Engineers who have investigated the collapses generally disagree that controlled demolition is required to understand the structural response of the buildings. While the top of one of the towers did tilt significantly, it could not ultimately have fallen into the street, they argue, because any such tilting would place sufficient stress on the lower story (acting as a pivot) that it would collapse long before the top had sufficiently shifted its center of gravity. Indeed, they argue, there is very little difference between progressive collapse with or without explosives in terms of the resistance that the structures could provide after collapse began.[2][49] Controlled demolition of a building to code requires weeks of preparation, including laying large quantities of explosive and cutting through beams, which would have rendered the building highly dangerous and which would have to be done without attracting the attention of the thousands of people who worked in the building.[6][50] Controlled demolition is traditionally done from the bottom of buildings rather than the top, although there are exceptions depending on structural design. There is little dispute that the collapse started high up at the point where the aircraft struck. Furthermore any explosives would have to withstand the impact of the airliners.[6]

Members of the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth have collected eyewitness accounts[51] of flashes and loud explosions immediately before the fall.[16][52] Eyewitnesses have repeatedly reported of explosions happening before the collapse of the WTC towers, and the organization "International Center for 9/11 Studies" has published videos obtained from NIST, together with indications about when such explosions could be heard.[53] There are many types of loud sharp noises that are not caused by explosives,[54] and seismographic records of the collapse do not show evidence of explosions.[55] Physicist Steven E. Jones and others have argued that horizontal puffs of smoke seen during the collapse of the towers would indicate that the towers had been brought down by controlled explosions.[56][57][58] NIST attributes these puffs to air pressure, created by the decreasing volume of the falling building above, traveling down elevator shafts and exiting some open elevator shaft doors on lower levels).[59]
World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 15, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



I don't believe it is impossible. And since i have no proof that there was anything else that did it I have to go with the obvious.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 15, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > The sudden release of the pent up energy of the bowing beams (Remember those, the ones you can't explain?)* could *easily have ejected those beams....... Of course I know this will be rejected as I can't do the math and most of the CT folks refuse to accept what can be plainly seen....
> ...


the fact is I made you look like an ass.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



You keep telling yourself that, daws....


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 15, 2013)

I have a question, and the floor is open...

When the North Tower came down it seems the tv antenna started dropping BEFORE the rest of the roof line. That doesn't make much sense to me that the center of the building started falling first, but anyway, that isn't my question. My question is this...

AFTER the tower came down ABC video showed the 'spire', a collection of central core columns that remained standing for several seconds. When THEY came down the video shows that they came down from the bottom, not the top. Also, the video shows a couple of the massive core columns seemingly turning to dust as they fall.

How'd they do that?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 15, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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


being that you're  as deluded and desperate as he ,it's no surprise you'd say that.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 15, 2013)

Well if you stacked up that much steel without any support where would expect the weakest link to be?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 15, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> I have a question, and the floor is open...
> 
> When the North Tower came down it seems the tv antenna started dropping BEFORE the rest of the roof line. That doesn't make much sense to me that the center of the building started falling first, but anyway, that isn't my question. My question is this...
> 
> ...


lol.....your point?
those appear to be core columns it's no great surprise that they were the last thing to fall.
if you look at your clip objectively and not with expectation of seeing what you wish to see it looks likes the outer parts of the tower are peeling away from the core.
you'd expect that as the floors were lighter then the core columns.
but then again you guys are experts at seeing what's not there.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 15, 2013)

Looked at another video of the towers as they went down.. The antenna did not fall first. Stop believing everything you are told to believe......

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w]9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center's Collapse Explained - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 15, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Well if you stacked up that much steel without any support where would expect the weakest link to be?



At the bottom, of course, but when that 'weak link' gives up the ghost, so to speak, wouldn't you expect the above portions to topple over rather than fall straight down?

And how do you explain the uppermost part of those base columns seeming to turn to dust before your eyes? After all, each column was 52" X 22" and 5" thick.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 15, 2013)

That was either the camera or magic, we have no particle beams that will turn steel to dust..... Unless you want to believe that we do have such technology....Then I would say you need professional help.....


----------



## daws101 (Feb 15, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Well if you stacked up that much steel without any support where would expect the weakest link to be?
> ...


the key word there is "seems" since no explosives or accelerants were found. it's not those it seems.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 15, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Looked at another video of the towers as they went down.. The antenna did not fall first. Stop believing everything you are told to believe......
> 
> 9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center's Collapse Explained - YouTube


thanks. I was just looking for that!


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > I have a question, and the floor is open...
> ...



Nice dodge of a simple question, daws.

What I asked was "How did they get those core columns to turn to dust right before our lying eyes?"


----------



## daws101 (Feb 16, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


as they did not turn  to dust  only appeared to, your "question" is based on a false premise and has no basis in reality.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Can you explain this supposed 'mirage'? It was an ABC newsfeed, after all...


----------



## daws101 (Feb 16, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


let me get this straight... you believe that the abc network some how tricked viewers with efx..
obviously you a no idea what live feed means..
also what network feed it is doesn't mean shit...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> NIST found that the condition of the steel in the wreckage of the towers does not provide conclusive information on the condition of the building before the collapse and concluded that the material coming from the South Tower was molten aluminum from the plane, which would have melted at lower temperatures than steel. NIST also pointed out that cutting through the vertical columns would require planting an enormous amount of explosives inconspicuously in highly secured buildings, then igniting it remotely while keeping it in contact with the columns.[24] The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center performed a test with conventional thermite and was unable to cut a vertical column, despite the column being much smaller than those used in the World Trade Center.[47] Jones and others have responded that they do not believe that thermite was used, but rather a form of thermite called nano-thermite, a nanoenergetic material which developed for military use, propellants, explosives, or pyrotechnics. Historically, explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited by their relatively slow energy release rates. But because nano-thermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far improved.[48]
> 
> The NIST report provides an analysis of the structural response of the building only up to the point where collapse begins, and asserts that the enormous kinetic energy transferred by the falling part of the building makes progressive collapse inevitable once an initial collapse occurs. A paper by Zden&#283;k Baant indicates that once collapse began, the kinetic energy imparted by a falling upper section onto the floor below was an order of magnitude greater than that which the lower section could support.[2]
> 
> ...


This wall of cut n paste is a poor defense of your idiocy. It explains nothing, and assumes everything. You disparage the Bazant/NIST theory without even realizing it was the NIST position, because you had no idea it was what you have been defending all along! You don't read what is posted with any comprehension, and you make an ass out of yourself countless times. 
Then you try to save face by posting exactly what has already been proven to be a theory based on a false premise and a scientific, and physical impossibility. 

You haven't answered anything about the missing jolt, cause you still think they are talking about the planes!! LOL!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> also note the wording of this sentence:" Hey asshole this has been reviewed by others in the pertinent fields of study, and they had no problem or dismissed it away simply because of who wrote it.."
> which begs the question were they all twoofers?



Aw whats the matter dawgshit? Are you some little child that doesn't want anyone playing that can whip your official conspiracy theories ass? 
You apply labels of "truther" to people who have an intelligent, credible, calculated thesis,, that blows the NIST/Bazant one out of the water (you know the one you thought was another truther theory? and I had to point out to you that it wasn't? and exposes their attempts at obfuscating the data, so you want these credible sources placed "out of bounds" or "no fair"? Well too bad for you asshole, learn to deal with the fact that these so called "truthers" have valid objections. Why don't you try to deal with what is being claimed instead of trying to make up the rules as to who can or can not participate or be used as a source in the discussion? Pussy..


----------



## daws101 (Feb 16, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > NIST found that the condition of the steel in the wreckage of the towers does not provide conclusive information on the condition of the building before the collapse and concluded that the material coming from the South Tower was molten aluminum from the plane, which would have melted at lower temperatures than steel. NIST also pointed out that cutting through the vertical columns would require planting an enormous amount of explosives inconspicuously in highly secured buildings, then igniting it remotely while keeping it in contact with the columns.[24] The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center performed a test with conventional thermite and was unable to cut a vertical column, despite the column being much smaller than those used in the World Trade Center.[47] Jones and others have responded that they do not believe that thermite was used, but rather a form of thermite called nano-thermite, a nanoenergetic material which developed for military use, propellants, explosives, or pyrotechnics. Historically, explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited by their relatively slow energy release rates. But because nano-thermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far improved.[48]
> ...


lol it you who are making an ass of themselves.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 16, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > also note the wording of this sentence:" Hey asshole this has been reviewed by others in the pertinent fields of study, and they had no problem or dismissed it away simply because of who wrote it.."
> ...


you've whipped nothing except-t yourself in to a false sense of superiority.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 16, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


 Yes we've trying to get you understand this for years now. The lower part of the building should have countered the reaction placed on it by the falling top parts. There should have been a noticeable "jolt" as these 2 masses encountered each other, and subsequent jolts that cause a pause or hesitation of the collapse fronts. After all, the much smaller heavily damaged top parts are said to have smashed through each of the subsequent lower floors.
The tops with their smaller mass according to known physical laws of science, should not have been able to crush down the more thicker, sturdier, undamaged lower sections, in the short amount of time that was witnessed, without something else helping it along, by removing the mass (resistance) from below.
The tops were said to have fallen on the lower a distance of about 1 story, and even taking the kinetic energy into account, it still does not add up. NIST does not even make an attempt to explain the collapses, and tries to make you think that this destruction would be obvious and not unusual at all.
They have been caught in many cases of disinformation, and have even ignored a complete explanation of the entire collapse sequences, because if they did it would become very obvious it wouldn't make sense almost immediately, this is why they stopped their analysis at the point up to the collapse and didn't follow it the rest of the way.
It took other people to do this and when they finished their findings prove that NIST/Bazant's theory is a deeply flawed one.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



You made an ass out of yourself and showed everyone here that you don't know anything about the details that are being discussed, you're not even aware of who wrote the majority of info that NIST wrote. You alluded to it as a "steaming pile" like the idiot dipshit that you are, then cut n paste a wall of already debunked BS to try and save some credibility. You have no credibility, and the post I am referring to just reconfirmed this.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



Like it's their job. Hey, I wonder if these troofers are just paid trolls.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 16, 2013)

isaid no twoofer conjecture .
the camera did not have to be in the tower to be accurate besides shit head if it had and been recovered it most likely would a shown evidence of a longer collapse time. not free fall 
as to the powerful jolt to the upper part it was the planes not explosives or thermite.
there is no rule in science or nature that says that the jolts had to be simultaneous or nearly so. 
your twoofer conjecture proves this.. 
also shit head, what you are alluding to and failing to prove by your ignorant and obvious line about gravity is that something other than kinetic energy and massive air pressure changes pushed the framing and other debris several hundred yards away from the collapse .
you have no evidence to corroborate this just specious conjecture.
game, set, match!

btw: the Bazant hypothesis. is just that .
where are the test results to prove the hypothesis is fact not a steaming pile.
oh that's right! you have none. 
no where in this post do I infer  this;" What a fucking douche bag idiot!!!!The Bazant theory is what NIST AGREED with you fucking moron!
That's right asshole The NIST Bazant theory!!!! You stupid ass SB!
I gave you a link that does exactly what you you are calling it....proves that the Bazant/NIST thoery is "a steaming pile"!!" sister jones.

what I ask for was proof that  Bazant theory  was fact or bullshit.
you intentionally misrepresented  my questions.
you also used a twoofer basis site which proves nothing.
as to the missing jolt  there was a jolt just not where you wanted it to be.
newton's third law was satisfied .
I could go line for line ripping apart your bullshit but as your last several posts have clearly shown you just spew shit and see what sticks..      
so anything you have posted since is false.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 16, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


that's funny coming from the no credibility queen


----------



## daws101 (Feb 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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


no they're volunteers why pay for what a nut job will do for free.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Once again you demonstrate your comprehension level is equivalent to a 2X4.

Did I say anything about 'efx'? No, I didn't.

I asked you what would cause this seeming 'mirage' as videotaped by ABC?

Or is it a 'mirage', as you seem to claim?

Please explain your rationale for NOT believing what the camera captured and your own eyes see?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 16, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


if my comprehension level is equivalent to a 2x4 yours  must be that of a toothpick and I'm being generous.
as I said, it being ABC is not relevant 
I never inferred I did not believe what the camera captured ,that's a false assumption by you, and it's a really bad habit you asshats all have.
there are a myriad of conditions that could cause the crumbling to dust effect you claim to see. heat, making the air ripple, distance, air quality focal length image compression etc..
as to what your eyes see it's not just a simple picture, your brain has more to do with what you actually comprehend and understand then you think.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 16, 2013)

There were no steel beams turned into dust.......

Anyone who believes this has a problem.

And I don't give a shit what you think you saw. The technology does not exist........


----------



## daws101 (Feb 16, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> There were no steel beams turned into dust.......
> 
> Anyone who believes this has a problem.
> 
> And I don't give a shit what you think you saw. The technology does not exist........


he wishes it does like most people he doesn't understand that your eyes and mind play tricks on you 24/7.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Any and all of those things you describe as possible causes, if in fact they were present, either singularly or in multiples, would have distorted those images continuously throughout that segment of videotape. The fact that they didn't leads a rational person to believe that something else caused the visual effect seen. Since it happened at the very moment that the spire collapsed it would be reasonable to assume that the two are related., and that technology has indeed concocted a method of dissolving steel.

That makes at least as much sense as a pancake collapse through 1,000 feet of little to no resistance...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 17, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> There were no steel beams turned into dust.......
> 
> Anyone who believes this has a problem.
> 
> And I don't give a shit what you think you saw. The technology does not exist........



The technology does exists. It is nuclear technology. It can vaporize lots of stuff...Just sayin'..


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 17, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > There were no steel beams turned into dust.......
> ...



OK 2 points, but we all know there was no nukes....


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 17, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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



And how do "we all know" that...?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 17, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



There is supposed evidence of nuclear fission....

What is definitely known, is that the damage observed, does not fit that which can be done by fire...NIST own testing and their report proved that...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 17, 2013)

Oh come on now, even I give you more credit than that. There was no sign or evidence of any Nukes. And especially not in the video that is being discussed.....


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 17, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> There were no steel beams turned into dust.......
> Anyone who believes this has a problem.........



These CT loons all have a list of serious problems, Sarge.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 18, 2013)

two farts in a row from the agent trolls..


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 18, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Got a link to that "fact?"


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 18, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



I would imagine the precipitous rise of cancers among Ground Zero workers would provide some of the evidence you seek. 

FDNY Study Confirms Rise in Cancer After 9/11 - Firehouse


----------



## candycorn (Feb 18, 2013)

Any word on what took down the light poles if it wasn't AA77?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 18, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



I believe that the cancer rate is up among the rescue and recovery workers. But not from some hidden Nuclear explosion...


 Nukes have a distinct cloud when fired.....


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 18, 2013)

candycorn said:


> Any word on what took down the light poles if it wasn't AA77?



Any chance of you explaining how AA77 took down those light poles when the FDR shows it's altitude a couple hundred feet higher??


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 18, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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



When you say 'distinct cloud' could you be a little more specific?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 18, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



No not really, would you like to see a nuclear explosion? I promise you will never forget it.....


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 18, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


When did *you* see one Ollie? (YouTube doesn't count)


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 18, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Never claimed that I had.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 18, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


This _*implies*_ that *you had*:


> No not really, would you like to see a nuclear explosion? *I promise you will never forget it.....*


You know what "implies" means right?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 18, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



There's a typical CT stretch. Do you have a link which connects the increase in cancer to a 9/11 nuclear attack on the WTC, Princess?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 18, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



You really do not want to play word games with me. I have this tendency to just neg and forget stupidity. Do you know what a nuclear explosion looks like? Have you seen one on the boob tube? Of course you have and so has every other adult in the country. Will you ever forget what one looks like? I'll take a wild guess here and say no you won't. Now would you like to see one up front and personal? I have set off 3 simulated nukes. And you know what? They look like the real thing, only on a much smaller scale. It's something you learn in some parts of the military.

And I'm not implying a damned thing........


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 18, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> There's a typical CT stretch. Do you have a link which connects the increase in cancer to a 9/11 nuclear attack on the WTC, Princess?


Everything that SAYIT doesn't understand *or is afraid of* he'll refer to as a "CT Stretch".
Study Points to WTC Cancer Link - WSJ.com


> Firefighters who worked at Ground Zero are 19% more likely to have  cancer than their colleagues who did not work at the site, according to  newly published research that could pave the way for government payments  to those suffering from some types of cancer.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 18, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


Neg and Forget eh? More like "Forget" for you. If you had set off "Simulated Nukes" then you should have stated that in your post. Was that intentional or did you "forget"?

And don't get all pissy with me when I question your posts old man, that's the whole point of a Discussion Board.

Don't like it? Stop posting.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 18, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > There's a typical CT stretch. Do you have a link which connects the increase in cancer to a 9/11 nuclear attack on the WTC, Princess?
> ...



Hey shit for brains, your link does not link any radioactivity to this study..... Maybe you should read and understand things better before you make an ass out of yourself....

Let me know if you have anything half way intelligent to add...


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 18, 2013)

Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Jones  
There is supposed evidence of nuclear fission....

Quote: Originally Posted by SAYIT
Got a link to that "fact?" 

Quote: Originally Posted by GuyPinestra
I would imagine the precipitous rise of cancers among Ground Zero workers would provide some of the evidence you seek. 
FDNY Study Confirms Rise in Cancer After 9/11 - Firehouse



Mad Scientist said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > There's a typical CT stretch. Do you have a link which connects the increase in cancer to a 9/11 nuclear attack on the WTC, Princess?
> ...



Of course you fail to connect the increased cancer rates with your alleged 9/11 nuclear attack on the WTC.
I hope you at some time had something other than your monumental stupidity to offer here because whatever it was is gone.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 18, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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




Here's what the USGS found in the dust of the Trade Center...

Strontium, Barium, Thorium, Cerium, Lanthanum, Yttrium and other elements were discovered in the dust and are characteristic fission products of Uranium. Even some Uranium was present in significant amounts. 

Now where did all that radioactive shit come from?


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 18, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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


Hey KFC Ollie (still eating), what does Radiation do to a Human? 

It causes Cancers.

9/11 NUKE DEMOLITION PROOF: Firefighters Radiation Cancers ?Off the Scale? | Veterans Today


> In 2007, doctors at Mt. Sinai Medical Center, which monitors World Trade   Center rescue workers, noted blood cancers like multiple myeloma,  which normally  strikes in the 60s or 70s, were being found in  relatively young  officers.


Here's a little hint for KFC Ollie (Still Eating): Blood Cancers aren't caused by Concrete and Steel "rubbing together".


----------



## candycorn (Feb 18, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Any word on what took down the light poles if it wasn't AA77?
> ...



Simple, the FDR--a sensitive instrument from a demolished aircraft is wrong.  Five downed light poles can't be explained.  Your turn.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 18, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



Whoa, whoa, whoa, Nelly. 
Are you really now using a US gov't agency's report to support your claims?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 18, 2013)

candycorn said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



You mean that thing they spend DAYS looking for at aircraft crash sites around the world in order to figure out the causes of those crashes isn't reliable enough to provide correct information?

If that were the case, corndog, why the fuck do they bother putting them on the airplanes?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 18, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



Define significant amounts.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 18, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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


Whoa, whoa, whoa, Nelly. You can't read a Gov't report and get a general idea if it's B.S. or not? 

Census Report = Probably Accurate.

Warren Commission = Probably Inacurate.

9/11 Report = Probably Inaccurate.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 18, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



You know, every time you try to prove something by linking to a site edited by a CT nutjob, you lose a little bit more credibility. What am I saying, I'm sorry, you have none to lose......


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 18, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



Let's see what the USGS really found:

*Dust Components* 

 The dust samples were largely made up of a mix of materials commonly used in building construction or found in office buildings: particles of glass fibers, gypsum wallboard, concrete, paper, window glass, etc.  

 The dust contained higher amounts of lead, zinc, antimony, copper, and other elements of building materials than found in natural soils. The level of lead in some samples was high enough to be a potential concern.

The team also found the less dangerous variety of asbestos, chrysotile asbestos, in most samples at higher levels than what is found in urban particulate matter. 

However, the team was grateful not to find amphibole asbestos  the kind generally viewed as the more dangerous, more carcinogenic form of asbestos  in any of the samples. 

Even though this more dangerous form of asbestos was absent from the dust samples, the materials that were found indicated a potential health threat, and USGS scientists reported that cleanup of dusts and debris should be done with appropriate respiratory protection and dust control measures. 

By combining the remotely sensed data with the lab results, the team produced a series of maps that showed the distribution of asbestos, concrete, and other materials in the dust around lower Manhattan. As one might expect, heavier materials tended to settle closer to Ground Zero, while lighter materials traveled further away.

*Trying to Identify Dust in the Lungs*

More recently, scientists have been trying to determine whether this dust signature can help link exposure to World Trade Center dust to respiratory problems experienced by some of the September 11 survivors and emergency responders. 

In 2009, Dr. David Prezant, the chief medical officerat the Office of Medical Affairs for the New York City Fire Department, asked Meeker to examine the lung tissue of a firefighter who had developed pulmonary fibrosis. Prezant wanted to know whether particles the firefighter had inhaled as a first responder may have contributed to the disease. 

Due to his disease, the firefighter had had a lung transplant, and with both a sample of lung tissue and the means to potentially identify World Trade Center dust, USGS scientists examined the tissue to see if they could demonstrate a link. 

What they found was inconclusive. They found an abundance of particles in the lung tissue, but no definitive proof that any of it was dust from the World Trade Center. This lack of proof was not surprising as most glass fibers dissolve in the lungs over time, and it would be unlikely that the particles found in the lung tissue years after the event would be in the same ratios and form as the samples collected. 

But this was just one sample, and as more lung tissue becomes available for testing more data may help experts to find better answers about the possible link between exposure to the dust and long-term health problems. 

September 11, 2001: Studying the Dust from the World Trade Center Collapse | Science Features


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 18, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


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



Because you say so?  Now that's funny, where are you performing I'd like to see the rest of your act.....


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 18, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


 
Whatever MS has must be serious and degenerative. He seemed almost normal when I joined last year but no more. Now he's another CT carnival freak.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 18, 2013)

Funny how I can't see one mention of radioactivity or uranium in that report.......


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 18, 2013)

I would say we can close the book on any Nukes being used and on the Steel vaporizing.....


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 18, 2013)

Quote=SAYIT
There's a typical CT stretch. Do you have a link which connects the increase in cancer to a 9/11 nuclear attack on the WTC, Princess? 

Quote=GuyPinHead
Here's what the USGS found in the dust of the Trade Center...
Strontium, Barium, Thorium, Cerium, Lanthanum, Yttrium and other elements were discovered in the dust and are characteristic fission products of Uranium. Even some Uranium was present in significant amounts. 

Now where did all that radioactive shit come from? 



SFC Ollie said:


> Funny how I can't see one mention of radioactivity or uranium in that report.......



I don't know what the source or significance of those elements would be (or the source of GP's info) or if they would be evidence of a nuclear explosion but I find it hard to believe any CT would be stupid enough to come here and post an outright lie to support his particular CT. You must have missed the part on all the radioactive material.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 18, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> I would say we can close the book on any Nukes being used and on the Steel vaporizing.....



A British study found the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Movement to be the most durable of all time. As such, no facts will permanently close the book on any of the CT's silliness.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 18, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



And no mention whatsoever of ANY radioactive isotopes ANYWHERE in that 'report'.

I find that rather odd, considering they exist almost EVERYWHERE in trace amounts.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 18, 2013)

Big difference between trace amounts and significant amounts.........


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 18, 2013)




----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 18, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Big difference between trace amounts and significant amounts.........



Yep, see the graph above ^^^....


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 18, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



I find it odd that you post no links to the source of your "knowledge" in the matter, Princess. 
The actual USGS study conflicts with your version of it. I wonder why that is?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 18, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Wrong, you've not even seen the complete report, just that piddling little summary that you posted. You can believe that's the be-all and end-all if you like, but you'll continue to be wrong.






Read it and weep, Princess...

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/index.html


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 18, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



So what was the source of the previous "facts" you've posted on this subject. Why must you be embarassed into doing the right thing and providing sources for your BS? Now that you posted from the actual USGS study, can you say there is anything unusal about the presence of those elements in the 9/11 dust? Does it prove a nuke was used to bring down those buildings as you claimed? Please include credible sources and links, Princess. Thanks.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 18, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



I don't know who the fuck you think you are, bitch, but I'm getting God damned sick and fucking tired of your constant bullshit!

Why don't you just STFU, asshole, if you don't have anything but insults and garbage to post?

And by the way, you non-comprehending piece of shit, I never DID say those buildings were brought down by nukes. You just ASS-umed it, you ignorant fucking TROLL!


----------



## candycorn (Feb 18, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Not every plane crashes at full speed into a concrete reinforced structure so damage of the magnitude of AA77 isn't always there.

So, now explain what knocked down the light poles...c'mon...what knocked them down if it wasn't AA77.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 18, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



You tried to prove they were, Princess, and I'll take that diatribe to mean you posted BS from BS sources and once cornered you lashed out at me because I had the temerity to require you to act and think rationally. Bummer, dude.


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 19, 2013)

The video is interesting....Should anyone be surprised?  The same actors seem to populate every sleazy event, not only in America, but world-wide.  They are a revolving-door team of cabinet members in almost every administration, but mostly Republican...The problem is that the general public has a short memory and very little inclination to research the histories of these people and to hold them responsible....Even our current president refuses to hold them responsible and states that we should move forward....What about justice?  I have found so many discrepancies in the 9/11 Commission Report...I did find in the report that Osama BL disappeared the first two weeks of July which is interesting in itself in that Le Figaro French Press and Agence French Press reported that Larry Mitchell, CIA agent met with OBL at the American Hospital in Dubai in the first week of July.  Someone knew where he was, even if the Commission did not. (This was two months prior to 9/11)


----------



## Nika2013 (Feb 19, 2013)

And...Atta was in Spain the same week that the CIA allegedly met OBL in Dubai...This is in the Commission Report footnotes...(dates for Atta's trip)

Here is some information on DOV Zakheim mentioned in the video:

Dov S. Zakheim is Corporate Vice President of System Planning Corporation (SPC), a high technology, research, analysis, and manufacturing firm based in Arlington, Virginia.
System Planning Corporation's is proud to offer the Flight Termination System (FTS), a fully redundant turnkey range safety and test system for remote control and flight termination of airborne test vehicles. The FTS consists of SPC's Command Transmitter System (CTS) and custom control, interface, and monitoring subsystems. The system is fully programmable and is flexible enough to meet the changing and challenging requirements of today's modern test ranges.

Remote control airborne vehicles? Hmmmm


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 19, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Do me a favor, Mr. Knowitall, quote the post where I said nukes knocked down the buildings, or STFU. Quote my words, or admit that you're a lying asshole.

You can take the 'diatribe' any fucking way you want to, you're dumb enough so that it really doesn't matter to me. The truth is I get tired of smartass bitches like you trying to run me all over the Internet just to satisfy you. Go look the shit up yourself, bitch.

Your problem is you think you're so much smarter than everyone else while proving daily that you're not even smarter than your keyboard.

Dismissed, Princess...


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 19, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



    
Now that's a textbook case of projection. If "smartass bitches" keep running you over perhaps it's because you're such a lame-ass bitch.
As for your nuke denials, I'll simply remind you it was you who interjected (bogus) "facts" about elements found at Ground Zero (from unaccredited sources) into a conversation about nukes as the cause of the Tower's collapse, claiming: "Now where did all that radioactive shit come from?"   

Quote=SAYIT
There's a typical CT stretch. Do you have a link which connects the increase in cancer to a 9/11 nuclear attack on the WTC, Princess? 

Quote=GUYPINHEAD
Here's what the USGS found in the dust of the Trade Center...
Strontium, Barium, Thorium, Cerium, Lanthanum, Yttrium and other elements were discovered in the dust and are characteristic fission products of Uranium. Even some Uranium was present in significant amounts. 
Now where did all that radioactive shit come from?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 19, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



You have missed the whole point.... There was an investigation,,,,,That is the point....They can find the investigation when they think it suits them......


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 19, 2013)

Guy started the Nukes with his claim that the inner core turned into dust before our eyes and I said we do not have the tech. Then someone else said we do have the tech NUkes, then i said there were no nukes and it went to shit from there...


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 19, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Guy started the Nukes with his claim that the inner core turned into dust before our eyes and I said we do not have the tech. Then someone else said we do have the tech NUkes, then i said there were no nukes and it went to shit from there...


All I did was ask questions, I didn't "claim" anything. I've seen several different camera angles of the 'spire', and no matter the angle, the core columns turn to dust. Don't know what caused it, but it's what's recorded on several different videos.

I think it 'odd' to find such high levels of barium and strontium, two known byproducts of nuclear fission, at the WTC. Don't know what caused it, but it's what's recorded on the USGS report. 

There is audio, visual and seismic recordings that indicate subterranean explosions PRIOR to the collapse.  Don't know what caused it, but it's what's recorded, etc., etc.

Why do you get so upset over people asking questions?


----------



## paulitician (Feb 19, 2013)

Just keep in mind, False Flag Operations do work. They're a proven winner for Big Brother and many other evil-doers all over the World. They terrify and unite the People. It has been proven that after such operations, the People are likely to allow their Government to do almost anything. So expect many more in the future. Until it's no longer a winner for them, they'll continue to carry them out.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 19, 2013)

> There is audio, visual and seismic recordings that indicate subterranean explosions PRIOR to the collapse. Don't know what caused it, but it's what's recorded, etc., etc.




Really? Please take these one at a time and provide your proof of these explosions, Audio, visual, and seismic. And no we will not accept truther opinion....


----------



## daws101 (Feb 19, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


wrong! no they would not have do even have any idea what  image compression is?
what leads you to believe that you are rational?
a truly rational person does not need to mention their rationality.

 "Since it happened at the very moment that the spire collapsed it would be reasonable to assume that the two are related., and that technology has indeed concocted a method of dissolving steel." -GP
WHAT TWO THINGS?
IF BY SPIRE YOU MEAN THE CORE.
the core collapsed because it lost it structural integrity from impact damage and fire. no dissolved steel was ever found.
rust was however.
if a method of dissolving steel had been found ,then the building demo business would be a lot different.
and the planes would have been unnecessary.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 19, 2013)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I love this circular argument....

If steel 'dissolved', what you would find left behind is the iron it's made from, which comprised 10% of the DUST studied by the USGS.

It seems the method has been found, because we saw it happen.

Or....., what was filmed from several different angles wasn't filmed at all, and my lying eyes deceive me?

That's convincing...


----------



## daws101 (Feb 19, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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


There was a nuke in the basement

No there wasn't. None of the basic characteristics of a nuclear detonation (intense flash, thermal pulse, observable radial shockwave, or emission of nuclear radiation) were exhibited during the event. The physics departments of NYU, Columbia, Stuyvesant High School, and every other school in the area would have been all over that with Geiger counters, and most of Lower Manhattan would now be uninhabitable. Also, to put it in perspective, the 1988 PEPCON explosion in Nevada was less than a tenth of the size of the Little Boy explosion at Hiroshima in 1945, and not even half the size of the fizzled North Korean nuclear test in 2006. That'd have to be one hell of a small nuke,[16] and it doesn't even begin to take into account that the tower collapses started from the impact sites, not the basement. The shock wave also would have easily registered on seismic counters all over the world that listen for nuclear testing. 

9/11 conspiracy theories - RationalWiki


----------



## daws101 (Feb 19, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


no it was videotaped  and yes your lying eyes deceive you 24/7


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 19, 2013)

> IOW, what was filmed from several different angles wasn't filmed at all, my lying eyes deceive me?
> 
> That's convincing...



Please show this from Several different angles.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 19, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> > IOW, what was filmed from several different angles wasn't filmed at all, my lying eyes deceive me?
> >
> > That's convincing...
> 
> ...



YouTube

Search 'North Tower collapse'...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 19, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > > IOW, what was filmed from several different angles wasn't filmed at all, my lying eyes deceive me?
> ...



So I'm supposed to prove it for you?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 19, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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


ding ...ding ...ding... give that man the stating the obvious prize
the operative phrase is " they exist almost EVERYWHERE in trace amounts."
true! they were no higher after 911 then they were previously.
no nuke in history ever did that!


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 19, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...





You're the one disputing the assertion, prove it WRONG. 

Show me ONE video of the North Tower collapse where the core columns DON'T turn to dust as they fall.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 19, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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








 the pain of getting your ass handed to you


----------



## daws101 (Feb 19, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Guy started the Nukes with his claim that the inner core turned into dust before our eyes and I said we do not have the tech. Then someone else said we do have the tech NUkes, then i said there were no nukes and it went to shit from there...
> ...


because they're not really questions.
what they are is a conformation for a preconceived assumption...based on a false premise.


----------



## paulitician (Feb 19, 2013)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Why are you still here? We get it already. Big Brother is good and always knows what's best for us. We know where you're coming from by now. You can go now. See ya.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 19, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



Ummm, did you miss the chart made from the USGS data? Barium and Strontium levels hit over 3,000 ppm downwind of the pile, that's way more than 'trace' levels.


----------



## paulitician (Feb 19, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Don't bother. He or she is a miserable old Sock Troll. It will come back as SAYIT/candyass/del in a few minutes. Don't waste anymore of your time. It's a loyal Goose Stepper through & through. You're not gonna change that.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


nice dodge by still a dodge.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 19, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


no but your still wrong Barium - Ba




Chemical properties of barium - Health effects of barium - Environmental effects of barium



Atomic number

56


Atomic mass

137.33 g.mol -1


Electronegativity according to Pauling

0.9


Density

3.5 g.cm-3 at 20°C


Melting point

725 °C


Boiling point

1640 °C


Vanderwaals radius 

0.222 nm


Ionic radius

0.135


Isotopes

16


Electronic shell 

[ Xe ] 6s2


Energy of first ionisation

502.7 kJ.mol -1


Energy of second ionisation

965 kJ.mol -1


Standard potential

- 2.90 V


Discovered by

Sir Humphrey Davy in 1808


Barium - Ba



Barium

Barium is a silvery-white metal that can be found in the environment, where it exists naturally. It occurs combined with other chemicals, such as sulfur,  carbon or oxygen. Ii is very light and its density is half that of iron. Barium oxidizes in air, reacts vigoroulsy with water to form the hydroxide, liberating hydrogen. Barium reacts with almost all the non-metals, forming often poisouning compounds.

Applications

Barium is often used in barium-nickel alloys for spark-plug electrodes an in vacuum tubes as drying and oxygen-removing agent. It is also used in fluorescent lamps: impure barium sulfide phosphoresces after exposure to the light. 
 Barium compounds are used by the oil and gas industries to make drilling mud. Drilling mud simplifies drilling through rocks by lubricating the drill.
 Barium compounds are also used to make paint, bricks, tiles, glass, and rubber. Barium nitrate and clorate give fireworks a green colour.

Barium in the environment

Barium is surprisingly abundant in the Earth's crust, being the 14th most abundant element. High amounts of barium may only be found in soils and in food, such as nuts, seaweed, fish and certain plants. 
 Because of the extensive use of barium in the industries human activities add greatly to the release of barium in the environment. As a result barium concentrations in air, water and soil may be higher than naturally occurring concentrations on many locations.

 Barium enters the air during mining processes, refining processes, and during the production of barium compounds. It can also enter the air during coal and oil combustion.

The chief mined ores are barite, which is also the most common and witserite. The main mining areas are UK, Italy, Czech Republic, USA and Germany. Each year about 6 million tonnes are produced and reserves are expected to exceed 400 million tonnes.

Health effects of barium


The amount of barium that is detected in food and water usually is not high enough to become a health concern.
 People with the greatest risk to barium exposure with additional health effects are those that work in the barium industry. Most of the health risks that they can undergo are caused by breathing in air that contains barium sulphate or barium carbonate.

 Many hazardous waste sites contain certain amounts of barium. People that live near them may be exposed to harmful levels. The exposure will than be caused by breathing dust, eating soil or plants, or  drinking water that is polluted with barium. Skin contact may also occur.

 The health effects of barium depend upon the water-solubility of the compounds. Barium compounds that dissolve in  water can be harmful to human health. The uptake of very large amounts of barium that are water-soluble may cause paralyses and in some cases even death.

 Small amounts of water-soluble barium may cause a person to experience breathing difficulties, increased blood pressures, heart rhythm changes, stomach irritation, muscle weakness, changes in nerve reflexes, swelling of brains and liver, kidney and heart damage.

 Barium has not shown to cause cancer with humans. There is no proof that barium can cause infertility or birth defects.


Environmental effects of barium


Some barium compounds that are released during industrial processes dissolve easily in water and are found in lakes, rivers, and streams. Because of their water-solubility these barium compounds can spread over great distances. When fish and other aquatic organisms absorb the barium compounds, barium will accumulate in their bodies. 
 Because it forms insoluble salts with other common components of the environment, such as carbonate and sulphate, barium is not mobile and poses little risk. Barium compounds that are persistent usually remain in soil surfaces, or in the sediment of water soils. Barium is found in most land soils at low levels. These levels may be higher at hazardous waste sites.




Read more: Barium (Ba) - Chemical properties - Health and Environmental effects


Strontium - Sr




Chemical properties of strontium - Health effects of strontium - Environmental effects of strontium



Atomic number

38


Atomic mass

87.62 g.mol -1


Electronegativity according to Pauling

1.0


Density

2.6 g.cm-3 at 20°C


Melting point

769 °C


Boiling point

1384 °C


Vanderwaals radius 

0.215 nm


Ionic radius

0.113 nm (+2)


Isotopes

14


Electronic shell 

[ Kr ] 5s2


Energy of first ionisation

549.2 kJ.mol -1


Energy of second ionisation

1064 kJ.mol -1


Discovered by

A. Crawford in 1790

 Strontium - Sr 


Strontium

Strontium is a soft, silver-yellow, alkaline-earth metal. It has three allotropic crystalline forms and in its physical and chemical properties it is similar to calcium and barium. Strontium reacts vigorously with water and quickly tarnishes in air, so it must be stored out of contact with air and water. Due to its extreme reactivity to air, this element always naturally occurs combined with other elements and compounds. Finely powdered strontium metal will ignite spontaneously in air to produce both strontium oxide and strontium nitride.

Applications

Strontium has uses similar to those of calcium and barium, but it is rarely employed because of its higher cost. Principal uses of strontium compounds are in pyrotechnics, for the brilliant reds in fireworks and warning flares and in greases. A little is used as a getter in vacuum tubes to remove the last traces of air. Most strontium is used as the carbonate in special glass for television screens and visual display units. Although strontium-90 is a dangerously radioactive isotope, it is a useful by-product of nuclear reactors from whose spent fuel is extracted. Its high-energy radiation can be used to generate an electric current, and for this reason it can be used in space vehicles, remote weather stations and navigation buoys.

Strontium in the environment

Strontium is commonly occurs in nature, formung about 0.034% of all igneous rock and in the form of the sulfate mineral celestite (SrSO4) and the carbonate strontianite (SrCO3). Celestite occurs frequently in sedimentary deposits of sufficient size, thus the development of mining facilities attractive. The main mining areas are UK, Mexico, Turkey and Spain. World production of strontium ores is about 140.000 tonnes per year from an unassessed total of reserves.

Foods containing strontium range from very low e.g. in corn (0.4 ppm and oranged (0.5 ppm) to high, e.g. in cabbage (45 ppm), onions (50 ppm) and lattuce (74 ppm).

Health effects of strontium


Strontium compounds that are water-insoluble can become water-soluble, as a result of chemical reactions. The water-soluble compounds are a greater threat to human health than the water-insoluble ones. Therefore, water-soluble forms of strontium have the opportunity to pollute  drinking water. Fortunately the concentrations in drinking water are usually quite low.

 People can be exposed to small levels of (radioactive) strontium by breathing air or dust, eating food, drinking water, or by contact with soil that contains strontium. We are most likely to come in contact with strontium by eating or drinking.
 Strontium concentrations in food contribute to the strontium concentrations in the human body. Foodstuffs that contain significantly high concentrations of strontium are grains, leafy vegetables and dairy products.

 For most people, strontium uptake will be moderate. The only strontium compound that is considered a danger to human health, even in small quantities, is strontium chromate. The toxic chromium that it contains mainly causes this. Strontium chromate is known to cause lung cancer, but the risks of exposure have been greatly reduced by safety procedures in companies, so that it is no longer an important health risk.

 The uptake of high strontium concentrations is generally not known to be a great danger to human health. In one case someone experienced an allergic reaction to strontium, but there have been no similar cases since. For children exceeded strontium uptake may be a health risk, because it can cause problems with bone growth.
 Strontium salts are not known to cause skin rashes or other skin problems of any kind.
 When strontium uptake is extremely high, it can cause disruption of bone development. But this effect can only occur when strontium uptake is in the thousands of ppm range. Strontium levels in food and drinking water are not high enough to be able to cause these effects.

 Radioactive strontium is much more of a health risk than stable strontium. When the uptake is very high, it may cause anaemia and oxygen shortages, and at extremely high concentrations it is even known to cause cancer as a result of damage to the genetic materials in cells.


Effects of strontium on the Environment


Strontium in its elemental form occurs naturally in many compartments of the environment, including rocks, soil, water, and air. Strontium compounds can move through the environment fairly easily, because many of the compounds are water-soluble.
 Strontium is always present in air as dust, up to a certain level. Strontium concentrations in air are increased by human activities, such as coal and oil combustion. Dust particles that contain strontium will settle to surface water, soils or plant surfaces at some point. When the particles do not settle they will fall back onto earth when rain or snow falls. All strontium will eventually end up in soils or bottoms of surface waters, where they mix with strontium that is already present.
 Strontium can end up in water through soils and through weathering of rocks. Only a small part of the strontium in water comes from dust particles from the air. Most of the strontium in water is dissolved, but some of it is suspended, causing muddy water at some locations. Not much strontium ends up in drinking water.
 When strontium concentrations in water exceed regular concentrations, this is usually caused by human activities, mainly by dumping waste directly in the water. Exceeded strontium concentrations can also be caused by settling of dust particles from air that have reacted with strontium particles from industrial processes.
 Strontium concentrations in soil may also be increased by human activities, such as the disposal of coal ash and incinerator ash, and industrial wastes. Strontium in soil dissolves in water, so that it is likely to move deeper into the ground and enter the groundwater. A part of the strontium that is introduced by humans will not move into groundwater and can stay within the soil for decades.
 Because of the nature of strontium, some of it can end up in fish, vegetables, livestock and other animals.
 One of the isotopes of strontium is radioactive. This isotope is not likely to occur naturally in the environment. It ends up in the environment, though, as a result of human activities, such as nuclear bomb testing and radioactive storage leaking. The only way to decrease concentrations of this isotope is through radioactive decay to stable zirconium.
 The concentrations of radioactive strontium in the environment are relatively low and the particles will always end up in soils or water-bottoms eventually, where they mix with other strontium particles. It is not likely to end up in drinking water.

Certain deep-sea creatures incorporate strontium into their shells as strontium sulphate, and stony corals require it, which is why it needs to be added in the water in aquaria.





Read more: Strontium (Sr) - Chemical properties, Health and Environmental effects


nowhere in the usgs report does it state that those levels you quoted are toxic or linked to cancers at the wtc site.
it maybe odd but that's no evidence of anything but oddness.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


paulie's mental illness at work. not only are we the same person  but not even worthy of person status...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 19, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Sorry child it doesn't work that way, you make a claim you prove your claim. otherwise it's BS.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 19, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



   
Imagine the chutzpah necessary for someone like GuyPinHead to complain about "constant bullshit."


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 19, 2013)

daws101 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



As already established, his smarmy sense of superiority is typical of most CT loons.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 19, 2013)

6 farts in a row after your last post from the paid trolls Paul.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 19, 2013)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



The USGS measured levels, EPA decides if the level is toxic.

According to what I read at the epa.gov site, over 3,000 ppm of EITHER is a threat to health. 

Levels above that were found in the dust downwind of the WTC.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 19, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I posted the video showing the core columns disintegrate.

Wassamatter Ollie, can't find ONE video to back you up? There, there, little fella, you can try again...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 19, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Haven't looked, Not for me to prove you wrong when you make a statement like that you either prove it or admit you were talking out your ass...... Should be easy,  you've seen all these other videos right?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 19, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Funny man, Ollie. I posted a video of the core columns disintegrating. I'm not required to post any more, the one is enough to buttress my point. Unless you can post one showing NO disintegration, you LOSE.

You should be used to that...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 19, 2013)

add one more fart from one of the agent trolls to it.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 19, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Did you or did you not make the claim that this could be seen from several different cameras or angles?  Would you like to withdraw your statement or should i prove you to be a damned fool? You already do a pretty good job of that yourself.....


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 19, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Prove away, if you can...


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 19, 2013)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Oddness seems to be the rack upon which our CTs hang their foil hats.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 19, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


it does take a lot of denial to say that ...


----------



## daws101 (Feb 19, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


thanks if you want to make a point about toxicity the why did you not quote the EPA.?
You also left out exposer time ...


----------



## daws101 (Feb 19, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


no you showed a clip where you saw the core come apart you have no proof it disintegrated ..
if that was the case what's all that steel doing at fresh kills, the hangar a Kennedy airport and the missile cruiser?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 19, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 19, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXeAPcsD3-o]9/11 North Tower collapse. Shaking 12 seconds before collapse. Pulverization of steel spear. - YouTube[/ame]

I see some dust coming off the core as it falls.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OQ2BBmAq9s]WNBC NIST 9/11: North Tower "Collapse" 9/11: WTC1 "spire" - YouTube[/ame]

Yep just dust......


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 19, 2013)

Damned shame when you have to do their homework for them and they are wrong.....


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 19, 2013)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I have no proof? The video ITSELF is proof. What the fuck does it take to be considered proof to you guys when your own eyes are disputed?

Now run along and find me JUST ONE video of the North Tower collapse that shows the core columns NOT disintegrating.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 19, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



I did, but you will deny it...............


----------



## daws101 (Feb 19, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


the clip is proof of collapse not disintegration  

NOVA: I've read that the collapse was a near free-fall.

Eagar: Yes. That's because the forces, it's been estimated, were anywhere from 10 to 100 times greater than an individual floor could support. First of all, you had 10 or 20 floors above that came crashing down. That's about 10 or 20 times the weight you'd ever expect on one angle clip. There's also the impact force, that is, if something hits very hard, there's a bigger force than if you lower it down very gently.

Here is an article that has been posted at various sites on the internet. 

All that one needs to know, to be able to conclusively prove that the Twin Towers were demolished, is that the towers fell in roughly 10 seconds, that is, that they fell at about the same rate that an object falls through air. 

 Anyone with a little common sense will realize that the top of a building does not pass through the concrete and steel that comprises the lower portion of the building at the same rate that it falls through air. This just doesn't happen, unless, of course, the lower part of the building has lost its structural integrity (and this is usually due to the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as seen in controlled demolitions). 

 The fact that the towers collapsed in about 10 seconds is a statement that the upper portion of each of the towers passed through the lower portion at about the same rate that it would have fallen through air. The fact that the towers fell this quickly (essentially at the rate of free-fall) is conclusive evidence that they were deliberately demolished. 

 Believing that there is nothing wrong with the towers collapsing so quickly, is roughly analogous to believing that people pass through closed doors as quickly as they pass through open doors. 

 The fact that they fell at such a rate means that they encountered essentially no resistance from the supposedly undamaged parts of the structure. That is, no resistance was encountered from any of the immensely strong parts of the structure that had held the building up for the last 30 years. From this, one can conclude that the lower undamaged parts were actually very damaged (probably by the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as is usual in a controlled demolition).  

NOVA: Miraculously, a number of firefighters survived inside Tower One. They were on the third or fourth floor in a stairwell, and immediately after the collapse they looked up and saw blue sky above their heads -- their part of the stairwell survived. How is that possible, with all the force of that 500,000-ton building coming down?
The Collapse: An Engineer's Perspective.

read the whole article....


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 19, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=eJb-GPtb2I0&feature=endscreen]Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Feb 19, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News - YouTube


seen it it's no proof that explosives, thermite, space beams or any other exotic substance was used...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 19, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News - YouTube



I'm sorry but are you one of those on that other thread who keep telling us that you can't trust the news because they are government puppets?

Steel did not turn into dust you stupid fuck..........


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 19, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News - YouTube



Man, it's a good thing ABC News sort off discovered that the Towers had turned to dust or that 200,000 tons of steel would have had to be carted off and disposed of. Thanks.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 19, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News - YouTube
> ...



Once again I'll refer you to the USGS study which showed 10% of the *DUST* was iron. 

What is left when you disintegrate steel? 

The iron it is made from.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 19, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



What took down the light poles if it wasn't AA77?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 20, 2013)

candycorn said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Don't know, don't care...


----------



## candycorn (Feb 20, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Go to the doctor and get a prescription for two testicles....have it filled immediately bitch.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 20, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



You're fucking nuts. Just thought you should know that.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 20, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I'm sure he knows he's not normal but he seems happy with it and there's little point dwelling on the obvious.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 20, 2013)

candycorn said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Still trying to to deflect and sidetrack I see...How does asking a question about something unrelated, answer what has been asked?


----------



## candycorn (Feb 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Deflect what?

The title of the thread is this:

_9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: ...._

Lightpoles were knocked down by something...obviously if the "conspiracy" was solved, it would have accoutned for this physical evidence.  So what knocked it down if it wasn't AA77?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdQh18kvpRU]Debunking Novas Pancake Theory of WTC using common sense - YouTube[/ame] 

You keep on posting things that have already been proven false. The tops of the buildings were thinner, and could not have overcome the lower sections thicker, more robust, undamaged parts, within the short amount of time that is ESTIMATED.. period. 


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSd9wB55zk&lr=1]Downward Acceleration of the North Tower - YouTube[/ame]

Repeating your outrageous tCT and using Nova, or NIST with nothing to support them IS STUPID.


_The WTC buildings steel was tapered in thickness from 6&#8243; thick in the subbasements to 5&#8243;, 4&#8243;, and so on up to the highest floors, where it was only 1/4&#8243; thick.  Thus, the relative mass of the steel for the top 14 floors of the North Tower, for example, which were alleged to have been weakened by the intense fires and collapsed onto the 96 floors below, represented on 1.4% of the mass of the steel.  The very idea that that miniscule relative mass could overcome the lower 98.6%  is a physical absurdity. _

Plus the fires didn't burn for long enough nor get hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt, as witnessed in the rubble piles....That burned for 3 months. If they had burned long enough and hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, since those fires were asymmetrically distributed, their effects would have been asymmetrical, with gradual sagging and tilting, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition sequence that occurred. 

BTW Daws, still think the Bazant theory is a "steaming pile" like you alluded to before?
Fucking idiot....


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 20, 2013)

candycorn said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



The discussion at hand was regarding the WTC buildings, and like always you have nothing to say that reflects well regarding your insane OCT regarding the WTC buildings...so in desperation, you try to change things up by mentioning something unrelated like the light poles...hundreds of fucking miles away...

...what happened at the Pentagon, light poles or not, plane or not, still does not answer or begin to explain the obvious and glaring problems NIST has with their narrative..


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 20, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



WTF are you still doing in a discussion about 9-11? You've been relegated to cheerleader I see...commenting on things you admit you know nothing about...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You left out the other elements that the USGS found along with the 2 you mentioned, that had no business being there..


----------



## candycorn (Feb 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



The discussion at hand is whatever I want it to be since you can't have a conspiracy in Washington but not one in New York or vice versa.  

So it has to be explained and we're going on 12 years of you ducking the question.  Keep ducking...we'll wait.

Meanwhile, you cannot quote one major inaccuracy in the 9/11 Commission Report--it's BULLET PROOF!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 20, 2013)

And I see we are still insisting on the disproved 10 second theory.... I really expected better.....


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 20, 2013)

candycorn said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Meanwhile you have never been able to refute any of the posted information regarding the WTC that show that something else had to have assisted the demise of the buildings.
The 9-11 commission has for years now, been shown to be based on lies and is not regarded as being at all accurate, this comes from the panelists themselves. 
All one need do is look at the information regarding the WTC buildings to know that the narrative is false The 9-11 commission report is itself based on tortured testimony, to even try to pass it off as legitimate, and go so far as to label it "bullet proof" is stupid.

But we already have known long ago, you are an anti American Zionist zealot, who tries desperately to legitimize that which can not stand.
Your appeal to the impossible with no proof of any legitimacy is stupid and only agreed with by other anti American Zionists zealots.
Your official conspiracy theory is based on BS, and has been exposed as BS. That is why you pop up every once in a while and try to resurrect long dead threads, and positions you defended, that were subsequently destroyed as illogical and impossible by science and physics, and not based on real facts.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 20, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> And I see we are still insisting on the disproved 10 second theory.... I really expected better.....



No but you still are insisting on a NIST/Bazant theory that has been exposed as BS. But then you admitted to not knowing anything about it so how can you defend a position that you know nothing about?


The WTC buildings steel was tapered in thickness from 6&#8243; thick in the subbasements to 5&#8243;, 4&#8243;, and so on up to the highest floors, where it was only 1/4&#8243; thick. Thus, the relative mass of the steel for the top 14 floors of the North Tower, for example, which were alleged to have been weakened by the intense fires and collapsed onto the 96 floors below, represented on 1.4% of the mass of the steel. The very idea that that miniscule relative mass could overcome the lower 98.6% is a physical absurdity.

Plus the fires didn't burn for long enough nor get hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt, as witnessed in the rubble piles....That burned for 3 months. If they had burned long enough and hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, since those fires were asymmetrically distributed, their effects would have been asymmetrical, with gradual sagging and tilting, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition sequence that occurred.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 20, 2013)

There you go again with the melting steel. There was no molten steel and no one officially claimed that there was.

And you cannot explain what caused the buildings to bow in just before the collapse. 

Nor can you explain how one Government report can be used to disprove another. Like I have been seeing here recently.

And you can't explain the lightpoles. As you have just shown us. Seems like anything that doesn't fit must not have happened..... 

And your good buddy in here telling us the steel turned into dust right before our eyes....

Yep you guys have a great argument going here. Keep up the good work.......


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 20, 2013)

> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > There you go again with the melting steel. There was no molten steel and no one officially claimed that there was.
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 20, 2013)

Here we go again. There was no molten steel, the only people who claimed there was were not anyone who could have looked at something and said yep that's steel. There was no molten steel recovered, from the descriptions there would have been tons of it, where did it go?

Yes we know why the buildings bowed in, just because you won't accept it doesn't mean it's not true. The fires did get hot enough to weaken and bow the steel trusses (notice I did not say melt). It is the only explanation for the bowing of the buildings.

You tell us the government is lying and covering this up by using a government report to try to disprove another government report, pretty piss poor coverup when you can't get your reports on the same sheet of music.

The lightpoles fit right in with the OP and we know for a fact that 77 brought them down. No matter what you want the truth to be.

And I posted videos where you can see the core fall, and you can see the dust coming off of it. It did not disintegrate as he says and as you want to weakly back up. Gee if only we could make steel vaporize warfare as we know it would be over.....

I'm not the confused one here, you are.......


----------



## daws101 (Feb 20, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


where I come from they call that rust. just 10% given the conditions in Manhattan and the WTC'S  proximity to sea water I'D have thought it would be more.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 20, 2013)

> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Here we go again. There was no molten steel, the only people who claimed there was were not anyone who could have looked at something and said yep that's steel. There was no molten steel recovered, from the descriptions there would have been tons of it, where did it go?
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 20, 2013)

Fuck you Jones, you have the same shit day after day and you've been proven wrong day after day to everyone except yourself and your deluded friends. And then you back up the most stupid of the stupid.

It doesn't matter what is proved or what isn't as far as you are concerned if it doesn't fit with what you want to be the truth then it's a lie.

So once again fuck you and your stupidity. I have nothing to prove and you have failed at disproving anything. So there you go. The official investigation stands unless you can disprove it and you can't. Only by pointing your finger like 911nutjob and calling liar.

When you can show us any other way that the buildings bowed in let me know, And when you find that molten steel shaped like a river you let me know. And when you get your head out of your ass wash your hair..............


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 20, 2013)

You see, I can make personal attacks too.........


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 20, 2013)

Bechtel engineers, responsible for safety at Ground Zero, wrote in the Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers: &#8220;The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF.&#8221;

The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes. Steel toes would often heat up and become intolerable. This heat was also a concern for the search-and-rescue dogs used at the site. Many were not outfitted with protective booties (Photo 13). More than one suffered serious injuries and at least three died while working at Ground Zero. The underground fire burned for exactly 100 days and was finally declared &#8220;extinguished&#8221; on Dec. 19, 2001.

The fact that high-temperature phenomena were an important issue at Ground Zero is underscored by the large number of thermal images acquired: images by SPOT, MTI, AVIRIS/NASA, "Twin Otter"/U.S. Army, and at least 25 images by EarthData, taken between Sept. 16 and Oct. 25. In addition, temperature measurements by helicopter were taken each day, and the firefighters used onsite sensors too.

The heat at Ground Zero was not only extreme, it was also persistent, as proven not only by witness statements and a photograph by LiRo Group / Engineering of orange-red glowing steel as late as October 21, but also by thermal images taken by NASA and EarthData satellites. The EarthData thermal images also show that the &#8220;hot spots&#8221; remained at the same locations.  The phenomenon did not &#8220;move&#8221; across the site, like one would expect from fire as it consumes the fuel available in any one location.

High Temperatures, Persistent Heat & 'Molten Steel' at WTC Site Contradict Official Story

SH&E at Ground Zero


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 20, 2013)

Written by Richard Gage,


----------



## daws101 (Feb 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


two things sister JONES  None of what I've posted has been proven false.  it's a fantasy  you and others like you believe in.
nothing you have ever posted has even come close to proving a conspiracy by the government , the use of thermite or explosives, or space beams.
I laugh every time you make that completely erroneous declaration.
It's also a real hoot when you post so called refutations of other posts. 
my favorite false claim made by you is "the laws of physics were( depending on what site you're cutting and pasting from) broken, altered, etc..
if that were so where is your precedence setting results proving the laws could be broken in the first place.?
you do understand that everything you post regarding the government, explosives thermite, in short the whole of your twoofer theory is based on a false premise, specious conjecture on that premise and denial of fact.
you have no quantifiable evidence of ant kind to back up you nonsense.

the other thing shit head is this "btw: the Bazant hypothesis. is just that .
where are the test results to prove the hypothesis is fact not a steaming pile.
oh that's right! you have none."ME 
in your  obsessive zealotry you've either lost the ability to read or you never had it in the first place.
In that statement I never say that in my option " the Bazant hypothesis" is a steaming pile.  
what I did say (since you are prone to willful misrepresentation) was that YOU SISTER JONES SHOW ME THE TEST RESULTS THAT PROVE the Bazant hypothesis IS EITHER FACT OR A STEAMING PILE.
YOU as always epically failed.
anyone without  misfiring neurons could see that.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 20, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Fuck you Jones, you have the same shit day after day and you've been proven wrong day after day to everyone except yourself and your deluded friends. And then you back up the most stupid of the stupid.
> 
> It doesn't matter what is proved or what isn't as far as you are concerned if it doesn't fit with what you want to be the truth then it's a lie.
> 
> ...



It is impossible to prove anything to an admitted idiot!
Every step of the way you post something and it is soundly rebutted and rejected with evidence to back up our assertions, and what do you do?
You claim ignorance. You mention the perimeter walls bowing in, while saying they were ejected and it doesn't register within you how absurd you sound..We point this out to you, and again you claim ignorance..
We agree with you that the towers did not come down at FF speed, but we show you how impossible it still is for them to come down at the newer estimated speeds...
You claim ignorance...
It never ends with you. You claim to not be smart enough enough to understand what we post and say, but you miraculously become smart enough to understand what NIST says???

Me thinks you are a liar Ollie..There's no other explanation that describes you.
Why don't you get back to me when you find the proof that massive steel buildings that are constructed in a tapered manner, IE: stronger near the middle and bottoms, can come exploding down, while EJECTING tons of steel walls 
that you describe as "bowing in" first???
Also come back in support of your wild conspiracy theory, when you can substantiate any of it, till then the NIST/Bazant theory is a mountain of scientific fraud and physical impossibilities, that are only believed by the stupid and ignorant people who claim to be patriotic Americans, or by terrified stooges that are dependent on US government grants and contracts to earn a living.

Bottom line here is that the nation you claim to have protected is controlled by a cabal of criminals, who assisted in perpetrating the attacks on 9-11 and blamed it on Israels enemies. That part of the conspiracy is not too technical to learn about, and is easy to filter through. But you keep on living in your delusional conspiracy that you believe because it is an "official" theory, and keep pretending you are some valiant warrior.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 20, 2013)

I hear blah blah blah......

And asshole no one calls me a lair. And you now have a problem with someone admitting that they are not a physicist? But you must be because you know more about it than 99.99% of them. 

Fuck you dickhead, I'm beginning to believe that nutjob is one of your socks........


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 20, 2013)

> two things sister JONES  None of what I've posted has been proven false.  it's a fantasy  you and others like you believe in.


You post the same old things that NIST theorizes, and we post evidence that proves it false. You say what we post does not prove it false, but you always fail to back it up with anything that substantiates your claim that what you are posting is A) True and factual. and B) That what we post is false.



> nothing you have ever posted has even come close to proving a conspiracy by the government , the use of thermite or explosives, or space beams.


 I post things that quantify my position that the NIST report is wrong, scientifically and physically.
I post instances that show NIST complicity in the OCT of hijacked planes flown by inexperienced muslim extremist pilots, by falsifying their data, and thus their reports, including their failed testing. 
I never claimed anything about space beams you lying fucking asshole.



> I laugh every time you make that completely erroneous declaration.


I laugh at you when you run away from a challenge while claiming to have substantiated your position, when the fact is apparent that you have not. 



> It's also a real hoot when you post so called refutations of other posts.
> my favorite false claim made by you is "the laws of physics were( depending on what site you're cutting and pasting from) broken, altered, etc..
> if that were so where is your precedence setting results proving the laws could be broken in the first place.?


 No, it is YOU that claim that the laws of physics were not in play that day, by your insistence that the WTC buildings could have, and should have come down the way that they did.
By you believing the NIST, it is evident that you agree that the laws pf physics were altered or broken somehow, but despite me and others asking you concerning this, you never have anything to say about it, except try to turn it around on us, as though we think it perfectly normal for the laws of science, and physics to be altered, or broken, which we do not. Got it now shithead??




> you do understand that everything you post regarding the government, explosives thermite, in short the whole of your twoofer theory is based on a false premise, specious conjecture on that premise and denial of fact.
> you have no quantifiable evidence of ant kind to back up you nonsense.


No you see, it is what YOU insist is true, IE: the OCT, and the NIST theory that is based on specious conjecture. Much of what you defend can not be factually confirmed, or backed up by data. But once a person truly understands that tapered constructed massive steel buildings can not physically come down by kerosene fires, 3 times in one day, it blows a gigantic hole on your specious conjecture ridden theory.
What we do is the opposite of what you do. We post more scientifically and physically sound theories, complete with calculations that take into consideration available facts,  such as the laws of physics, motion, and properties of fire, and steel, and the buildings construction, and the designers statements etc we and even use parts of the reports
that you believe in, to show we have a more valid theory.
All you do is keep on posting shit that we have already shown is very highly unlikely, and MOST likely are lies.



> the other thing shit head is this "btw: the Bazant hypothesis. is just that .
> where are the test results to prove the hypothesis is fact not a steaming pile.
> oh that's right! you have none."ME
> in your  obsessive zealotry you've either lost the ability to read or you never had it in the first place.
> ...



You still trying to weasel out of that huge blunder and save face?? LOL!!
Anybody reading that series of posts will come to the same conclusion, that you were asking me to prove the Bazant theory was correct. That you thought of it as just "that," a theory, and then asked me to show you proof that IT WAS NOT a "steaming pile"!
What you also failed miserably at was being man enough to admit that you thought the Bazant theory was something I approved and encouraged, and admit your huge ignorant oversight and move on!

Bottom line you are so fucking ignorant that you don't know what is being discussed but like your cohort, Ollie, you try to engage in a debate that you are over matched in.

Look idiot it's simple really....You state an opinion about a theory and you post data to back it up, like we do. You make an ass out of yourself when you insist on re-posting things that we have already shown you doesn't make sense. It is customary to substantiate your position in a debate with verifiable facts. You don't win a debate by not even knowing your facts you stupid imbecile.

If you think the NIST theory is credible, then by all means post your validating information and details for all of us to see. You haven't thus far, and appear too stupid to notice.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 20, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> I hear blah blah blah......
> 
> And asshole no one calls me a lair. And you now have a problem with someone admitting that they are not a physicist? But you must be because you know more about it than 99.99% of them.
> 
> Fuck you dickhead, I'm beginning to believe that nutjob is one of your socks........



I call a spade a spade Ollie. How else is one supposed to interpret you when you say, you don't understand what we post, but then turn around and say that you DO understand the NIST theory? Seems like you just cherry pick what you want to understand. And your 99.99% figure is not factual, how in the fuck can you back that up? Got any data, that shows you know what others are thinking?
I've got data that shows high percentage rates among people who DON'T believe in the wild and absurd CT that you do..

What is clear is that we can substantiate our theory as more plausible, and you can't. Even when you try to use the NIST information you still can't. For 2 reasons...1) because you say you don't understand it, and 2) because it is scientifically, and physically wrong...because it is impossible!
So say again how it is that you can say we are wrong in our thinking, when you admit to not understanding it?
Which is it? Do you understand the NIST theory, or don't you?
Do you care enough about the country you claim to have "defended" to even try to understand any of this??


----------



## candycorn (Feb 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Quote the major inaccuracies....would you, please?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> > two things sister JONES  None of what I've posted has been proven false.  it's a fantasy  you and others like you believe in.
> 
> 
> You post the same old things that NIST theorizes, and we post evidence that proves it false. You say what we post does not prove it false, but you always fail to back it up with anything that substantiates your claim that what you are posting is A) True and factual. and B) That what we post is false.
> ...


all of the above except the quotes by me is complete rationalization.
and not fact you make lot of claims that OCT is wrong funny since you have no proof  which means you have nothing to substantiate or verify you're lying ever time you say you do.    
in other words your backing bullshit with more bullshit.
the only ignorant debater here is you.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > two things sister JONES  None of what I've posted has been proven false.  it's a fantasy  you and others like you believe in.
> ...



So prove your statement..
Look idiot it's simple really....You state an opinion about a theory and you post data to back it up, like we do. You make an ass out of yourself when you insist on re-posting things that we have already shown you doesn't make sense. It is customary to substantiate your position in a debate with verifiable facts. You don't win a debate by not even knowing your facts you stupid imbecile.
Point out the "bullshit with more bullshit". Go on I'm waiting, or are you still just all talk???


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 20, 2013)

How many Architects and engineers in the US? And how many are members of the truther cause? About 0.01%. Therefore Jones knows more than 99.99%.....

Isn't that amazing?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 20, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> How many Architects and engineers in the US? And how many are members of the truther cause? About 0.01%. Therefore Jones knows more than 99.99%.....
> 
> Isn't that amazing?



Has it ever occurred to you that not every single one of them is required to be a member, nor is a prerequisite to even have to register? This is why your use of those figures can be misleading. Not every single one of them in the US has signed off on the NIST report either.
Again you are choosing to cherry pick what you respond to, leaving out anything that has to do with the NIST lack of evidence that proves their theory..
Just the fact that there are people in the fields that have gone public and even started an organization rejecting NIST should be addressed and not ignored as being insignificant.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


bullshit with bullshit.  

1.we post evidence that proves it false.

wrong you post  non verifiable non credible assumptions..

2. I post things that quantify my position that the NIST report is wrong, scientifically and physically.

wrong you post conjecture not facts.  since physics is science, the last part of that statement is irrelevant. 

3.I post instances that show NIST complicity in the OCT of hijacked planes flown by inexperienced muslim extremist pilots, by falsifying their data, and thus their reports, including their failed testing. 

 you have no proof that nist was intentionally complicit 
you have no evidence they falsified their data.
again what you post is hearsay not fact.
you have no evidence that some group other than the extremist Muslims destroyed the wtc.          

4.No, it is YOU that claim that the laws of physics were not in play that day, by your insistence that the WTC buildings could have, and should have come down the way that they did.
By you believing the NIST, it is evident that you agree that the laws pf physics were altered or broken somehow

totally incorrect, you are assuming  facts not in evidence.
now shit head, try to get this right.
the laws of physics were not altered in any way on 911 
the towers ,wtc 7 all fell according to the laws of physics.
I did not insist they collapse the way they did, they just did.
in your complete willful ignorance you ignore a basic principle of science "there are no coulds or shoulds in science "
events either happen or they don't.
as to my believing as evidence of anything but belief  is just you and you massive ego making false connections.         

5. you don't know what is being discussed but like your cohort, Ollie, you try to engage in a debate that you are over matched in.

this statement beside being another false assumption is  you attempting claim an imagined superiority.
I know exactly what's being discussed  and since most all of what you discuss is specious and not fact I check it for validity and it comes up short so, I dismiss it.  
the only thing you ever proven is you are convinced that the shit you yammer constantly about is fact 
in reality it's not even close .
on the other hand you've proven beyond doubt that you are a pretentious prick with no life.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 20, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Written by Richard Gage,



So what? Why not address the issues instead of attacking the messenger, as if the issue is somehow out of bounds because of who delivers it?
The science and physics don't fit the NIST narrative, and we've pointed out how it doesn't, and the best you can do is disparage the messenger?
One what grounds?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > How many Architects and engineers in the US? And how many are members of the truther cause? About 0.01%. Therefore Jones knows more than 99.99%.....
> ...


but it is ...insignificant that is.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Written by Richard Gage,
> ...


he's wrong
and so are you 
please list the physics that don't fit.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 20, 2013)

candycorn said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Project much?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



So prove your statement..
Look idiot it's simple really....You state an opinion about a theory and you post data to back it up, like we do. You make an ass out of yourself when you insist on re-posting things that we have already shown you doesn't make sense. It is customary to substantiate your position in a debate with verifiable facts. You don't win a debate by not even knowing your facts you stupid imbecile.

I can go back and link to the many times you have pussied out, and made huge fucking idiotic blunders. You can't do the same for my posts asshole LOL!

Don't think your NIST theory is full of specious conjecture? PROVE IT THEN! It should be easy go on try it!! 
My opinions are "not even close" to being factual??? OK...PROVE WHERE THEY ARE WRONG...
You say I post conjecture not facts??? Then man up and show your facts that counter my so called "conjecture"..


But you'll probably just say that you already have...right??? Again I'm way ahead of you, you've been running the same scam since you came on board the USMB.
You have no proof that backs up what you say loser!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


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


How is he wrong? List specifics, as your opinion isn't worth 2 shits.
How am I wrong? List specifics, as your opinion isn't worth 2 shits.
Please list the physics that DO fit with NIST theory. Again be specific, as you opinion isn't worth 2 shits and is actually full of specious conjecture, constructed on the false premise regarding kerosene and its effects on construction grade steel, and that collapse was such an imminent conclusion.

In fact we've posted more that substantiates our position then you have about yours!
Why don't you point out how NIST details how their interpretation of the physics involved regarding the buildings DOES ADD UP?

Prove what you say asshole, or can't you?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



More baseless opinion, with nothing to substantiate it.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 20, 2013)

Wow all the threads that they were involved in all of a sudden it hits quitting time and they are all gone???


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Wow all the threads that they were involved in all of a sudden it hits quitting time and they are all gone???



They'll be back, like dogs to their own vomit...


----------



## daws101 (Feb 20, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


projecting testicles  must be painful ,be thankful you'll never have that problem.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



When do you graduate middle school?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


already have! what do you not understand about "everything you post is based on a false premise"
it's not a tough concept .
what that means is any subsequent crap you post about 911 that comes from that premise is by definition false.
no matter how hard you wish it was not.
there is no need  for me to prove anything I post 
you're the one who claims a conspiracy it's your job to prove it.
my part is to put up the facts and see if your allegations measure up.
they do not and that's all the proof needed.
btw it no scam that's just another one of your false assumptions.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 20, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


stop whining you're just pissed because I beat you to it.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Whining? Hell, I'm LAUGHING at you!!

King of the pre-pubescent insult!


----------



## candycorn (Feb 20, 2013)

still no quotations of any major inaccuracies in the 9/11 Commission Report.  Bulletproof.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 21, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Haven't seen pictures or videos of the actual events have you? See the problem with ignorant fucks like you is, the state conspiracy theory dogma whose nuts you cling to, has absolutely no evidence or proof that the WTC buildings could have imploded/collapsed by fire/kerosene.



You mean fire/kerosene AND damage to their support structure via impact from the jets right? You always seem to forget that part for some reason.



Mr. Jones said:


> There are also properties of steel and the temperature it must be heated to, for durations of time before it gives way like spaghetti noodles.



According to you it was only heat that effected the steel right? I suppose you think you'd get the same results between applying only heat to a piece of steel as opposed to applying heat AND a LOAD to the same piece. Which would fail faster?



Mr. Jones said:


> The best hypothesis that explains their demise is not due to fires and office combustibles.



That's because you keep leaving out key pieces such as impact damage and stress loads on the steel being heated.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 21, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Tell us what force caused the tons of massive steel components to be ejected hundreds of feet away, even imbedding into other buildings?



Ejected? You've had this explained to you before. Please show us a video of a piece of steel being ejected horizontally (sideways) with force with very little amount of downward motion.



Mr. Jones said:


> Tell us why you think the fires got hot enough when even NIST did not and could not prove it?



Hot enough for what? Melting? Failure? DO you have some numbers? Please provide numbers that show when a piece of steel will fail when applying, for example, 600 degrees to it and increasing loads.



Mr. Jones said:


> Why did they fall right through the path of most resistance?
> Why was there only "minimal resistance" according to NIST?



What exactly fell through the path of most resistance? Please explain? Do you even know what you are talking about? You need to learn about localized failure. A structure is built for all connections and components to work together to distribute loads, loads in a state of non-movement. 

Do you think the engineers who built those towers calculated the stress and load of the top floors coming down onto the next floor below to see if it would stay intact? The load of that top "block" coming down would be transferred to the components and would FAIL the weakest ones. Hence the following...

How do you expect these floor truss supports around attached around the perimeter columns:






To resist the load generated from this upper "block" falling onto them:





Also, please explain what components of the tower below the upper "block" created your "path of most resistance".


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 21, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



Hey Guy.

According to this "eyewitness" account, there was a waterfall AND a freight train that caused all the ruckus and NOT a tornado right?





> "I was once close enough to hear the sound of a tornado," Smith said. "It sounded like a freight train and a waterfall simultaneously."


'It Sounded Like a Freight Train': The Dangers of Storm Chasing


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 21, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> _The WTC buildings steel was tapered in thickness from 6&#8243; thick in the subbasements to 5&#8243;, 4&#8243;, and so on up to the highest floors, where it was only 1/4&#8243; thick._


_

Which components are you talking about? Core columns? Perimeter columns?



Mr. Jones said:



			Thus, the relative mass of the steel for the top 14 floors of the North Tower, for example, which were alleged to have been weakened by the intense fires and collapsed onto the 96 floors below, represented on 1.4% of the mass of the steel.  The very idea that that miniscule relative mass could overcome the lower 98.6%  is a physical absurdity.
		
Click to expand...

_
I love it! 

Do you treat all objects and structures as one solid object? How incredibly stupid. Using your logic, a baseball can NEVER smash through the window of a house because the relative supporting mass of the entire house attached to the window behind it wouldn't allow that to happen right?



Mr. Jones said:


> Plus the fires didn't burn for long enough nor get hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt, as witnessed in the rubble piles....That burned for 3 months. If they had burned long enough and hot enough to cause the steel to weaken, since those fires were asymmetrically distributed, their effects would have been asymmetrical, with gradual sagging and tilting, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition sequence that occurred.



The fires didn't get hot enough? At what temperature does steel start to weaken? Now add a load to said steel?

Also, why do you continually forget to add the impact damage to the perimeter and core columns? What happened to the load from the upper structure above that those previously undamaged core and perimeter columns? Those previously undamaged components used to help support SOME of the load from above right? Did that load vanish like a fart in the wind? Or was it redistributed to the other remaining components? Now weaken those remaining components in addition to adding more load to them when the other components were damaged/severed due to the impact? 

Now what?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 21, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > _The WTC buildings steel was tapered in thickness from 6&#8243; thick in the subbasements to 5&#8243;, 4&#8243;, and so on up to the highest floors, where it was only 1/4&#8243; thick._
> ...



Now what? Now maybe you can present how exactly did NIST assume that collapse was going to be a certainty. What did they base their conclusions on?
The impact damage took out minimal components, and the building redistributed the loads according to the designers plans. They then stood while fires were estimated to have burned. Estimates that were not indicative of steels failure point.
Fire damage would be a slow progressive action, and the expected outcome of such fire damage would have been partial failures at the parts succumbing to the most intense heat.
IOW's, the parts of the building most heavily damaged, would be expected to fail first, then the collapsing parts would encounter much resistance provided by the undamaged, more robust lower parts below. 
This would have resulted in a much slower collapse front.
This is not what we saw. Why not?
As it stands now, we are expected to just assume that that the entire undamaged structures below would provide such minimal resistance as to allow a seemingly uncontested progression of collapse? Based on what?
Where in the NIST reports is this confirmed?

BTW, it was the Bazant theory of collapse (that was released 2 days after the attacks?) that used the upper and lower block analogy, that NIST reinforced and used.
_Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou must be super-geniuses. They were able to understand how two skyscrapers could crush themselves to rubble, a newly observed behavior for steel structures, and write a paper about it in just two days._
So if you have a problem with this take it up with them.

In it they describe "creep buckling" of columns when mentioning the steel slowly losing its strength. This was not a "creep" it was stable on minute and then all resistance was suddenly lost.
They said  that "the heating PROBABLY accelerated due to loss of fire insulation material" NIST conducted testing that was inconclusive regarding this.
How many other instances of even larger fires have been witnessed, with no total global collapse in under 20 seconds observed?

They mention that "the failed parts gather speed until it impacts the lower parts" This is logical but where is the evidence that these 2 masses met? The impact would have been visibly noticeable, and recordable.
They mention that "At that moment, the upper
part has acquired an enormous kinetic energy and a significant downward velocity. The
vertical impact of the mass of the upper part onto the lower part (stage 4) applies enormous
vertical dynamic load on the underlying structure, far exceeding its load capacity, even if it
is not heated."
What is lacking in this theory, is that all of this does not happen instantly. It takes time for the undamaged parts to be overcome, especially the parts that are not weakened have not sustained any damage by fire.
Again they leave out the readily obvious debris falling away from the buildings, so it can not contribute to the load, and therefore has less kinetic energy involved. 
They don't take into account the buildings  reserve strength ratios, either. 


They assured us that no FF would be possible due to the resistance the lower structure would supply. This is logical, but as was proven in WTC 7 was proven false.
Using videos, it was also determined buy others, that the roof of the towers, did not experience any halting, or hesitation as would be expected when the 2 masses met.
The collapse progression continued seemingly uncontested by undamaged, stronger components below. The argument has been made that, as each subsequent floor succumbed to failure, their weight was then added to the burden that the lower had to resist. A major problem with this is that we can observe much of this supposed added weight burden, being ejected away from the building, and another part of them was turned to dust.

Bottom line is that NIST has no data to support a total global collapse theory. 
No historical precedent to base it on, and failed testing, using exaggerated temps, and figures.
The collapses should have taken significantly longer. They know this which is why they don't go into any detail about it.
They assured us that no FF would be possible due to the resistance the lower structures would supply and the collapsing parts would encounter. This is logical, but as was proven in WTC 7 was false.
Where is the data to back up the NIST conclusions?


What you are asking me to provide, is what you should be demanding in a report from those charged with that responsibility. That would be an explanation with the data that substantiates their assumption/theory.
Those buildings were assisted by something else other then fires and plane damage, and they were charged with making the fire and damage only theory fit. But their own reports
betray them.
They came down too quick. 3 times in one day. There are too many anomalies to even be considered coincidental. They don't explain why.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 21, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> The impact damage took out minimal components, and the building redistributed the loads according to the designers plans.



Complete and utter BS. This statement of yours PROVES you have not one single clue how buildings structures are designed. Engineers design buildings to redistribute loads when the building is 100% functional. 

Please tell me how, with all your engineering knowledge, an engineer designs a structure in such a way that if a portion of said structure suffers damage, that the remaining components are designed to handle the redistribution of that load.

That's impossible!

Are you trying to say that engineers calculate for every possible permutation of a damage scenario and make sure that the building will stay structurally intact?!

WTF are you smoking?

Let's see if you can understand how impossible it is to do what you say. 

Did the engineers run calculations on the following scenarios?

Scenario 1-
 79th floor, 10% east face perimeter column removal, 2% east core column removal. Hmmm. Can the remaining, undamaged structural components of floor 79 handle the load placed upon from floors 80 and above?

Scenario 2-
 50th floor, 30% east face perimeter column removal, 5% east core column removal. Hmmm. Can the remaining, undamaged structural components of floor 50 handle the load placed upon from floors 51 and above?

Scenario 3-
50th, 51st, 52nd floors, 10% east face column removal, 20% west face column removal, 1% core column removal on floor 52. Can the remaining, undamaged structural components on those floors handle the load placed upon them from floors 53 and above?

Do you see the point yet? There are an infinite number of possible damage scenarios that you think engineers have design for.

Total BS. As I said, you have no clue.



Mr. Jones said:


> They then stood while fires were estimated to have burned. Estimates that were not indicative of steels failure point.



And you have calculations showing that the remaining steel components in those damaged areas should have remained structurally sound? Let's see the calculations showing the temperatures that the steel reached in addition to the loads placed upon them that show they shouldn't have failed.



Mr. Jones said:


> Fire damage would be a slow progressive action, and the expected outcome of such fire damage would have been partial failures at the parts succumbing to the most intense heat.



Wrong. Fire weakened/damage column + a load can equal immediate failure.



Mr. Jones said:


> , the parts of the building most heavily damaged, would be expected to fail first, then the collapsing parts would encounter much resistance provided by the undamaged, more robust lower parts below.



Hmmm. Didn't the upper block of one of the towers tilt first?



Mr. Jones said:


> This would have resulted in a much slower collapse front.
> This is not what we saw. Why not?



Because the "debris pile" descended upon each floor in succession and caused the floor trusses to fail. That's why you see the perimeter column get pushed outwards.



Mr. Jones said:


> As it stands now, we are expected to just assume that that the entire undamaged structures below would provide such minimal resistance as to allow a seemingly uncontested progression of collapse? Based on what?
> Where in the NIST reports is this confirmed?



Why do you continue to act like the entire bottom of the tower is a solid object? It was comprised of many components connected together. Those connections failed when stressed by the descending debris pile.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 21, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> They mention that "the failed parts gather speed until it impacts the lower parts" This is logical but where is the evidence that these 2 masses met? The impact would have been visibly noticeable, and recordable.



Wow.

They aren't "two masses". The are tow objects comprised of many different pieces and connections. The individual connections and pieces that cannot withstand a certain load will fail first. They're not solid blocks!


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 21, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> They don't take into account the buildings  reserve strength ratios, either.



Please provide your definition of a "strength ratio".


----------



## daws101 (Feb 21, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


_more specious assumption by sister jones_


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 21, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> How many Architects and engineers in the US? And how many are members of the truther cause? About 0.01%. Therefore Jones knows more than 99.99%.....
> 
> Isn't that amazing?



Indeed. I don't know how these "truthers" do it!


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 21, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > How many Architects and engineers in the US? And how many are members of the truther cause? About 0.01%. Therefore Jones knows more than 99.99%.....
> ...



There is nothing to be gained by "approving" the NIST findings. They exist and they are credible enough to satisfy most physicists and engineers. Only those who disagree are motivated to speak out, some for the fame and glory, some for the money and a few because they sincerely believe the BS they spew. In all they total .01% of the professional world of their peers. 
Here is one scholar - Steven Dutch, Professor of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay - who found it worth his time to refute your 9/11 silliness and that of the 9/11 "truther" movement at large. His comments reflect the rational, logical POV and Applied Science so sorely missing in your CT Movement: 
Nutty 9-11 Physics


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 21, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Written by Richard Gage,
> ...



It is not required to respond point by point to every CT loon who staggers onto the Internet. It is incumbent on all rational, open-minded peeps to weed out the BSers. Gage's BS has been heard and found to be lame enough to dismiss him and his half-truths and pseudoscience. Like most CTs he destroyed his own rep and has been justifiably relegated to the carnival freak bin.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 21, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Sadly the guy you demean makes you look like a sick jackass. So what does that say about your maturity level, Princess?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 21, 2013)

Gamolon said:


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



Unfortunately the rational, logical approach not only fails to dent the foil hats of the CT Movement's nutters, it infuriates them. Perhaps a couple of 9 year olds are needed to speak to them in a language they can comprehend.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 21, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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


only one problem with that ....he's  in on it!!


----------



## daws101 (Feb 21, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


thanks, one thing all twoofers lack is a sense of humor.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 21, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


maybe the folks at Mattel can build a set for them, kinda like hot wheels?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 22, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > They mention that "the failed parts gather speed until it impacts the lower parts" This is logical but where is the evidence that these 2 masses met? The impact would have been visibly noticeable, and recordable.
> ...



They are referred to as blocks, and treated as such in many attempts to explain the opposing theories. Again you seem to be asking a lot of questions that you should look to the NIST report for the answers.
I agree that that the "The individual connections and pieces that cannot withstand a certain load will fail first."

Then logically, the "creep" damage that the steel is said to have sustained would produce a slow "creep", partial damage, not go from stable to a simultaneous, global collapse front, producing the rapid collapse times.

Again I'll ask you, where does NIST get their evidence to conclude with such confidence that a  global and total collapse would certainly be initiated?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 22, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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


"His comments reflect the rational, logical POV and Applied Science so sorely missing in your CT..."
There is nothing of the sort in your link. Just more unprovable assumptions.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 22, 2013)

Bottom line is, that NIST was charged with the responsibility of explaining why, and how 3 massive steel buildings "collapsed" and they did not do an adequate job of it, and their guess work has been righteously and  soundly criticized, and there are many instances that have been pointed out that are sorely lacking in scientific evidence to substantiate their hypothesis.
Why is it considered so wrong for others to point this out?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 22, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Tell us what force caused the tons of massive steel components to be ejected hundreds of feet away, even imbedding into other buildings?
> ...



The NIST testing on the mock trusses did not pass the test to support their theory.
The buildings collapsed in too rapid a sequence. NIST says the lower structures would have obviously provided resistance, and they appear to have not provided adequate resistance. I would like to see where NIST explains this in detail, perhaps you could point us to where they do? You seem to know alot about building construction, and the WTC design,, and I'm always willing to examine what ever information can be provided as I'm eager to learn different views on this subject.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> The NIST testing on the mock trusses did not pass the test to support their theory.



Can you please link to the test you are speaking of?



Mr. Jones said:


> The buildings collapsed in too rapid a sequence.



What is rapid to you and what are you basing this claim on? I suppose you have examples of buildings in history that were 100 stories tall, 208' x 208', with a tube in tube design, impacted by jets in the upper third, that show a much slower collapse correct?



Mr. Jones said:


> NIST says the lower structures would have obviously provided resistance, and they appear to have not provided adequate resistance.



Quote or reference please.

I would like to see where NIST explains this in detail, perhaps you could point us to where they do? [/quote]

Again, provide me the quote or reference asked above. I would like to see exactly what you are referring to. Which NIST report does this appear in?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 22, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > The impact damage took out minimal components, and the building redistributed the loads according to the designers plans.
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> The NIST testing on the mock trusses did not pass the test to support their theory.



First of all, they were scaled tests. NIST raises the following question in their report. Chapter 6, page 106.
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build05/PDF/b05042.pdf



> The result stated above raises the question of whether or not a fire rating based on the ASTM E 119 performance of a 17 ft span floor assembly is scalable to a larger floor system such as that found in the WTC towers were spans ranged from 35 ft to 60 ft



Did any of those floor trusses deflect at all during the tests?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 22, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > The NIST testing on the mock trusses did not pass the test to support their theory.
> ...



Again, provide me the quote or reference asked above. I would like to see exactly what you are referring to. Which NIST report does this appear in?[/QUOTE]

Seriously your fucking incredulity is sickening. I don't have the time to do your fucking work for you, especially on a topic you seem so boastful in knowing so much about.
You've been in these discussions before so quit acting stupid and lazy. Look the shit up yourself. I would think that something you are such a staunch defender of, would be readily available for you reference. Unfucking believable, you people...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 22, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Please tell me how, with all your engineering knowledge, an engineer designs a structure in such a way that if a portion of said structure suffers damage, that the remaining components are designed to handle the redistribution of that load.
> 
> That's impossible!
> 
> Are you trying to say that engineers calculate for every possible permutation of a damage scenario and make sure that the building will stay structurally intact?!


 
Impossible? Um...OK...
Buildings are designed to redistribute loads; this was even more so in the WTC towers: NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at *redistributing loads *around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle: increases of 2000% above the design live loads.

WTC Disaster Study


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> NIST admits that only a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. Are you saying that NIST admission and statement is "complete and utter BS?"



No. My quote was in direct response to your assertion that the engineers and designers PLANNED or DESIGNED for the building to redistribute loads from damaged components.



Mr. Jones said:


> The impact damage took out minimal components, and the building redistributed the loads according to the designers plans.



Engineers and designers cannot design for or predict load redistribution when said load redistribution is a random event because it would perpetuate on and on. 

Example.

They run calculations for a random scenario. The remove 14% of the perimeter columns on the east face of floor 80 and then strengthen the rest of the structure to accommodate the load redistribution that occurs from those perimeter columns being removed. What happens if the perimeter columns were removed for 2 floors? 3 floors? What if 20% of the perimeter columns were failed/removed for 3 floors? More calculations and the strengthening of the remaining components. What if an additional two core columns were thrown into the mix? Lets add fire that weakens the components on floor 80 by 30%? Now what? Redesign the remaining components?

Do you see a pattern here?

In essence, your statement that "the buildings redistributed the loads according to the designers plans is BS. 

Tell you what. To prove my point, go ask any engineer to 100% guarantee that any structure they designed will NEVER, EVER collapse do to any circumstance because they looked at every possible damage scenario possible and designed for it.



Mr. Jones said:


> Where do I ever claim to possess "all your engineering knowledge"? that you refer to?
> Nist even claims that the buildings withstood the plane impacts well. The original designers have claimed they would remain standing as well.



They did withstand the impact did they not? Did they remain standing after the planes hit them? For how long? Or are you claiming that when someone refers to an impact event lasts for a period of time?

The towers withstood the impact, but were damaged. They collapsed because of DAMAGE from the impacts and the resultant fire. 

Let's say someone was driving their car. They get hit by another car. They survive the impact but are trapped inside because the doors won't open. The car catches fire and the person trapped inside dies. Did the person die from the actual impact or from the fire?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Impossible? Um...OK...
> Buildings are designed to redistribute loads;



*sigh*

Are structures designed to redistribute loads when they are 100% intact or do engineers run calculations for every possible damage scenario to see how their structure performs regarding load redistribution?



Mr. Jones said:


> this was even more so in the WTC towers: NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at *redistributing loads *around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%.



Right. So what? The loads were redistributed to the OTHER components. Those other components were weakened by fire. You even says the loads were increased up to 35% on some columns. So I ask you. 

If the load was increased by 35% on some columns and those columns were weakened by 50%, are you saying they would still bear the load?



Mr. Jones said:


> The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle: increases of 2000% above the design live loads.
> 
> WTC Disaster Study



2000% for the PERIMETER columns right? Tell me something. Was that 2000% figure derived using undamaged perimeter columns? Was that 2000% figure in reference to wind loads pushing on the side of the UNDAMAGED perimeter column facade?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Seriously your fucking incredulity is sickening. I don't have the time to do your fucking work for you, especially on a topic you seem so boastful in knowing so much about.
> You've been in these discussions before so quit acting stupid and lazy. Look the shit up yourself. I would think that something you are such a staunch defender of, would be readily available for you reference. Unfucking believable, you people...



Right. I'M lazy.

Last time I checked, when someone refers to another party making a statement or claim, they usually provide a reference.

Quite being a jackass and debate properly. You made a claim, I asked for a reference.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 22, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > NIST admits that only a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. Are you saying that NIST admission and statement is "complete and utter BS?"
> ...



WTF? The towers withstood plane impacts, and the initial fireball consumed much of the fuel, within 15-20 minutes-per NIST.
I'm not disputing plane damage, or that there were fires...What the problem is that NIST does not explain how these massive buildings could possibly come down in such short times, They do not explain how these structures below the plane impacts, succumbed in under 15-20 seconds.
They don't explain the how the undamaged structure did not, halt the collapse fronts, or what removed the resistance to allow such rapid descents.
This happened to 3 buildings in one day, with NIST providing only assumptions with nothing to base them on.
That is the main problem. Now if you think you can provide an explanation that NIST failed to provide..have at it.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 22, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Are you trying to say that engineers calculate for every possible permutation of a damage scenario and make sure that the building will stay structurally intact?!





Mr. Jones said:


> No.



Really? You're not?



Mr. Jones said:


> The impact damage took out minimal components, and the *building redistributed the loads according to the designers plans*.



You plainly state above that the redistribution of the loads caused by the damage was according to the designers plans.

Do you not comprehend what you actually write?

What you fail to realize is the following point I repeatedly keep trying to get you to understand.

When an engineer designs a structure, the load redistribution is calculated on the basis that the structure undamaged and functioning properly. They base their calculations on dead and live loads in conjunction with the structural support system being undamaged. 

They do NOT, repeat, NOT calculate load redistribution based on every single possible scenario in which damage may occur.

I suggest you go ask a local structural engineer about this as you are obviously basing your claims with a lack of knowledge. When someone says they "over-designed" a structure, they are referring to the entire structure being undamaged. It doesn't mean you can remove structural components until the load of the remaining components is increased by 2000%.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



First question to begin the explanation.

How long did it take for each of the three buildings to fully collapse from start to end? I'm asking you this, not because I'm lazy, but because people have different ideas as to the collapse time.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> They don't explain the how the undamaged structure did not, halt the collapse fronts, or what removed the resistance to allow such rapid descents.



What was supposed to provide the resistance Mr. Jones? You just admitted previously that the connections floor truss connection would not withstand the force of the debris from above coming down onto it.

The upper "block" descended and impact the first intact floor below it. The weight of the debris/upper block was distributed to the floor truss connections on the perimeter columns and core columns and were sheared. The debris pile continued to the next floor. 

This is actually proven.

Why did the perimeter columns peel away like banana peels? The floor connections were sheared and the debris pile pushed them outwards.

Take a look at this photo:





That is the remnants of the damaged core WITHOUT floors attached to it. The upper potion of the tower turned into a jumbling mass of debris and fell around the ouyside of the core columns, shearing the floor truss connections. The core was not designed to stand on it;s own and collapsed shortly after.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> WTF? The towers withstood plane impacts, and the initial fireball consumed much of the fuel, within 15-20 minutes-per NIST.
> I'm not disputing plane damage, or that there were fires...What the problem is that NIST does not explain how these massive buildings could possibly come down in such short times, They do not explain how these structures below the plane impacts, succumbed in under 15-20 seconds.



Tell you what.

Please describe the initial load redistribution of the upper portion of the tower hitting the lower part below. What components impacted what components. In what sequence did the load of the upper portion of the tower pass through the components below to redistribute the descending load.

Think it through and come back to describe your thoughts.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 22, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously your fucking incredulity is sickening. I don't have the time to do your fucking work for you, especially on a topic you seem so boastful in knowing so much about.
> ...



Do you believe that the NIST theory is correct? If so, based on what?
You have tried to use the pile driver theory, and you wish to include debris that is obviously being ejected away from the tower.
You assume the trusses gave way, I'm assuming because of the "intense" heat from fire.
So where is the proof that the fires did this? The NIST testing failed.
I simply would like you to point out what they have stated that causes you to believe that these massive buildings would succumb to a total collapse in the short times witnessed?

Newtons third law, states that the forces between two contacting objects will be equal and opposite. The top damaged part would have to overcome the lower part it contacts right? Then so on and so forth on the way down correct?
If you agree with this,then you would agree that if the impact is enough to destroy the upper story of the *lower *section it will also destroy the lower story of the *upper *section.?

Also...If we are to believe that the lower floor of the upper damaged section was so overcome by tremendous heat from fire...then when this fire damaged section collides with the first floor of the undamaged lower section....which do you think would sustain the most damage and bend more easily? The undamaged section of the lower or the fire damaged section of the upper?
It does not make sense to assume that this upper section, that had to be at least glowing red hot, or close to it, to just give way, would not further deform due to it being more soft and pliable..when the 2 come into contact...

Bottom line is that these 2 forces would be expected to produce an observable halt or hesitation, and watching the antennae it does not produce a noticeable "jolt" as it has been described.
There is no halting, of the tops, as  what is left of them made their way through the buildings. 
Other glaring oddities is the explosive nature of the collapses, that ejected much debris away from the collapse fronts.
This further reinforces the belief that some other force was used to facilitate the collapses. 

Each floor had to have provided at least some resistance, especially when you consider that the lower undamaged parts were built with thicker steel components.
To have each one of the towers come down in under 15-20 seconds does not make sense, and to have NIST state that they are absolutely positively sure that no FF would occur, regarding WTC 7, and then they had to admit to it, but without so much as an explanation?? Actually NIST spokesman does refer to the collapses at one point, as "essentially FF"...

And you find nothing unusual about these matters at all? I would hope that you share with us why not?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 22, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > WTF? The towers withstood plane impacts, and the initial fireball consumed much of the fuel, within 15-20 minutes-per NIST.
> ...


 It does not appear to have any load redistribution. The upper goes right on through the lower. Do you not understand what the fuck is being discussed here?
 The question to you is, since you believe this is possible, without any resistive hesitation,  being put forth by the lower part, and collapsing in 15-20 seconds..How can this be?
What does NIST tell you that makes their theory so convincing?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Newtons third law, states that the forces between two contacting objects will be equal and opposite. The top damaged part would have to overcome the lower part it contacts right?



How does Newton's third law apply to a complex object comprised of entities which have varying load/stress limits?

Please explain how you can use Newton's third law to predict the results of two complex object's as described above?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 22, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Are you trying to say that engineers calculate for every possible permutation of a damage scenario and make sure that the building will stay structurally intact?!
> ...



Question...Did the WTC designers take into account plane impacts? Multiple plane impacts of 707's?
The answer is yes. They had doubts about the fires, but assured all that plane impacts were taken into consideration.
WTF, Do you not understand about what I am asking you?
What in the NIST report is so convincing to you, that you believe the 3 buildings would fall in the short collapse times that they did? Simple fucking question? At least I think it is...


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> It does not appear to have any load redistribution.



If there was no resistance whatsoever, why did it take longer than the time an object in freefall would have taken to reach the ground from the top of one of the towers for the towers to completely collapse?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 22, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Newtons third law, states that the forces between two contacting objects will be equal and opposite. The top damaged part would have to overcome the lower part it contacts right?
> ...



What makes you say they are complex objects? NIST and Bazant refer to them as "blocks"
Segments tied/welded/bolted together to work as one..
They clearly define them as 2 separate objects, one damaged one not. One smaller then the other...with the smaller becoming more powerful then the larger, enough so that it drove into the larger with enough force to cause collapses in 15-20 seconds?
Explain how this could be so? It is what you believe isn't it?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Question...Did the WTC designers take into account plane impacts? Multiple plane impacts of 707's?
> The answer is yes. They had doubts about the fires, but assured all that plane impacts were taken into consideration.
> WTF, Do you not understand about what I am asking you?
> What in the NIST report is so convincing to you, that you believe the 3 buildings would fall in the short collapse times that they did? Simple fucking question? At least I think it is...



Questions for you.

What was the speed of the plane they used in the calculation?
Is there a force difference between a 707 and a 767 impacting the towers?
Was fire considered IN CONJUNCTION with the plane impacts?

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that it was plane impacts AND fire that caused the initiation of the collapse?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 22, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > It does not appear to have any load redistribution.
> ...



I never claimed FF. Just a severe lacking of proof of insufficient resistance. FF is said to be 9.22 seconds...Why was there not enough resistance to even see a discernible halt or hesitation of the antennae? 
Why hasn't NIST answered these questions?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 22, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Question...Did the WTC designers take into account plane impacts? Multiple plane impacts of 707's?
> ...



I'm not. It is clear that the towers stood after impacts, NIST has said they did quite well in that regard, They also said initial fuel was quickly consumed after impact in the fireballs.
Why do keep ignoring that NIST has no credible evidence that the fires, after impact were indeed capable of distorting the steel, and that the undamaged lower sections were only capable of providing "minimal resistance"?
Why do you insist on defending a theory that has been shown to be so suspect?
What have you to say regarding what I am asking?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Why did the antenna shift sideways?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Why do keep ignoring that NIST has no credible evidence that the fires, after impact were indeed capable of distorting the steel,



No evidence?!

I'll make this real easy for you.

At what temperature does steel start to lose it's strength? After the initial temperature, give some percentages of loss as the temperature climbs.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Feb 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Seriously your fucking incredulity is sickening. I don't have the time to do your fucking work for you, especially on a topic you seem so boastful in knowing so much about.
You've been in these discussions before so quit acting stupid and lazy. Look the shit up yourself. I would think that something you are such a staunch defender of, would be readily available for you reference. Unfucking believable, you people...[/QUOTE]this post just screams irony


----------



## daws101 (Feb 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Please tell me how, with all your engineering knowledge, an engineer designs a structure in such a way that if a portion of said structure suffers damage, that the remaining components are designed to handle the redistribution of that load.
> ...


hey jones do us all a favor and stop using the term admits or admitted. 
you have no proof that they held anything back or are guilty of any crime.
the nist reports are statements of fact not admissions of wrong doing.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 22, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Why do keep ignoring that NIST has no credible evidence that the fires, after impact were indeed capable of distorting the steel,
> ...



Yes no evidence. Where is the NIST evidence that shows the temp was elevated locally in regards to where the collapse initiated?

Do you not understand that steel when heated, distributes the heat away from the flame contact point and spreads it out? This can be observed and proven by the pictures of the woman standing in the vicinity of one of the p[lanes impact holes.
I'm asking again what you have that substantiates the NIST theory?


----------



## PredFan (Feb 22, 2013)

The reason I believe the NIST report is simply because it isn't perfect. It can be attacked for inconsistancies and holes in it can be found. This is EXACTLY what a sensible person would expect from an investigation after the fact when the investigating body has NO KNOWLEDGE beforehand what happened. They have to forensically investigate and they don't have all the answers. That is how things happen in the real world. Now, if they would have explained in detail everything that happened, down to minor details, had an answer for everything, then and only then would there be reason to be suspicious.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 22, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Newtons third law, states that the forces between two contacting objects will be equal and opposite. The top damaged part would have to overcome the lower part it contacts right?
> ...


he can't, like most all twoofers he uses the if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bullshit method.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 22, 2013)

Still waiting for anyone who can answer or point to the specifics in the NIST theory that positively concludes 3 collapses in one day is to be expected...
I notice the usual clown remarking but like always has nothing of relevance to contribute...

You people are such staunch believers, I would have thought the key points and data would have been posted right away...What's the hold up?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


"Did the WTC designers take into account plane impacts? Multiple plane impacts of 707's?"The answer is yes."-sister jones 


wrong! the designers made calculations based on a mathematical theory, they never did real time testing on scale models or computer modeling  to test the theory's validity 
in other words it was a guesstimation


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 22, 2013)

PredFan said:


> The reason I believe the NIST report is simply because it isn't perfect. It can be attacked for inconsistancies and holes in it can be found. This is EXACTLY what a sensible person would expect from an investigation after the fact when the investigating body has NO KNOWLEDGE beforehand what happened. They have to forensically investigate and they don't have all the answers. That is how things happen in the real world. Now, if they would have explained in detail everything that happened, down to minor details, had an answer for everything, then and only then would there be reason to be suspicious.



How is it possible for NIST to attach itself to a theory that was drawn up in only 2 days after the attacks, that included never before in history collapses in 15-20 seconds of 1/4 mile high steel buildings, and another 47 story tall one that wasn't hit by a plane?
This was supposed to be so complex and took years to make final reports on....
How come they still don't provide any proof that the theory is sound?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Still waiting for anyone who can answer or point to the specifics in the NIST theory that positively concludes 3 collapses in one day is to be expected...
> I notice the usual clown remarking but like always has nothing of relevance to contribute...
> 
> You people are such staunch believers, I would have thought the key points and data would have been posted right away...What's the hold up?


please point out where in the nist report it states that three collapses were expected when no one could have known that until after they collapsed..


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



You mean like the NIST guesstimations, that when put to further analysis fail?
STFU loser like always you have nothing.

What in the NIST report is so convincing to you, that you believe the 3 buildings would fall in the short collapse times that they did?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for anyone who can answer or point to the specifics in the NIST theory that positively concludes 3 collapses in one day is to be expected...
> ...



Why? You have made a point of not reading anything, and confusing yourself many times. Even thinking the Bazant theory was a "steaming pile" unless I proved to you other wise! 
Go play in traffic loser, your in over your head as always...


----------



## daws101 (Feb 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > The reason I believe the NIST report is simply because it isn't perfect. It can be attacked for inconsistancies and holes in it can be found. This is EXACTLY what a sensible person would expect from an investigation after the fact when the investigating body has NO KNOWLEDGE beforehand what happened. They have to forensically investigate and they don't have all the answers. That is how things happen in the real world. Now, if they would have explained in detail everything that happened, down to minor details, had an answer for everything, then and only then would there be reason to be suspicious.
> ...


wtc7 was hit by debris from the tower collapse and burned because of it.
your intentional misstatement(" 47 story tall one that wasn't hit by a plane?"-sister jones) 
falsely infers that something others the planes initiated all three collapses. 
you have no evidence to prove this .


----------



## daws101 (Feb 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


dodge !

question sister jones: what evidence do you have that the collapse times were not just what they should be for building of their sizes?
as far as I know there is no company or government entity that demos buildings for the express propose timing collapses.
that being said, there is no comparative data to say if the collapse times were different then they should have been.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


there you go as always lying ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Many other buildings were hit with tower debris, and burned as well yet no collapses, no FF. NIST has not shown substantiated proof to back up their collapse theory, and you haven't provided any reasons either.
Your belief in a theory you know nothing about speaks volumes...Still think the Bazant theory is a "steaming pile"? Loser?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


I love it when you rationalize.
as to the other lie you keep telling, I never said  it was steaming pile.
what I did say was you need to prove the Bazant theory is a steaming pile.
you gain nothing by repeating that false interpretation.
wherever credibility or reputational damage you imagine it's done to me  is just that imaginary.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



There can be no reputation damage done to you anymore, as you have no credibility anyway.




daws101 said:


> *btw: the Bazant hypothesis. is just that .
> where are the test results to prove the hypothesis is fact not a steaming pile.
> oh that's right! you have none.*



*BTW, the bazant hypothesis. is just that. *(meaning it is indeed just a hypothesis)

*where are the test results to prove the hypothesis is fact not a steaming pile.*
(you are asking me where these tests results are that prove the hypothesis (Bazants hypothesis) are factual and not some steaming pile.

*oh that's right you have none.*
(that's right idiot, I have no test results that prove Bazants hypothesis is factual or plausible or reasonable and some would indeed call it a steaming pile)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6822231-post894.html

You are an extreme idiot. You had no clue...Not even regarding the "jolt" that was mentioned...You thought it was from the plane....Fucking loser...get lost...


----------



## PredFan (Feb 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > The reason I believe the NIST report is simply because it isn't perfect. It can be attacked for inconsistancies and holes in it can be found. This is EXACTLY what a sensible person would expect from an investigation after the fact when the investigating body has NO KNOWLEDGE beforehand what happened. They have to forensically investigate and they don't have all the answers. That is how things happen in the real world. Now, if they would have explained in detail everything that happened, down to minor details, had an answer for everything, then and only then would there be reason to be suspicious.
> ...



I don't know. But that is my point. If the government was trying to hide something then they'd have dotted all their "i"s and crossed all their "t"s. They didn't know ahead of time and they did their usual shitty government job.

There is no conspiracy.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 22, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Are you trying to say that engineers calculate for every possible permutation of a damage scenario and make sure that the building will stay structurally intact?!
> ...





You would think this guy would know what those buildings were designed to withstand...

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


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 22, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Question...Did the WTC designers take into account plane impacts? Multiple plane impacts of 707's?
> ...



[Building designer] John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. *There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. But, he says, The building structure would still be there."
*
The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with *a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour.* Analysis indicates that such collision would *result in only local damage which could not cause collapse* or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 22, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Yes there is. It is the official conspiracy theory that does not make sense, can not be proved in many ways,  including scientifically, or physically.
When you say "government" it implies many people as being involved, when this may not have been needed to be the case at all.


----------



## PredFan (Feb 22, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



You are trying to get me to disbelieve the government's story because it has holes in it but you're asking me to believe a theory that has many more and larger holes?

Sorry, Occam's Razor applies here.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 22, 2013)

American Society of Civil Engineers,
 Society of Fire Protection Engineers, 
National Fire Protection Association,
 American Institute of Steel Construction, 
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., 
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, 
Structural Engineers Association of New York.


What is this? Why it is some of the companies/organizations that assisted the NIST in their report.



Who is it that helped the truthers prepare their official report? Oh wait, they don't have one do they.....

Need we know more?


----------



## Wroberson (Feb 22, 2013)

Sorry.  I could only watch 15 minutes.  All that stuff doesn't prove anything or show complicity.

There's only a few things you need to find out who did this and why.

1.  Read the page too: Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq? - CBS News
2.  Go find the Iraqi oil contracts prior to 2001.  Every country was represented except 1.  The U.S.A.
3.  Commerce Department's Dick Cheney's Oil Map.

1a.  Show with spoken words of a witness at the meeting, that removing Saddam Hussein was a top priority of the Bush, W. Administration.

2a.  Shows the reason why Removing Hussein was a top priority. Destroying Iraq would cancel any existing oil contracts.

3a.  Show how the Iraqi oil fields were eventually divided up through contracts to US and US allies.  

It's this simple without all the clutter.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 22, 2013)

Wroberson said:


> Sorry.  I could only watch 15 minutes.  All that stuff doesn't prove anything or show complicity.
> 
> There's only a few things you need to find out who did this and why.
> 
> ...



Horse shit. All that was needed to restart the Iraqi war was one plane to get shot down. That would have been so simple to fake that even you could have done it. They certainly didn't need all the bullshit that did lead up to it.

And do tell us who has all that Iraqi oil again?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Please tell me how, with all your engineering knowledge, an engineer designs a structure in such a way that if a portion of said structure suffers damage, that the remaining components are designed to handle the redistribution of that load.
> ...



Typical disinfo. Your link is to NIST while your quote comes from a loony tunes 9/11 "truther" web site.
All you prove with your shrill half-truths, distortions and fabrications is that you and your "cause" are full of shit and I thank you for that. Gamolon's point remains unchallenged: it is impossible to engineer a building to withstand all catastrophies.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously your fucking incredulity is sickening. I don't have the time to do your fucking work for you, especially on a topic you seem so boastful in knowing so much about.
> ...



He did provide a reference, sort of.
His quote was from a 9/11 "truther" site but his link was to NIST. A typically lame attempt to add credibility to his CT silliness.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



You have made it painfully obvious the buildings collapsed from the top down (not from the bottom as in a controlled demo) *after being slammed by jetliners carrying thousands of gallons of fuel and hours of fierce fires*. Sista Jones ingores all that and clings to the bogus notion that the structures were built to withstand all catastrophies. You may as well be talking to a wall.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



They were not felled in 15-20 seconds but rather after hours of damage from the fires. A 10 year old could grasp this fact.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> You would think this guy would know what those buildings were designed to withstand...
> 
> Frank A. DeMartini - YouTube





GuyPinestra said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



It seems you guys decided to ignore these, so I thought I'd repeat myself...


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Question...Did the WTC designers take into account plane impacts? Multiple plane impacts of 707's?
> ...



Because his CT falls apart when all the facts are considered.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> American Society of Civil Engineers,
> Society of Fire Protection Engineers,
> National Fire Protection Association,
> American Institute of Steel Construction,
> ...



And those organizations conducted much of the investigation but obviously they were all in on the "conspiracy."


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> American Society of Civil Engineers,
> Society of Fire Protection Engineers,
> National Fire Protection Association,
> American Institute of Steel Construction,
> ...



Sure they do. Just puruse the Internet and you'll find dozens of official, often conflicting, "truther" reports.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > You would think this guy would know what those buildings were designed to withstand...
> ...



The buildings did survive the impacts and the answer to your question is obvious ... he was wrong about the fire damage. He had no way of knowing how long or how hot those fires would burn and must have assumed they would be extinguished before weakening the structure. The buildings did indeed collapse, Princess.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Listen up, Doofus...


> *There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. But, he says, The building structure would still be there."
> *



hor·ren·dous  
/h&#601;&#712;rend&#601;s/
Adjective
Extremely unpleasant, horrifying, or terrible: "she suffered horrendous injuries".
Synonyms
terrible - grisly - awful - dire - frightful - dreadful

You're trying to tell me he " had no way of knowing how long or how hot those fires would burn"?

Get real, Princess...


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

Wroberson said:


> Sorry.  I could only watch 15 minutes.  All that stuff doesn't prove anything or show complicity.
> 
> There's only a few things you need to find out who did this and why.
> 
> ...



You seem to be saying it was an inside job to facilitate the war in Iraq.
If that was true why take all the risk necessary to conduct such an elaborate black op?
A truck load of explosives at the base of the core would have done the trick without "all the clutter."
Better yet, planting evidence of WMD's in Iraq, an eminently simpler plan, would have created the same justification without smacking Afghanistan. 
Finally, your theory fails when the reality of trying to organize and conduct such an attack on America is applied.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



Nice word. Do you have anything which shows he did know?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Just the English language, idiot...


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



Fine, Princess, but he did not say the structures could withstand horrific fires now did he? Want to know why? Because they could not.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Yes, he did...



> There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. But, he says, *"The building structure would still be there."*


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



He was wrong......... Besides big difference in a 707 and a 767....


----------



## PredFan (Feb 23, 2013)

10-20-50 years down the road, if anyone is talking about this at all it will be no different than today. The truthers will have proven nothing, disproven nothing, and will still refuse to see reason.

It's like the Kennedy Assassination. Everyone else has moved on except the fringe.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 23, 2013)

Pretty much......


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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



Big difference, huh??

To summarize the aircraft:
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

The Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.

Since the Boeing 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio, it would be traveling faster on take-off and on landing.
The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 707 is 4 x 18,000/336,000 = 0.214286.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 767 is 2 x 31,500/395,000 = 0.159494.

In all the likely variations of an accidental impact with the WTC, the Boeing 707 would be traveling faster. In terms of impact damage, this higher speed would more than compensate for the slightly lower weight of the Boeing 707.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

PredFan said:


> 10-20-50 years down the road, if anyone is talking about this at all it will be no different than today. The truthers will have proven nothing, disproven nothing, and will still refuse to see reason.
> 
> It's like the Kennedy Assassination. Everyone else has moved on except the fringe.



You do know that the government has withheld until 2017 the release of ALL info, right?

You might be interested in learning that even then those records can be withheld indefinitely.


> In addition, according to Section 5(g)(2)(D) of the Act, all records in the Kennedy Collection will be opened by 2017 *unless certified as justifiably closed by the President of the United States.*


Frequently Asked Questions

It's been 50+ years since Kennedy's assassination and they're STILL hiding shit!


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



No, he didn't say the structures could withstand horrific fires, he said "horrendous fire."
The point being his description was subjective and in the case of the horrific 9/11 fires, incorrect.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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





> horrific
> adjective
> extremely disturbing or repellent <horrific images of torture that shocked the conscience of the world>
> Synonyms appalling, atrocious, awful, dreadful, frightful, ghastly, grisly, gruesome (also grewsome), hideous, *horrendous*, horrid, horrific, horrifying, lurid, macabre, monstrous, nightmare, nightmarish, shocking, terrible, terrific



Keep digging...


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



The 707s in use when the tests were conducted had a max take-off weight of 257,000 lbs ... about 40% less of that of the 767. 
Guessing the speed which the study used or the max speed of the jets is irrelevant. Both buildings survived the impacts, just as the study projected. 
So how hot and for how long was the "horrendous" fire in that study expected to burn?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



My point remains untouched. The description is subjective. How hot and for how long was the "horrendous" fire in that study expected to burn, Princess?

Keep deflecting.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



What, no link? Show me...


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Until all available fuel was consumed, however long that may take.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



I provided the same link to my info that you did to yours, Princess.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



Really? How did the authors of that now 6 decade old study know how much fuel (combustibles) would be in the Towers on 9/11/2001 and how long and hot they would burn? I have been unable to access that study at all. Could you provide the link?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



The only difference being that your info is incorrect. Your info is for the 1954 707 prototype, known as the Dash-80, while my info is for the 707-320, which was produced from 1958...

Boeing 707 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Boeing 707 - Specifications - Technical Data / Description (english)


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 23, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



The simplest and more logical explanation as to how the mass of the buildings were taken out of the equation, thereby facilitating the unusually fast descents
in 15-20 seconds, has not even been properly evaluated, or even considered, by NIST.
They refused to look at the simplest explanation. Their testing shows their theory highly unlikely, they used data figures that are unreasonable, and in other cases completely hide the data from replication altogether.
This was not a scientific report. That is why there is opposition to them and why there are papers that show the flaws within their guesses, and theory.
The alternative theory ultimately points to something else assisting the demise of the buildings, and that in it self opens the case to other means and other people, which is exactly what they do not want to be even discussed.
They themselves do not apply Occam's Razor test to their own theory.
There are more then just holes in it, there are outright fabrications, that are used to support a theory that is in line with other policies, that have been planned, discussed, and were implemented using the 9-11 attacks as a starting point.
If you do not know the details, then maybe you should look into them.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



This point you defend is simply another strawman. I simply pointed out that the WTC towers were designed with plane impacts in mind. Continue reading, you are not even close to understanding yet...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Your statement is a lie in an attempt to make it appear as though I said what you imply.
Your "thousands of gallons of fuel" have been proved by NIST themselves to have been consumed shortly after impact, and your " and hours of fierce fires" have also been debunked as wild exaggeration numerous times through the years discussing this topic.
The towers withstood impacts,
The towers burned for extremely low times, with low temps.
The NIST guess/theory is not correct given these facts.
You call what I post bogus, but you never substantiate why. Your attempt to use the exaggerations that NIST used, fails.
The structures were designed with plane impacts in mind period, and they did their job.
Now do you want to explain what in the NIST reports lead you to assume that collapse was a forgone conclusion because they sure haven't.

If you believe in their theory, then post the details of of what you believe in, and why.


----------



## Rozman (Feb 23, 2013)

The amount of explosives needed to take out one of the towers would have to be substantial I would guess.Now we are supposed to believe that both towers and 7 WTC  were loaded with explosives...
were these buildings loaded with explosives just in case a few planes happened to crash into them..

Oh wait a second,you guys are saying the whole event,the planes and the explosives were all part of this big conspiracy...

I'm going to take a nap now...

Maybe you guys can work on this a bit more...make it a little more believable.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



And a 5 year old could grasp that we are referring to collapse times idiot, Now if you think you can provide an explanation that the NIST failed to provide.regaring these unusually fast times with regards to their mass, and energy .have at it.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



No it is your crazy CY that is being exposed and falls apart when all the facts available are considered jackass. Please...explain what in the report solidifies the imminent collapse of the towers, and building 7.
You support their theory, so go ahead and post what is in it that makes you such a staunch supporter..And try not to use wildly exaggerated terms as those have already been addressed and shown to be BS.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



Straw Man? You dishonestly posted an NIST link to a loony Tunes 9/11 "truther" web site statement and we both know why ... you hoped to give the statement credibility.

The Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 1960s Boeing 707 and they endured the impact of much larger and heavier 767s and remained intact until the fires did the dirty deed. How is it you never seem to remember that small fact and continue repeating the same old silly story? Could it be in your heart of hearts you, like most peeps, know you and your movement are frauds?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Just guessing here, Princess, but 'typical office contents' of furniture, carpets and paper wouldn't change much over 50 (not 60) years. It would be reasonable to assume that they expected full occupancy of the building, wouldn't it?

Then consider that on 9/11/2001 those buildings were at less than full occupancy, empty rooms having much less flammable materials in them than full ones.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



There you go with your bullshit again. I posted the comparative specs of both airframes, you quoted it and TRIED to dispute it, I proved you in error and you STILL stick to your disproven bullshit.

You're a LIAR, SAYIT, and an obvious one, at that.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



You have to reference the NIST report to understand that the fires temp was not alleviated for the length of time to cause the kind of damage to the steel that they claimed started the collapses. Nist admits the majority was consumed in the fireballs, and only sporadic fires persisted due to regular office combustibles.
You lack the brains to understand this, or purposefully leaving it out of the equation.
You mentioned weakening of the structure. This is what should have occurred, but only locally, therefore a slow "creep" and hesitating, and at times halting collapse should have ensued. Not the exploding, ejecting, dustificating one we saw, that progressed seemingly unimpeded in such short collapse times....in both buildings.

Explain what in the NIST report leads you believe this was imminent?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



What in the NIST report solidifies the collapse of those buildings?
Gee, Princess, could it be the fact that they did, indeed, collapse?
And as always you conclude with utter BS.
It's not that I support the Commission's conclusions but rather that the shrill, desperate, dishonest silliness of your 9/11 CT movement pales in comparison.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Ah the troll finally concedes, and looks the fool he/it it is..No he was unsure regarding the fire, but just the fact that they stood reinforces how they were designed to withstand plane impacts. Now if only you could back up your description of the fires being so horrific, that they would cause a total global collapse, in both towers. Perhaps point to where in the NIST reports they convince you of this....It's laughable that you try to use the exaggerating tactics that they did on a bunch of skeptics that can show you were their theory and work is flawed... LOL!


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 23, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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



Really how so? Everything NIST has claimed has been rebutted, and better theories have been put forth.
Again you never mention what in their reports quantify the WTC buildings should have behaved the way they did on 9-11. You use every tactic, unprovable exaggerations, and words, but I haven't seen anything that is convincing.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



The hours of fierce fires has not been debunked and they did not burn "for extremely low times, with low temps."


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 23, 2013)

PredFan said:


> 10-20-50 years down the road, if anyone is talking about this at all it will be no different than today. The truthers will have proven nothing, disproven nothing, and will still refuse to see reason.
> 
> It's like the Kennedy Assassination. Everyone else has moved on except the fringe.



It's way past time to continue to allow them to write their own history based on their own unprovable facts. It has been proven that this nation is run by lying criminals. If you aren't aware of this yet don't assume others are just as stupid and gullible as yourself.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



You must now learn about the effects of fire on steel, and how steel spreads the heat to other attached parts of it, thus providing a cooling effect. There is no doubt that something provided the high temps required to destroy the steel at the WTC, but historically asymmetric office fires do not and never have cause such rapid, total global exploding collapses.
There have been other steel hirise buildings subjected to worse temps, for longer durations, that have never totally collapsed, producing rubble pile fires in excess of 12-15oo degrees that lasted for 100 days. 
Now what was in those buildings that produced such extreme temps?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



Didn't want you to miss this one, troll...


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



You are wrong again, Princess. They are the 707-120B stats and they are from your Wikipedia link: 
"The first flight of the &#8722;120B was on June 22, 1960 and American carried the first passengers in March 1961; the last delivery was to American in April 1969. Maximum weight was 258,000 lb." 
The 707 Dash had an even lower max take-off weight.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



You'll have to do better then just say you observed their collapses. We all did, and that is what does not make scientific or physical sense.
But you'll have to study such things as the fuel loads within the buildings, the fire temp, and intensity, how the buildings steel components react to one another when the collide, how long it should take for the smaller damaged parts to overcome the larger, denser undamaged lower sections, etc..But these are things you have already admitted to "not understanding" so why are you still here defending something that you admit you don't understand?
You have plenty of derogatory things to say about the alternative views we offer, but when asked to get into any details you are just a weak cheerleader with nothing to back up his name calling or his assertions...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Show us where you got the info to justify making such a claim then. Historically other buildings have burned longer, and hotter and never suffered a complete, total exploding collapse.
How long did the towers burn for Sayit? How many "hours"?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



We could use less of your guessing and assumptions and more facts, don't you agree? You are using a 20 year old subjective comment (horrendous fire) based on a now 50 (sorry) year old study in a lame attempt to prove the Towers should not have collapsed. 
Here's a hot news tip, Princess ... they did.
Now if you would be so good as to produce that study we can intelligently argue its merits.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



Not only did your source not prove me wrong, it proved me correct.
Doesn't that make you the liar, Princess?
The study was conducted in the early 1960s.
The max take-off weight of the 767 is 395,000 lbs.
"The first flight of the 707&#8722;120B was on June 22, 1960 and American carried the first passengers in March 1961; the last delivery was to American in April 1969. Maximum weight was 258,000 lb."


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



What better theories would that be?
I don't have to prove that the official investigating authorities are correct, I accept their report.  You do not accept it and have zero proof that they are wrong. You have opinion and conjecture. Not proof. Show me one piece of det wire. Show me one beam cut by anything other than the torches used during cleanup. Show me a cooled pool of molten steel. Get us one whistle blower who was in on planting the explosives or covering up the investigation.... You got shit.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Your alluding to some kind of a debate victory is hollow, as you have been proven a less then worthy opponent. Fuck the plane crashes, the buildings withstood them, and NIST admits that only a minimal amount of structure was taken out or damaged anyway, so they had to move on to the fires, and how they effected the steel.
Why don't you stop avoiding the question I keep asking you, and that is what in the NIST report, that was supposed to explain how these behemoths were felled completely in 15-20 seconds. (10 secs, according to the 9-11 Commission report, but we all know that report is lacking and full of shit)

Lets get to heart of the matter. Do you think you are capable of following along as we show you what the fuss has been all about?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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





> The 707-120 was the first production 707 variant, with a longer, wider fuselage, and greater wingspan than the Dash-80. The cabin had a full set of rectangular windows and could seat up to 179 passengers.[28] It was designed for transcontinental routes and often required a refueling stop on the North Atlantic. It had four Pratt & Whitney JT3C-6 turbojets, civil versions of the military J57, initially producing 13,000 lb (57.8 kN) with water injection. Maximum takeoff weight was 247,000 lb and first flight was on December 20, 1957. Major orders were the launch order for 20 707-121 aircraft by Pan American and an American Airlines order for 30 707-123 aircraft. The first revenue flight was on October 26, 1958.[29] *56 were built, plus 7 short body &#8722;138s; the last &#8722;120 was delivered to Western in May 1960.*





> The 707-320 Intercontinental is a stretched version of the turbojet-powered 707-120, initially powered by JT4A-3 or JT4A-5 turbojets producing 15,800 lb (70.1 kN) each (most eventually got 17,500 lb (78.4 kN) JT4A-11s). The interior allowed up to 189 passengers due to an 80-inch (2,000 mm) fuselage stretch ahead of the wing (from 138 ft 10 in (42.32 m) to 145 ft 6 in), with extensions to the fin and horizontal stabilizer extending the aircraft's length further.[30] The longer wing carried more fuel, increasing range by 1,600 miles (2,600 km) and allowing the aircraft to operate as true transoceanic aircraft. The wing modifications included outboard and inboard inserts, as well as a kink in the trailing edge to add area inboard.[16] Takeoff weight was increased to 302,000 lb (137,000 kg) initially and to 312,000 lb (142,000 kg) with the higher-rated JT4A's and centre section tanks. First flight was on January 11, 1958; *69 turbojet 707-320s were delivered through January 1963, the first passengers being carried (by Pan Am) in August 1959.*



Paying attention helps to complete the picture, something you try very hard NOT to do.

Your 707-120 was discontinued by 1960.

The 707-320 continued production through the 1980's.

The WTC towers were in design in 1964, long after the demise of the 120, and in the heyday of the 320.

Which plane do you think they designed the building to withstand again?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 23, 2013)

Sagging trusses, the buildings being pulled in.......

Got any explanations for this other than what the official investigations have shown?

And you can't deny it because it is visible evidence. The buildings bowed inward.

Plus if I remember correctly there was someone on the 105th floor who reported to a 911 operator that floors below him had collapsed 20 minutes before the buildings came down.... Now I don't remember where I heard that and don't know how he could have known this but it is interesting....


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 23, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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


----------



## PredFan (Feb 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Again you can easily find problems with the NIST report. BUT no one has come up with a simpler or more logical explanation, so Occam's Razor does in fact apply.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 23, 2013)

> The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.



NAE Website - Reflections on the World Trade Center


Reflections on the World Trade Center
Author: Leslie E. Robertson


ooops!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


----------



## PredFan (Feb 23, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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



Their whole theory is based on the fact that the NIST report isn't air-tight. It's relatively easy to point out inconsistancies. Heck, they even make many of them up, but my point is that their theories are even more improbable and if they spent 1/1000th of the effort debunking their own conspiracy theories as they do on the NIST, this thread wouldn't exist.


----------



## Paulie (Feb 23, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> > The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Jet fuel does not burn at steel melting temps.  That's one of the good arguments from the CT crowd...the smoke was indicative of a fire burning relatively cool, and to argue that there was substantial jet fuel left after the initial explosions from impact is foolish.  The ensuing fireballs was the combustion of the fuel.  I was a firefighter in my younger days and I completed NJ certified fire school, so I would consider myself be somewhat credible in knowledge on this aspect.

I don't really care either way on this, I have no dog in this hunt.  I have no idea why the towers collapsed and have no real theory on it...but to claim that it was because of jet fuel is naive.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



Once more for the belligerently ignorant: 
The first flight of the &#8722;*[707]-120B* was on June 22, 1960 and *American carried the first passengers in March 1961; the last delivery was to American in April 1969. Maximum weight was 258,000 lb (117,025 kg) for both the long and short body versions*.
I believe it was your brain that was discontinued in 1960 but this conversation would go better if we could stop guessing and judge the actual facts. Did you find a link to that study?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Ah, the 120*B*. My previous statement was based on the 120. 





> The 707-120 was the first production 707 variant, with a longer, wider fuselage, and greater wingspan than the Dash-80. The cabin had a full set of rectangular windows and could seat up to 179 passengers.[28] It was designed for transcontinental routes and often required a refueling stop on the North Atlantic. It had four Pratt & Whitney JT3C-6 turbojets, civil versions of the military J57, initially producing 13,000 lb (57.8 kN) with water injection. Maximum takeoff weight was 247,000 lb and first flight was on December 20, 1957. Major orders were the launch order for 20 707-121 aircraft by Pan American and an American Airlines order for 30 707-123 aircraft. The first revenue flight was on October 26, 1958.[29] 56 were built, plus 7 short body &#8722;138s; *the last &#8722;120 was delivered to Western in May 1960.*


It seems BOTH planes were in production simultaneously, then. But your assertion that the 120B is the plane they designed for when the 320 was in higher production AND capable of non-stop trans-Atlantic flight sounds a bit ludicrous to me, considering that NY/NJ airports handled the VAST majority of those flights.

And fuck your link, you don't provide them, neither will I.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 23, 2013)

Paulie said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > > The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.
> ...



But it is only the truthers who claim that steel melted........And what all did those fireballs set on fire?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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




Ignoring my link to what was really said about the the planes crashing?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



What are you hoping to gain or prove with this. The fact is the towers were hit with a comparable aircraft, that were not fully loaded with fuel. The jetfuel/kerosene was consumed in the fireballs. The buildings still stood. NIST admits only minimal structure was taken out.
That leaves the fires as the main reason, and we've tried to explain to you how that theory is lacking but you people evade the points with worn out talking points and ols material.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 23, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



It was all over the place that the steel melted, then you all changed your tune when that was proved bogus, it wasn't us that started that line of BS. Again it is up to you to explain the fire and what it did. It is the theory that you back up, so show why we should believe it. We've already explained and shown why we have our positions, and you claim you don't understand them so why are you continuing with this debate?
You can
t show we are wrong by your admitting to not understanding what we're talking about about so where are you trying to go with this?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

Paulie said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > > The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.
> ...



Who said anything about melted steel? According to the Tower's lead structural engineer "The damage created by the impact of the aircraft was followed by raging fires, which were enormously enhanced by the fuel aboard the aircraft. The temperatures above the impact zones must have been unimaginable..." 
Nobody mentioned melted steel - just weakened enough to cause the collapse.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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



Nope, but I give more credence to DeMartini and Skilling, since they were involved firsthand with the design and construction and aren't speaking based on suppositions.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Again in the days and weeks following the attacks, it was mentioned that the steel must have melted due to the "horrific" fires caused by the "jetfuel". The propagandists and the crowd of ignorant followers changed that tune and now you all say that it merely weakened, but then you must still answer for the way the steel was effected, how it would "creep" along slowly, and if it even failed, would produce a halting, staggered partial collapse.
This is what you do not even come close to touching. Both you and Ollie have claimed ignorance on these matters, so if you don't know shit about what is being discussed, how can you even participate in any rational debate?

Weakening is no better of an excuse, and does not absolve any responsibility in trying to explain what I mentioned above. Now are you capable of engaging in a debate regarding this or not?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



For one thing, the incessant lying by you 9/11 CTs proves your "cause" is bogus. You'll notice GuyPinhead called me a liar and then disappeared when it was he who was lying. 
For another the Towers withstood the impact of even the significantly larger, heavier aircraft than the now 50 year old study used. What they did not survive was the combination of the impact and the fires. There is no evidence of rigging for demo, none for a controlled demo, no evidence of explosives and no whistle blowers. Nothing but your stubbornness, imagination and medacity.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Talk about 'hyperbole-laden'...

'Raging' fires.... Nope, not when a woman can stand there and stick her mug out of the hole the plane created.

"Unimaginable' temperatures.... Only if you lack all trace of imagination. The smoke from the fires indicated low temperatures, in the 650-750 C range.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



Excuse? Absolution? WTF is wrong with you?
What you heard in the days and weeks following 9/11 was speculation. The NIST report says nothing about melted steel and explains how and why the Towers fell. 
I'm not going to play amateur physicist or Internet engineer with you, Princess.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Yo BITCH, I haven't gone ANYWHERE, you lying fucktard! Look back through the last 2 pages, you cretinous piece of shit, I've answered EVERY bullshit statement you've made.

Your ridiculous assertion that the 120-B is the plane they designed for is disproven by the fact that the 320 was in higher production AND the ONLY plane at the time capable of non-stop trans-Atlantic flight.

Fucking idiot!


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



So you are just guessing at which 707 they used in the study and at which plane was in higher production at the time. Even the early 707-320s were 20% lighter than the 767 and, according to the lead structural engineer for the Towers, the study was based on a slow-moving 707 looking for an airport in the fog, so your assumption that increased speed would make up for the lack of weight is also shot to hell. Finally, it wasn't the impact alone that brought down the Towers and it wasn't the fires alone either. It was both.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Really? How about the reflections of the Tower's lead structural engineer. You really should open both eyes, Princess.   
Reflections on the World Trade Center 
Author: Leslie E. Robertson
The lead structural engineer reflects on the rise and fall of the World Trade Center towers.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



The comments are those of the Tower's lead structural engineer. How do they differ than Skilling's description of the now 50 year old study of a plane crash fire as "horrendous?"
What you still don't have is any evidence of rigging for demo, none of explosives, none that anything other those airliners attacked the Towers and none of a conspiracy and cover-up. In short, you got nuttin'.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



The "lead structural engineer"?


> As an "up-and-coming engineer", Robertson was selected by Worthington, *Skilling*, Helle, and Jackson (WSHJ) to participate in the design of the World Trade Center Twin Towers (19661971), *his first high rise construction.*



I noticed these two highlighted things right away, LIAR.

Robertson was hired by the guy I quoted, Skilling.

WTC was Robertson's FIRST high rise.

Why do you tell lies that are so EASY to disprove?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



You offer nothing which proves the 320 was in higher production and none which proves that the 320 was used in the study. You just do a lot of assuming. What you ignore is the fact that even the early 320s had a load limit 20% lighter than the 767 and, according to the lead structural engineer for the Towers, was presumed to be a slow-moving 707 looking for an airport in the fog, so your assumption that increased speed would make up for the lack of weight is also shot to hell. Finally, it wasn't the impact alone that brought down the Towers and it wasn't the fires alone either. It was both.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



What lies have I posted, Princess?
I copied this directly from the article:
Author: Leslie E. Robertson
The lead structural engineer reflects on the rise and fall of the World Trade Center towers.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Because it fits your narrative you insist the designs were done based on the smaller, lighter aircraft even though the larger, heavier one was the ONLY one capable of making a nonstop trans-Atlantic flight, flown out of and into NY/NJ airports.

You STILL claim Robertson was the "lead structural engineer" even though he was a green pea new hire and the WTC was his FIRST high rise.

You are dismissed, LIAR.


----------



## PredFan (Feb 23, 2013)

If you cannot accept the NIST report, what is your answer then? What happened on 9-11-01?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



Posting directly from his article does not make me a liar, Jackass, and even assuming the heavier 707 was used in the study - and you offer no proof of such or that it was in greater production or use - the weight of the 707-320 of the time was still 20% lighter than the 767. 
The study, according to Robertson, assumed a slow-moving 707, further diminishing its impact and your argument.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

PredFan said:


> If you cannot accept the NIST report, what is your answer then? What happened on 9-11-01?



I'm not claiming I KNOW what happened, I only know that the NIST report is not much more than half-baked, unsubstantiated, unPROVEable conjecture.

That is why we need a NEW investigation, one that doesn't protect the 'sacred cow' of government.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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





> [Building designer] John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. But, he says, The building structure would still be there."
> 
> The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: *The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. *Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.



Skilling was the guy that HIRED Robertson, I'll take his word for it.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

15%, not 20%, Princess. Another lie?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



Damn you're stupid. I never said I didn't understand all of this... I did say something about not understanding the advanced Physics that you fools pretend proves something.

Figure out what bowed in those towers yet?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



I understand, you don't want to listen to one of the structural engineers who worked on the design unless they agree with what you want the truth to be.....
Because Mr Robinson was one of the engineers that did work on the WTC.....
Leslie E. Robertson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Paulie (Feb 23, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Melted, weakened, whatever.  A large majority of the aggravating factor in how much heat would even be present in there, the jet fuel, was burned at the time of impact.  I don't know what the fireballs set on fire...whatever was flammable in there I guess.  Nothing I can think of that would burn hot enough to be compromising that much structural integrity.  Again, the color of the smoke is the indicator here.

If I had to put forth an honest opinion on how that should have looked...I would say that the impact points can certainly have compromised the structural integrity of that particular area, and the sections above that can certainly have collapsed...but I would expect to see only those sections collapse, and fall from the rest of the building down to the ground.

It really doesn't make any sense to me that the entire building progressively collapsed all the way down.  I don't know why that makes sense to ANYONE.

The only way that would make sense is if that was purposely part of the engineering design of the building to facilitate an easy collapse of the building way in the future whenever it came time to take them down.

Maybe that's exactly how they were designed...for each floor to have certain points where structural integrity can be purposely removed so that such tall, skinny structures can be properly demolished at the point in time that it becomes necessary.

If that's the case it would be nice if they just came out and said that...that I could at least believe.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



So who are these people that made these claims before there was any report. I didn't start researching you guys BS until the first time I heard about "Loose Change". I watched it and knew it had more holes than swiss cheese.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Robertson was hired by Skilling, Skilling was the BOSS.

I'll take his word over Robertson's ANY day, since the WTC was Robertson's FIRST high rise.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Sure you want to go with that?



> Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.
> 
> "However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."
> 
> He took note of the fact that smoke and fire spread throughout the building yesterday. He said that is possibly because the pressurizing system that stops the spread of smoke didn't work when the electric power went off. *Skilling, 72, was not involved in the design of the building mechanics*.



OOPS Again.....
Business | Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision | Seattle Times Newspaper


----------



## Samson (Feb 23, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...





Bravo Sarge,

Its a pleasure to see foolishness so effectively vanquished.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Yes, I'm VERY sure. 'Building mechanics' has not a flipping thing to do with structure, building mechanics is the HVAC, power delivery and plumbing.

From your link...


> Skilling, based in Seattle, is *among the world's top structural engineers*. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, *including the Trade Center.*





> "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. *"The building structure would still be there."*





> *Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings *- doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.
> 
> "However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."





> Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.
> 
> "I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

Samson said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



It takes a moron to applaud a moron...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Now go ask him that if those explosives would have been present would we have seen the explosions, heard the explosions, or find evidence of those explosions.....
My bet is he would say yes to all three..........


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Any particular reason you dropped these...?


> Skilling, based in Seattle, is *among the world's top structural engineers.* He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, *including the Trade Center*.





> "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. *"The building structure would still be there."*



Why don't YOU go ask him, you dishonest fucking HACK!


----------



## Samson (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Rapier wit

impressive, 

not.


----------



## Samson (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Why don't YOU go ask him, you dishonest fucking HACK!





I'm not sure which is stronger....

the smell of your bullshit, or the smell of you meltdown.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

Samson said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't YOU go ask him, you dishonest fucking HACK!
> ...



That smell is your upper lip, moron.

You're too stupid to know what 'building mechanics' are, same as Ollie, but it sounded good to your uneducated ears, so you applauded it and demonstrated your ignorance for ALL of us to see.

Take a fucking hike, loser...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 23, 2013)

Point is that the planes and only the planes caused the buildings to fail and fall. There has been no proof shown here to refute that.

We now have one telling us that the government is wrong but they don't know why.......
DUH?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



After the first WTC terror attack in 1993 Skilling, who died in 1998, said the study conducted prior to building the WTC Towers showed they could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (he didn't specify which model) and that the real concern was the "horrendous" fire (he didn't say how long or how hot "horrendous" meant) that would follow. He was right on both counts. He further went on to say he believed the building would remain standing. He was wrong on that one. Two out of three ain't bad. Thankfully the Towers remained standing long enough for most peeps who were below the impact to get out.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



You mean building mechanics doesn't include fire alarms and fire-fighting systems or did you conveniently forget them, Princess. Did the study take into account the length of time the fires would burn, the number of floors impacted by the plane and fires, and the effect of the crash on the sprinkler system?


----------



## Paulie (Feb 23, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Point is that the planes and only the planes caused the buildings to fail and fall. There has been no proof shown here to refute that.
> 
> We now have one telling us that the government is wrong but they don't know why.......
> DUH?



And you don't question it with certain points of logic which would seem to make that explanation questionable in itself.  You just accept it as gospel because it came from the government.

I realize that there's engineers who said that's how it happened...but there's also engineers who said that doesn't make sense.

So I remain skeptical.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 23, 2013)

Paulie said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Point is that the planes and only the planes caused the buildings to fail and fall. There has been no proof shown here to refute that.
> ...



Paulie, I've looked at all their videos, i've read the official reports, I saw "Loose change" a year before I ever heard about "Fuck Loose Change". Their stories just don't add up.......
They have zero proof that anything other than something very very close to the official investigations are correct.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

Paulie said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Point is that the planes and only the planes caused the buildings to fail and fall. There has been no proof shown here to refute that.
> ...



Lame Straw Man argument. 
Sarge, like virtually all norms here, has repeatedly posted he finds the NIST report more credible because the CT BS reads like CT BS.
To date there has been found no evidence of demo rigging or explosives and none of a gov't/media conspiracy or cover-up. None. You do the math.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Fire alarms are part of the electrical system and sprinklers, while on a totally separate system, are part of the plumbing, so no, I didn't 'forget' anything, conveniently or otherwise, Bitchlet.

Since no one has proven the fires got hot enough to affect the structural integrity of the truss system it didn't matter how long they burned. The sprinkler system being disabled by the crash also wouldn't make a bit of difference, so your 'point' is pointless.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



The fires were, in the words of Skilling, a bigger concern than an impacting airliner. The engineer's fears proved to be prescient and the NIST report confirmed it. 
"The fires were hot enough to weaken the columns and cause floors to sag, pulling perimeter columns inward and reducing their ability to support the mass of the building above."   
WTC Disaster Study


----------



## Paulie (Feb 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



It isn't an either/or situation.  In life, there's gray area.  It's highly possible neither are right.


----------



## Paulie (Feb 23, 2013)

I'm not claiming that because the government explanation might not be 100% correct that it must mean there was explosives.

And I'm not so sure you can say there's zero evidence of a cover-up.  The 9.11 report was an insult.  Does that mean cover-up?  No one can say for sure...but with that kind of hack job it's amazing that there are people who STILL won't question the government's explanations.


----------



## Paulie (Feb 23, 2013)

And that's all I'm gonna say on this topic.  Because at the end of the day I really don't give a fuck.  They could come out and announce on national TV that it was an inside job and what's would happen?  NOTHING.  People would revolt, they'd be killed or imprisoned, and the government who has bigger guns than us would win.

There's no point in worrying about this shit.  Just live your life and try and enjoy it.  There's already so much wrong with this government that we KNOW about, that shit is already FUBAR.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

Paulie said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



Fine but it's been 11+ years and as already established there has been found no evidence of demo rigging or explosives and none of a gov't/media conspiracy or cover-up. None.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 23, 2013)

Paulie said:


> I'm not claiming that because the government explanation might not be 100% correct that it must mean there was explosives.
> 
> And I'm not so sure you can say there's zero evidence of a cover-up.  The 9.11 report was an insult.  Does that mean cover-up?  No one can say for sure...but with that kind of hack job it's amazing that there are people who STILL won't question the government's explanations.



Are you claiming the Commission was involved in some sort of conspiracy?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not claiming that because the government explanation might not be 100% correct that it must mean there was explosives.
> ...



I'm claiming they didn't see ALL the evidence or hear ALL the testimony. 

I'm claiming they didn't WANT to.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



You wont find what you're not looking for, and they've admitted they weren't looking.
Much of what was taken may have contained something, but it will never be known, since it was hauled away, and they weren't looking for evidence of explosives, or incendiaries.
It is possible that such a highly secret, and nefarious operation would not use conventional CD rigging anyway.
We've gone round on this with Ollie many times.
Besides all one needs to know that something, whatever it may have been, was used, is the way they physically, fell down, in rapid succession.
But again this is what you try to steer the discussion away from.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 24, 2013)

> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Sagging trusses, the buildings being pulled in.......
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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


The science and physics betray their theory, and your strawman argument.
NIST has not proven that their theory is plausible, does not account for Newtons law, conservation of momentum, etc. Including fires affects on steel= 15-20 second collapses=BS.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not claiming that because the government explanation might not be 100% correct that it must mean there was explosives.
> ...



A cover up conspiracy. Haven't you read what some of the panelists have said regarding it?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 24, 2013)

Paulie said:


> And that's all I'm gonna say on this topic.  Because at the end of the day I really don't give a fuck.  They could come out and announce on national TV that it was an inside job and what's would happen?  NOTHING.  People would revolt, they'd be killed or imprisoned, and the government who has bigger guns than us would win.
> 
> There's no point in worrying about this shit.  Just live your life and try and enjoy it.  There's already so much wrong with this government that we KNOW about, that shit is already FUBAR.



It is about awareness now. The more people that look at their government officials, and media with skepticism the better. It's no coincidence gun sales have sky rocketed recently.
Awareness of the criminality must start at the ground roots level, and local government. The falseness of the OCT including the NIST report, and who is calling shots for American foreign policy and where their loyalties are is very important as well.

The awareness starts with the OCT itself. Those that actually are concerned with their nation, will take an interest, and educate themselves on what the main issue is all about.
It's been generations of mass programming, but I am glad many are waking up, and are aware of what's been done, who was involved, and what needs to be about it.

All of those that are pro OCT, and NIST have posted their views in this thread, but none have answered in detail what it is about the NIST reports ie: what proof within it there is that justifies their adherence to it.

We have posted papers, links, and easy understood videos and explanations that discredit their OCT, and NIST reports, and they have not done likewise.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 24, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Point is that the planes and only the planes caused the buildings to fail and fall. There has been no proof shown here to refute that.
> 
> We now have one telling us that the government is wrong but they don't know why.......
> DUH?



Does the NIST report back up your claim Ollie? Please show us where, and why you beilieve in something you admit to not even understanding?


*All of you.....Please post the reason why the towers came down so fast and only experienced a very minimal resistance to the collapsing upper part.
Do you go with the "pancake" theory, or the "crush down, crush up" theory? Which is it?*


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 24, 2013)

PredFan said:


> If you cannot accept the NIST report, what is your answer then? What happened on 9-11-01?



All we know for sure is that there was something else that must have been used to facilitate the destruction of the towers and WTC7. Why? because they came down with incredible speed, and showed very minimal resistance to the collapsing parts.
The towers exploded, ejecting tons of material away from the collapse fronts. This material could not have been used as any added weight to burden the lower structures with. If each floor gave was to the immediate upper one, this would have taken significantly more time.Why?
Because the lower parts were undamaged by plane impacts or fire, and they were designed in a tapered manner. ie: thicker and heavier in the bottoms and middle, and thinner at the tops.
Kinetic energy is a good reason to use, but as I mentioned, the larger mass, would have been expected to momentarily halt the collapse fronts, and it should have been visibly apparent. 
Energy can only be used once. It can not crush and overcome the lowers, and also have the reserve energy to eject tons of perimeter walling.

It has to be asked-
Is there any evidence that the columns reached 800 deg C? to cause the trusses to fail?
If the collapse was started by columns getting too hot, we would expect to see some initial slow, sagging movement. Was that observed?
It is crucial to the NIST/Bazant hypothesis that the falling block deliver its kinetic energy to the lower section. To do so it must retain its structure. Is that what the videos show?
If a falling block existed, and delivered a damaging blow to the lower section, we would expect to see a reduction in its acceleration at the moment of impact. Did this occur?

If these are not observed, then it must be concluded that there was something else in play that assisted the collapses.
NIST has failed in two of its objectives. It has failed to find forensic evidence of the necessary high temperatures in the steel, and it has failed to find, by model testing, that an essential component of their theory, sagging floor trusses, was valid. 

It is clear that the top block, far from being a rigid hammer, was disintegrating and cannot possibly provide the impact which Bazant and Zhou/NIST have calculated and depended on. There was a mass of fragmented material falling, which can deliver many very small blows but we can predict that it will be unable to deliver a blow representing its total mass, as the official story requires.
They fell down too fast to overcome the undamaged lower, and NIST and the others have not provided evidence that their theory is correct.

If the top block were to deliver destructive energy through impact to the lower portion of the building, the energy consumed would result in a reduction in its acceleration. No such reduction can be detected, as shown in the paper by MacQeen and Szamboti, The Missing Jolt.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf


This is the only proof that is needed something else was involved. One can only do what NIST did, and that is supply a logical guess as to what that might have been.
You wont find det cord or wiring as it is well known most of the det cord (if it was even used) would have been consumed in a CD anyway.

It seems you OCT people have run out of strawmen to use, so hows about directing your attacks on what I am asking and pointing out instead?


----------



## PredFan (Feb 24, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > If you cannot accept the NIST report, what is your answer then? What happened on 9-11-01?
> ...



Hmmm...I think it would be a waste of money. Unless you actually think the government was in on it, why would we really need to know EXACTLY what happened?


----------



## PredFan (Feb 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Agreed. Again Occam's Razor. The simplest and most logical explanation, though not perfect by any means, is the NIST report. It might be sketchy but it makes more sense than the CTs.


----------



## PredFan (Feb 24, 2013)

Paulie said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



And I doubt the NIST theory is 100% correct. It's just makes 100% more sense than any of the CTs I've heard.


----------



## PredFan (Feb 24, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > If you cannot accept the NIST report, what is your answer then? What happened on 9-11-01?
> ...



All you're doing is knocking holes in the NIST's theory, and neither I nor many engineers agree with you. Poking holes in the official investigation is easy, proving any kind of grand conspiracy is not. We saw the planes hit and we saw the towers fall. I myself will accept that the towers fell because of the impact from the planes and the subsequent fires. If I'm to believe that something or someone else was involved, that will have to be proven to me and you cannot do that by simply poking holes in the NIST's investigation.

just because YOU find what you see as holes or inconsistancies in the investigation doesn't prove any kind of conspiracy, it only proves government ineptitude, which i will agree with 100%

If you think it was an inside job then prove it, or at least for me, come up with a theory.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 24, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



The 'theory' you ask for is in the video that started this thread, Pred...


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 24, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



Woo. You speculate about some special, super secret something-or-other as the agent of the Towers' destruction. Of course, nothing was found and there is far more credibility in the known factors, imperfect or incomplete or as they may be, than your baseless speculation. 
There is no need for anyone to steer discussion away from your _assumptions_ ... they are yours to post as you see fit. I may believe the moon is made of gouda cheese but I wouldn't post it publically.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 24, 2013)

The buildings bowed inward, there is visible proof of this fact.

The only explanation is that the steel trusses bent to allow this to happen.

The only thing that could have bent the trusses is heat.

Carry on...........


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 24, 2013)

two farts in a row from the agent trolls. and four farts in a row from frady cat brainwashed Bush dupe NONPAID troll predfan before Guys last post as well.


----------



## PredFan (Feb 24, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



But he didn't start this thread and that was 1200+ posts ago.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 24, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Predfan like all frady cat Bush dupes in denial always proves he has no debating skills and only sees what he wants to see.the bush dupes in denial like him and the paid shills that have penetraed this site like sayIt and Gomer Ollie,cowardly run away with their tails between their legs anytime you challenge them to debunk facts in videos dismissing them not being true as youtube videos.

according to the logic of people lie PREDFAN troll,the twin towers never collapsed because guess what? its on youtube and youtube is always wrong in everything they show.

these guys with their debating skills they have ignoring facts in videos would not last ONE MINUTE in a debating hall and would be laughed out of it within that time frame as well.


----------



## PredFan (Feb 24, 2013)

If anyone is trying to say that the towers were rigged with explosives then that is the most outlandish and improbable theory of all. The holes in that theory are so large you could fly a passenger jet through them.

Occam's Razor still applies to what happened on 9-11.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 24, 2013)

PredFan said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Please don't tell me that Page 1 is too hard to find....


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 24, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Him and Gomer Ollie dont know how to click on a link or video.

you might mention to them as well that its been spelled out to them in dummie style in the first two posts on this thread on page one as well.


----------



## PredFan (Feb 24, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Dude calm down. I was responding to Mr.Jones and I'm not going to assume that he's still, after all this time, talking about the OP. He didn't start the thread, so does he subscribe to the video's theory? I can't assume that he does.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 24, 2013)

PredFan said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Fair enough, carry on...


----------



## candycorn (Feb 24, 2013)

Any  word on what took down the light poles if it wasn't AA77?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 24, 2013)

The taxi driver took one of them, he was going to sell it for scrap..........


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> If each floor gave was to the immediate upper one, this would have taken significantly more time.Why?
> Because the lower parts were undamaged by plane impacts or fire, and they were designed in a tapered manner. ie: thicker and heavier in the bottoms and middle, and thinner at the tops.
> Kinetic energy is a good reason to use, but as I mentioned, the larger mass, would have been expected to momentarily halt the collapse fronts, and it should have been visibly apparent.



You STILL don't get it do you? Even after explaining it to you multiple times.

Tapered, thicker, heavier columns have nothing to do with the individual connections failing due to the force of the upper section/debris pile hitting floors and such. The force sheared those connections.. 

Are you saying that the floor truss connections were designed to resist the force of the descending upper block?

Please explain how you think the lower components should have resisted. Which components?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> It is clear that the top block, far from being a rigid hammer, was disintegrating and cannot possibly provide the impact which Bazant and Zhou/NIST have calculated and depended on. There was a mass of fragmented material falling, which can deliver many very small blows but we can predict that it will be unable to deliver a blow representing its total mass, as the official story requires.



Really? So if I dropped a pile of gravel on your head, it wouldn't hurt a bit because the pile was composed of fragmented material?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> If the top block were to deliver destructive energy through impact to the lower portion of the building, the energy consumed would result in a reduction in its acceleration. No such reduction can be detected, as shown in the paper by MacQeen and Szamboti, The Missing Jolt.
> http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf



Total garbage.

The connections within the buildings could not hold up to the force of the falling debris.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Fires testing by NIST to prove this guess, failed. The tests are results are available in the NIST link some pages back. The truss theory is a fail. Whatever failed them could not have been the temps from the kerosene fires.
> 
> Fire as the cause is doubtful, if they even bowed. So which is it bowed in, or bowed out?



Get your shit straight. NIST clearly says in their paper that they aren't sure if the results scale up to the actual size of the floor trusses.

Also, was there any deflection of bowing of the trusses at any time reported in their report?

What caused the perimeter columns to pull inward?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Yes, I'm VERY sure. 'Building mechanics' has not a flipping thing to do with structure, building mechanics is the HVAC, power delivery and plumbing.



You need to get a clue.

Building mechanics, structural mechanics. Same thing.

Mechanics of Building Structures - Kyoto University, Department of Architecture and Architectural Engineering
Civil and Environmental Engineering - Structural Mechanics


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> > "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. *"The building structure would still be there."*



Robertson said they didn't do any analysis as far as how a fire would effect the structure.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 25, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Fires testing by NIST to prove this guess, failed. The tests are results are available in the NIST link some pages back. The truss theory is a fail. Whatever failed them could not have been the temps from the kerosene fires.
> ...



That's not fair, you know if they answer that then their theories go all to shit........


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 25, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > It is clear that the top block, far from being a rigid hammer, was disintegrating and cannot possibly provide the impact which Bazant and Zhou/NIST have calculated and depended on. There was a mass of fragmented material falling, which can deliver many very small blows but we can predict that it will be unable to deliver a blow representing its total mass, as the official story requires.
> ...



No damage possible. That's why he wears his foil hat.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2013)

Mr. Jones.

Please explain in your own words how load redistribution works. How does the load of a particular floor (say floor 90 of the tower) gets transferred to the grillages/concrete pads on the ground.

Atfter you think about that for a while, tell us what the design load was for floor 90? Was it designed to handle people, cubicles, desks, chairs, computers, etc. or was that floor designed to have the upper structure impact it?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 25, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > If the top block were to deliver destructive energy through impact to the lower portion of the building, the energy consumed would result in a reduction in its acceleration. No such reduction can be detected, as shown in the paper by MacQeen and Szamboti, The Missing Jolt.
> ...



Or so you would like to assume. What makes your assumption plausible?
Every undamaged part of the lower seemingly provided very minimal resistance to the smaller, heavily damaged upper, why would this be?
Why would these massive lower towers succumb to the failed top sections, in such short amount of time.
Perhaps you could explain how the expected violent collisions of all the connections you site, were not visibly noticed, or measured.
How far did the top travel when it met the lower undamaged bottom sections?
Why wasn't there a creeping, halting, staggered collapse as would be expected, as the lower floors succumbed one by one to the ground?

Show us how your assumption this is correct, and physically possible, so far all your doing is making wild assumptions and nothing to certify they are even possible..


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 25, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Fires testing by NIST to prove this guess, failed. The tests are results are available in the NIST link some pages back. The truss theory is a fail. Whatever failed them could not have been the temps from the kerosene fires.
> ...



According to them it was fire.
Here is a major problem in their report-

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided *little resistance* to the *tremendous energy released* by the *falling building mass*, *the building section above came down essentially in free fall,* as seen in videos. As the stories* below sequentially failed,* the falling *mass increases*, further increasing the demand of the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass. (p 146/196) 

There is no explanation as to why there was only "little resistance"
Nothing mentioned, measured, or otherwise that quantifies the "tremendous energy released",
They said themselves that the "the building section above came down essentially in free fall" as "seen in the videos".
They state "as the stories below sequentially failed"-This alludes to the fact that the stories below would be failing one by one, and thus take time to be overcome "sequentially".
None of this NIST actually can substantiate, and it is telling how they found the need to involve "essential freefall" when explaining this part of the collapse initiation.
Yet again they go against what they were saying in regards to mass providing resistance and no FF or close to FF was possible.

It doesn't matter it the truss failed, for the sake of making my point. What is in great doubt is that the lower parts were to be expected to arrest, halt, and severely slow the collapse fronts.
Estimates have them somewhere in the 10,12-15 second range and some maybe 20 seconds. This is too fast for the energy to overcome against the more robust, lowers.
Estimates have suggested times in the 50 to 60 second range if not more for a collapse of buildings without the assistance and use of other means, to remove the  underneath mass.
This is the main problem, that NIST has not addressed. But the fire temperatures that they say initially cause the weakening of the steel is also in question, as steel by its nature spreads heat around to other attached  parts, thus actually cooling the effects, unless something is used to apply rapid, intense local heat, and we all know that kerosene, office combustibles, burns at much cooler temps then the construction grade steel is able to withstand.

So there is the problem with the heat, and the intensity, and the problem with the potential energy of the falling mass even when gravity is taken into account. It seems to come up short, in the NIST narrative.
Why is this?



*     Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increases, further increasing the demand of the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass. (p 146/196) 

This does not explain either why the structure below failed to arrest the falling mass or how the structure failed to appreciably slow the falling mass. As in the preceding paragraphs, NIST begs these questions using a kind of circular argument: The towers fell rapidly because the stories below could not resist the tremendous energy of the falling mass. Videos clearly show that the upper section fell essentially in free-fall. Therefore the structures below offered minimal resistance to and were destroyed by the falling mass. The argument pre-supposes the conclusion that the force that overcame the resistance of the structures below was the falling mass, not some other force such as energy of explosives.

The fact that there is not a single example of total top-down progressive collapse outside of the alleged examples of the Twin Towers makes it entirely unscientific to pre-suppose that the alleged phenomenon was operative here. *
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/#bowed


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> According to them it was fire.
> Here is a major problem in their report-
> 
> "Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided *little resistance* to the *tremendous energy released* by the *falling building mass*, *the building section above came down essentially in free fall,* as seen in videos. As the stories* below sequentially failed,* the falling *mass increases*, further increasing the demand of the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass. (p 146/196)
> ...



Come on Mr. Jones... Really?

Let's go over this again. There was little resistance below because the structure was designed to support the load of the building itself and it's contents in normal, everyday use. The resistance of the lower portion of the tower was not designed to resist the uppers floors in motion.

Can you tell me the numerical difference between the load applied to a certain floor and the load applied to all the upper floors smashing into the same floor?



Mr. Jones said:


> They state "as the stories below sequentially failed"-This alludes to the fact that the stories below would be failing one by one, and thus take time to be overcome "sequentially".
> None of this NIST actually can substantiate, and it is telling how they found the need to involve "essential freefall" when explaining this part of the collapse initiation.
> Yet again they go against what they were saying in regards to mass providing resistance and no FF or close to FF was possible.



WHAT COMPONENTS FAILED?

How can you possibly think that all the floor trusses of one floor, sitting upon the angle connections attached to the perimeter columns and core columns, could in any way momentarily cause a slowdown of the descending mass?



Mr. Jones said:


> It doesn't matter it the truss failed, for the sake of making my point. What is in great doubt is that the lower parts were to be expected to arrest, halt, and severely slow the collapse fronts.



Again.

WHAT PARTS were expected to resist?



Mr. Jones said:


> Estimates have them somewhere in the 10,12-15 second range and some maybe 20 seconds. This is too fast for the energy to overcome against the more robust, lowers.



The robust lowers?

These truss connections circled in red???:







Mr. Jones said:


> But the fire temperatures that they say initially cause the weakening of the steel is also in question, as steel by its nature spreads heat around to other attached  parts, thus actually cooling the effects,



Is that why they apply fireproofing to structural steel? Because steel framed internal structures dissipate heat in such an efficient manner? Have you read anything about fireproofing? I suggest you do so.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...





Because the entire lower structure is NOT taken into account when trying to figure out how the building would have reacted to the descending mass of debris? When doing calculations, you wouldn't be able to get past the connections when checking for the stress of the descending load. There is no way on God's green earth those connections wold have remained intact. They were designed for NORMAL everyday use.

THINK LOCALIZED FAILURE.

I'll ask you a question yet again using your logic.

How is it I can throw a baseball at a glass window of a house and smash it? According to you, the entire house and it's mass/support should be used to figure out that the window should have resisted.

You need to look at what has the potential to fail when a force/load it applied to something.



Mr. Jones said:


> Why would these massive lower towers succumb to the failed top sections, in such short amount of time.



See above.



Mr. Jones said:


> Perhaps you could explain how the expected violent collisions of all the connections you site, were not visibly noticed, or measured.



I did explain. Many times. The force of the descending debris was no match for the floor truss supports. 

How many times greater was the descending debris force compared to the design load of one of the floors?

Numbers please.

What caused the perimeter columns to fall outward instead of straight down? 

If the entire tower was demolished, how did the partial core survive in this next photo? How come there are no floors/perimeter columns attached to it?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2013)

Taken from:
FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation



> *12. *
> 
> *Was there enough gravitational energy present in the WTC towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors?  Why werent the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?*
> 
> ...



Now Mr. Jones, show me exactly where they fail to explain how the towers collapsed and where their calculations are incorrect.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 25, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



And fully 11+ years later there is still no evidence of explosives, none of rigging for demo, none of a gov't conspiracy to destroy those buildings and none of a cover-up for the conspiracy _*which did not exist*_. All you really have is the foil-hat silliness based on half-truths, innuendo, and fabrications of web sites dedicated to making money from silly nutters. 
BTW, did you send your check this month?

"No amount of evidence will dissuade a conspiracy theorist, but when they appeal to scientific evidence, they're fair game. And the 9-11 conspiracy sites have some very strange science..."
"A few months ago I agreed to be on a truther talk show (I'll try almost anything once. Almost.) and the commercial breaks were a revelation. There were endless spiels for crank medical remedies and nutritional supplements, investment schemes that ranged from shady to crazy, newsletters for conspiracy cults, and wacko theories on how to avoid taxes."

Steven Dutch, Professor of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
Nutty 9-11 Physics


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 25, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > According to them it was fire.
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 25, 2013)

The bowing in of the buildings outer core proves that the fire were hot enough. 

There is no other explanation for it......


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 25, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Taken from:
> FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation
> 
> 
> ...



This does not explain what I have asked you to produce. Where do they substantiate such rapid collapses? You posted the mass of these floors, and their estimated, conservative load limits, but again fail to point out how all of this mass, and components should be expected to come down in such rapid descents.
It does not describe how the components, from the upper are ejected away, from the collapse fronts, and therefore can not be used in the mix to apply crushing down forces!

You have failed to point out, how they explain the properties of the steel mass being overcome in such rapidity, as though it is supposed to be instantaneous!

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically.Where are the safety factor that are designed into the buildings addressed?....
 Then the upper fell onto the lower. When this happens the lower pushes back with equal force. The lower floor of the upper, then experiences some destruction from colliding with the first floor of the upper in cam into contact with! And so on, however much of the material from this destruction was ejected away from the collapse front! Further suggesting that less weight, and therefore less time until the  NEXT parts in collision with themselves are in turn overcome, and so on and so forth!
Where are the visible "jolts" or hesitations as the falling force overcomes the lower stationary one?

We next come to the fact that it would take very high temps to reach the steels fail point,
where is the evidence of this?

You have to wait until the rubble pile fires and notice their extreme temps, that most of you all deny even existed!
So you want it both ways, you need high temps to kick off the sequence, but knowing that the NIST did not find any evidence of these temps, and knowing kerosene does not burn at such high temps, you dismiss the obvious presence of the high temps after the collapse? In the rubble piles?
You also have to seriously consider the bending 
and fracturing energy, that must be expended to collapse each floor. And also that the velocity before collision is  related 
to the velocity after collision, by the law of conservation of momentum.
LOL...You post up picks of truss supports and call it a day, when there is so much more to it, that you leave out of consideration.
 This is what you do not think about, and what NIST was hoping people didn't.

What you posted still does not explain what I am asking. Doesn't take into account the short collapse times, or the mass that fell away from the collapse fronts.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 25, 2013)

And yet there is nothing that shows anything else being possible or even plausible.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 25, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> The bowing in of the buildings outer core proves that the fire were hot enough.
> 
> There is no other explanation for it......



Alright then please post up the testing that complies with this theory. And yes there are other possibilities but they are not up for consideration apparently.
By all means link up to what you feel explains the high temps.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 25, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > The bowing in of the buildings outer core proves that the fire were hot enough.
> ...



No testing needed since you cannot produce any other reason for the bowing......


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Ok course but again, quantify the 'complex" events to account for the rapid descents. You again are making assumptions, like NIST did that collapse was a foregone conclusion, without taking into account the complex mass involved.



The upper section hit the floors and sheared the connections. See the above explanation (ppertinent parts in red), complete with numbers.



Mr. Jones said:


> Again you ask me questions that NIST should have provided the answers to you about. As a staunch believer in their theory, why do you not know these things?



Yet you come in here and say that this didn't happen and this should have happened, blah, blah, blah. If you don't have answers to my questions, then you have no proof or reason behind your claims.



Mr. Jones said:


> Ask NIST  I quoted from their report and observational guesses. Another question you might ask them is HOW, and WHY they failed in such rapid succession?



Read the NIST explanation I quoted above.



Mr. Jones said:


> And how many of these connections were there? How long would it take to for the steel to reach its fail points...on each on.piece by piece?



Read the NIST explanation I quoted above.



Mr. Jones said:


> How can you possibly assume the collapses were not to be even slightly momentarily halted, even noticed, instead of coming down without seemingly any hesitation, as though there was nothing underneath the smaller damaged upper sections?



Read the NIST explanation I quoted above. The force of the descending debris was WAY over the load that the floors could handle.



Mr. Jones said:


> You act as though,-the fires were proven to have gotten to the required temps to weaken the steel at certain isolated points, without taking into consideration that NIST ignored thermal conduction.



Again, at what temperature does steel start to weaken? If steel conducts heat as well as you say, then why do they fire proof it? This shoots a complete hole in your claim.



> Since steel is a good conductor of heat, and the steel in the Twin Towers' structures was well connected together to form tons of connected steel mass, these huge steel structures would have drawn heat away from the parts that were exposed to fire.
> The only time one can rightly theorize any very high temps would be only momentarily,during flash over, again only momentarily.



WHY DO THEY FIREPROOF STEEL?



Mr. Jones said:


> Are you serious? The fucking larger, undamaged, more heavily constructed and therefore, more robust parts of the lower building! Have you not payed attention to the collapse fronts? Especially given that much of what YOU want to assume was part of the weight that helped crush down the undamaged power, was being ejected AWAY from the collapse front. Less weight, less kinetic energy,=way slower collapse times...get it now?



Read the NIST explanation I quoted above.



Mr. Jones said:


> You are isolating on a small segment that comprised the whole fucking lower parts of the buildings,plus you or NIST have not proven that the temps actually got hot enough and were sustained for the duration needed to overcome the parts you point out.



It's called localized failure. I will ask you yet again. How can a baseball thrown at a window smash said window when the entire mass/structure of the house is behind it?

This puts a serious dent in your explanation.



Mr. Jones said:


> You leave out much of the lower mass, including core columns, and perimeter columns.



Because it's the weaker floor truss connections that fail! Jesus H. Christ...

I f I want to see if one floor of the towers will support it's intended load, one of the thins I'm going to check is if the floor truss CONNECTIONS can handle it. If the angle/floor truss connections around the perimeter columns can't handle the intended load, it doesn't matter if they were welded to fucking 20' diameter solid steel columns. It's the connections themselves that are the weakest links and they will SHEAR.

To drive my point through your head, let's look at the door of a house. If I run a football player into said door, how does the load propagate through all the components? If the door itself holds up, the load it transferred to the hinges attached to the door jamb with screws. Those screws will probably rip out of the door jamb. But according to you, the mass and structure of the entire house behind that door should make everything resist.



Mr. Jones said:


> A historical look at other buildings have never shown total global collapse in 12-20 seconds, and which produced a FF time as NIST has said the falling tops experienced..Do you think that the temp needed to destroy steel will remain at that initial contact location?



A historical look??? Look in the mirror jack. A historical look shows that there has never been a 208' x 208' square, 100 floor, tube in tube designed, steel tower, that was struck by a 767 in the upper third, that remained standing.

I can play your stupid historical games also.



Mr. Jones said:


> Do you not think that perhaps there are other things that can catch on fire before STEEL WILL, AND THAT IS A GOOD REASON TO USE FIRE RETARDANT?



THAT made no sense whatsoever. SO because OTHER things catch fire, they fireproof the steel?? Go read about fireproofing on steel and get back to me. Better yet, I'll help you out.

STRUCTUREmag - Structural Engineering Magazine, Tradeshow: Fireproofing Steel Structures



> Obviously, structural steel is a non-combustible material; however, the high-sustained temperatures of a fire can severely damage unprotected steel. Structural steel will lose approximately 50% of its load carrying capacity as temperatures approach 1100°F. Fireproofing works by encasing the steel and insulating it, keeping the steel temperature below the point where design strength is compromised. In order to determine the amount of fireproofing required in to achieve this goal, UL tests fireproofing products in accordance with ASTM E119 (UL 263). The results of the test are published in the UL Directory, which specifies the thickness and density of the material, as well as how the assembly is to be constructed in order to achieve various levels of hourly rating.



So you can take your "conduction" bullshit and try it elsewhere. You need to learn a few things before parroting your garbage from other sources that have no clue what they are talking about.

Yeah, they fireproof steel in case OTHER things catch fire.

Good fucking grief!

I'm a SO glad you don't design buildings for a living. You'd be fired in minutes for your stupidity.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2013)

More knowledge for you Mr. Jones...



> *Fireproofing  what is it and why
> do we need it?*
> 
> Steel structures, consisting of structural steel
> ...



http://www.pfpa.com.au/docs/Steel Fireproofing/Rakic - Type of Fireproofing materials.pdf

How does that fit into your "steel conducts heat away from the fire" bullshit. Sounds like that what they're saying right?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Taken from:
> ...



READ THE FUCKING EXPLANATION!!!

The mass was WAAYYYYYYYYYY over the design limits for the floors to resist. The mass went straight through all the floors, shearing the connections. The math is right there in front of you.

If I shot a cannon at your head, do you think we'd see the cannonball slow down when it impacted your face?

No?

Why?

Because the resistance your neck/head provided is next to nothing when compared to the force of that cannonball.

LOOK AT THE NUMBERS!!!!!


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 25, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Estimates have suggested times in the 50 to 60 second range if not more for a collapse of buildings without the assistance and use of other means, to remove the  underneath mass.



Let's see the numbers of these "estimates" you claim exist. Let me guess...

You don't want to waste your time looking for them or I should know them already right?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 25, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Ok course but again, quantify the 'complex" events to account for the rapid descents. You again are making assumptions, like NIST did that collapse was a foregone conclusion, without taking into account the complex mass involved.
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 25, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> More knowledge for you Mr. Jones...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again where is the conclusive evidence that the WTC steel got above the critical failure point? And fireproofing is used to protect against transfer of too much heat to the unexposed surfaces of the assemblies. Why do you think steel is covered in fireproofing you fucking idiot? It can transfer heat to other connected, or adjacent parts of a structure, because that is what steel/metal does when heat is applied to it you fucking idiot!
Now you want to continue going round in circles, or answer the questions I posed to you regarding the energy of the smaller mass on the larger unmolested lower, and how it is possible for these collapses to not experience any noticeable hesitation or halting when the 2 collided?

You have posted nothing that substantiates your wild unscientific belief in the NIST report regarding how the laws of physics, ie: the conservation of momentum is left out of their BS explanation.
Why no noticeable jolt when a smaller mass collided with a much larger one?

Do you agree with this?
 &#8221;A perfectly inelastic collision is where a body moving at velocity strikes a body, typically at rest, then both bodies stick together (to form &#8220;accreted mass&#8221, and then both bodies move together after that, at the same final velocity. 
 If both bodies are similar masses, then the final velocity will be 1/2 of the original velocity.  If body A is much larger than body B, then the final velocity will be closer to the original velocity.
But if body A is much smaller then body B, can the initial velocity be expected to be sustained?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 25, 2013)

i think we know who is going in circles..............


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 25, 2013)

1) a perfect inelastic collision assumes that no mass is lost during the collision, which we know is not the case as, during each collision, concrete was pulverized and and ejected AND outer columns were ejected  resulting in a loss of mass for each floor.

2) a perfect inelastic collision assumes that the collided floors stick together, which is highly improbable.  Further, we know that this is not the case as, during each collision, concrete and interior contents were pulverized, creating  a significant barrier of debris between floors.

3) most fatally, by its very nature, a perfect inelastic collision model cannot take into account the resistance from the supporting columns below when calculating the final velocity.  Another problem is that Bazant does not show any calculations revealing the mass he is using for the upper colliding mass and what mass he is using for the lower mass.   In fact, as far as I can tell, the collapse equations are derived indirectly, by a series of equations that calculate an overall collapse energy balance and that rest on dubious propositions...

There should be a great deal of crush *UP *during the crush down phase, as the upper section meets with the lower, a fact that Bazant/NIST completely ignore in their unrealistic analysis that favors a fast collapse time. 

So what you defend is flawed, and you insist on asking me to explain it to you?
You idiotically dismiss the capabilities of steel transferring heat away from the flame contacts points.....You act as though you know so much so get to explaining what NIST hasn't! Or are you still picturing the 2 semis or the VW in a vertical scenario?
Fucking moron....


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 25, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Ok course but again, quantify the 'complex" events to account for the rapid descents. You again are making assumptions, like NIST did that collapse was a foregone conclusion, without taking into account the complex mass involved.
> ...



You have  factually and thoughtfully answered Sista Jones's questions. His response has been to consistently ignore those answers, reword the same questions and repost 'em. As you noticed he does indeed parrot 9/11 CT web site BS to the exclusion of real facts and logic as though he's working from a script. He recently exposed his agenda (the Jooos did it) and nothing anyone says will deflect him from that agenda. You have patiently refuted his CT silliness and if you choose to bail out rather than continue spanking him no one could fault you. You have, to any open-minded observer, covered Sista Jones's silliness in rationality and I thank you for your efforts.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 25, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 25, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



He cannot assimilate anything which counters his CT script but thanks for trying.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 25, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Estimates have suggested times in the 50 to 60 second range if not more for a collapse of buildings without the assistance and use of other means, to remove the  underneath mass.
> ...



Cue Sista Jones's song and dance routine ... and 3, and 2 and 1...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 25, 2013)

Still waiting for an alternate cause for the bowing in of the towers outer walls......


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 25, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 26, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



You both are stupid ass mfkers!
Are you saying that the lower part of the building, was akin to someone being shot with a cannonball?!

Holy fuck, are you dumb....The lower was built with heavy thicker steel components,!
Where are your figures that substantiate this stupid wild claim?
Where are your numbers from NIST that explain the "massive energy"?
All that they put up are highly exaggerating assumptions, with nothing to back them up, and along you come with even more absurd BS!

Nist said-_*"The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos*_.

The NIST study was supposed to explain why so little resistance was provided. Not merely say that there was little resistance. 

Some people are not as stupid as you fucking clowns, and we actually think about how such things are possible, especially given what we know about the WTC buildings, and the fact they were designed in a tapered manner heavy and thicker the closer to the ground they were.

We also think about the reaction that 2 masses would have had on each other, especially a smaller damaged one vs a much larger undamaged one.

NIST said-_*"In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass."*_

    This is so fucking disingenuous as the  towers were designed to support the static weight of the structure multiplied by the safety factor. But someone with your knowledge of building construction and engineering already know this right?

So both you and NIST ignore the safety factor, and totally leave that out of any equation that we're still waiting for you to present!
 The question must be asked that if NIST's collapse theory relies on there being no safety factor in order to start and progress the collapse along, what removed the safety factor prior to initiation of the collapse event?.
 Conservation of Momentum dictates that the upper section must slow in order to accelerate any part of the lower section. Conservation of Energy dictates that the upper section must slow in order to be able to cause the damage caused to the floors, core and perimeter structure. 
Why do you not include these import laws of physics, or explain how and why they have no place in any of your responses?

You dance around the main issue all this time, and our fellow cheerleader blindly claps away in ignorance like a fucking fool!! LOL!

You fucking idiots NEED the fire temps to be exceptionally intense, but you fucks wont even admit the verifiable intense temps in the rubble piles!
I mean it doesn't get much more ignorant and blind then that...

You will swear that a 10 story block will travel through 90 stories of WTC building, in just a tad over FF time? seriously is this what you are saying?

You seem to have have no concept of the stee that made up the towers orl what was inside them, or that they spanned 1/4 mile high into the air.
 To you they are probably just blocks in your mind with no conceptualization of reality.

You are just plain purposefully oblivious, and your analogy using the football player is hilarious. I mean..how long would it taken him to go through multiple doors....with locks and hinges? Do you not insist that the poor fellow would have an easier time of it had the doors been open, rather then closed?
Wow I'll be saving that one as one of the more asinine things you've said.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 26, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Still waiting for an alternate cause for the bowing in of the towers outer walls......


Oh STFU. You are the last person to even try to engage in any of this. It's been years now, and you still have no concept of what is involved regarding the physics and lack there of in the theory you blindly and ignorantly accept like a fool.

But here's something to ponder Ollie....
Nist said-"_*"12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter.""
"NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."*_

Perhaps this is why they found no corroborating evidence! You wont find what you're not looking for!

NIST said- _*"Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition."*_

 So, NIST, did no testing for the evidence of thermite, but they did manage to figure that it would take "many thousands of pounds of the stuff." So by their thinking...it would take many thousands of pounds of this chemical compound, yet their "gravity only" collapse would not require any at all, so answer this question... If an assisted collapse needs  thermite charges to be placed on hundreds of massive structural steel components to weaken and destroy the buildings, how could a gravity only collapse be able to do the same exact thing? 

And to you idiots that support a pancaking theory that requires floor failures in succession,

_* NISTs findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor systemthat connected the core columns and the perimeter columnsconsisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.*_

So it looks like Ollie is at odds with the other idiot on here. But both of you still can't account for what I posted, and never have.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 26, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 26, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Fuck common sense will tell anyone with the capacity to think, that these "collapses" should have taken much longer then what was observed.



Common sense???

Is that what you're using???

Tell you what. Instead of you and I going ground and round about 50 million different things in our posts, let's focus on your quote above shall we?

So, provide me a link that provides a model, calculations, and an explanation each of the following points...

1. Explaining how the building components SHOULD have held together when the massive load of the descending upper block/debris pile impacted each floor. Show me where ANYONE from the truther side of things that has explained how this should have been possible.
2. Please provide your proof that the floors should have added time to the total collapse. How much time and which components come into play.

You see, the explanation I had in red from NIST explains how the descending debris sheared each floor in succession. Fire is what initiated the the collapse, gravity and the massive load is what tore through the two towers. When you remove the floors, you have no structural stability anymore.

So Mr. Jones. The floor is yours. How would the lower section resist the descending upper section, adding time and jolts.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 26, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 26, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> So it looks like Ollie is at odds with the other idiot on here. But both of you still can't account for what I posted, and never have.



Hey stupid...

Do you not comprehend what you read?

That was for the initiation of the collapse. After the release of the top section, gravity and the mass of the upper section/debris pile is what tore the towers apart as it descended.

It's clearly illustrated in the NIST section I quoted and put in red.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 26, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> You will swear that a 10 story block will travel through 90 stories of WTC building, in just a tad over FF time? seriously is this what you are saying?



So show us your numbers and calculations fuckstick.

You obviously have them somewhere to back your idiotic claim. Let me guess. Common sense?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 26, 2013)

Mr. Jones,

Does this photo show the that upper section crushed the lower section like you keep claiming in your idiotic examples using trucks and VWs? I thought you said the upper section completely crushed the lower section?





What does this picture tell you about what actually happened?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 26, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


bahahahahahahahahahaha!


----------



## daws101 (Feb 26, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


as already pointed out you have no proof that the collapse times were anything out of the ordinary.
it' a false statement.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 26, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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


another extremely wrong assumption by  GP... in most offices complexes when an old tenant moves out the space is refurbished and the new tenant would supply it's own newer furnishings.
you assuming the empty space would cause some sort imaginary fire break.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 26, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


nist admitted nothing as pointed out before .
they stated fact..


----------



## daws101 (Feb 26, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


speaking of total bullshit sites....


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 26, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > It is clear that the top block, far from being a rigid hammer, was disintegrating and cannot possibly provide the impact which Bazant and Zhou/NIST have calculated and depended on. There was a mass of fragmented material falling, which can deliver many very small blows but we can predict that it will be unable to deliver a blow representing its total mass, as the official story requires.
> ...



That is correct, actually. Dumping a 5 pound bag of gravel on someone's head would hurt them a lot less than dropping a 5 pound granite rock on their head. Leave the gravel in the bag and it would do more damage, but it still wouldn't equal the damage of a single rock.

Don't believe me? Try it on someone you don't like...


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 26, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I'm VERY sure. 'Building mechanics' has not a flipping thing to do with structure, building mechanics is the HVAC, power delivery and plumbing.
> ...



I have a clue, buddy. Skilling was THE foremost expert in structural engineering. The mention of 'building mechanics' was in regard to the smoke from the '93 bombing not clearing out of the building through the HVAC system. THAT was the 'building mechanics' they were talking about.

Don't believe me? Go back and read the linked article for yourself.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 26, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Fuck common sense will tell anyone with the capacity to think, that these "collapses" should have taken much longer then what was observed.
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 26, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Are you kidding? This idiot thinks football players can walk through multiple hinged, locked doors as tho they weren't even there!


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



Daws, what burns in an EMPTY space?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 26, 2013)

I have a question regarding the photo posted of the floor joist connections.

Why do they appear completely undamaged if their failure was the cause of collapse?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 26, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > You will swear that a 10 story block will travel through 90 stories of WTC building, in just a tad over FF time? seriously is this what you are saying?
> ...



I've posted a few common sense examples that you avoid responding to..Probably because you lack the common sense to understand them..I have also posted throughout my visits here on the USMB examples from credible folks with calculations, and a few that directly challenge Bazant...
I challenged you to post what you had that reinforces your adherence to a theory that is based on unprovable assumptions, and guesses, and highly extremely, over exaggerated data..and you have failed to meet this challenge before posing your own counter challenge.....Why is this? Have you nothing that substantiates any of your assumptions?

In summary NIST estimated the towers "collapsed" in 9-11 secs.
FF in NYC would have been around 9.22 or so....The tops of the severed towers did not fall through air, they fell through massive steel components, with all the numbers you posted for each floor a few pages back....All I'm asking is for you to explain and substantiate how this could have happened is all...And so far you are getting very defensive, and posing a counter challenge to me, without rising to your own task at hand...
You must first overcome your mental barriers that are thus preventing you from even engaging in any of the common sense examples that have been posted...So how long would it take your football player to to fall through 90 stories of metal, hinged, locked/welded doors AGAIN LOL???


----------



## daws101 (Feb 26, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


still wrong ! 
a 5 pound  sandbag or a 5 pound pig iron (stage weights)do different damage.
I know because I've dropped both from similar heights, a pig iron  will make a hole approximately the same size it is.
on the other hand a sand bag because it's more flexible will spread the damage out over a larger area and weaken the whole structure.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 26, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


whatever encloses it.
besides an empty space would help a collapse  not hinder it .
path of least resistance and all.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Still having comprehension problems, daws? The original proposition was loose gravel vs. a rock. I conceded the point that if the gravel remained in the bag it would do more damage than being poured loose, but it still wouldn't equal the damage caused by a single rock.

Pour 5 pounds of gravel on someone's head and at most they'll need some shampoo and eyewash.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Gypsum board and metal studs don't burn, genius...


----------



## daws101 (Feb 26, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


again the national inquirer  version of events what massive steel components are you yammering about now?
like all steel structures, the towers and wtc7 were mostly empty space,  all  the  "heavy"  steel was in the core and the perimeter.
lighter steel and concrete made up the acre square floors.
the massive components you yammer about collapsed in in on the weaker steel and had no problem over coming their résistance.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 26, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


yes they do they also transfer heat.. hydrocephaly head.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 26, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


no none at all..I was just pointing out how irrelevant your post was by presenting a real life example..


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Your only point is hidden by your baseball cap.

Would you care to wager on the burning capabilities of gypsum?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 27, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Decent through air would have been in 9.22 seconds dumbass! They fell according to NIST in *NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. * Now explain how this is calculated given the mass/weight estimations you posted? Or are we to assume that the mass
> did not count in any calculation to obstruct the collapses???



HEY STUPID!!!!

Read the quote of yours above REAL slow, paying particular attention to the part you bolded from NIST.

THE FIRST EXTERIOR PANELS TO STRIKE THE GOUND...

That would be the first perimeter panels to strike the ground dumbass! It ties into EXACTLY what I have been explaining to you. The upper section/debris pile sheared the floors from the perimeter columns, which, because they were no longer connected and ripped apart, FELL TO THE GROUND!

Holy shit man!

COMPREHENSION!

If there was zero resistance for the debris pile descending, then please explain why the above mentioned perimeter panels feel AHEAD of the collapse front?!

The whole of the towers, from collapse initiation to a end was not 11 or 9 seconds you dolt.

Here is the part you left out:


> From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse.



Almost DOUBLE the time for freefall.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 27, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> In summary NIST estimated the towers "collapsed" in 9-11 secs.



AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

This says it all dumbass. This is TOTALLY incorrect!!!!

Read my post above.

No wonder you believe all this conspiracy horseshit. You parrot the lies and incorrect information of the ignorant.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 27, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> I have a question regarding the photo posted of the floor joist connections.
> 
> Why do they appear completely undamaged if their failure was the cause of collapse?



This picture?






If that's the one you're talking about, that was a photo taken during construction of the towers.

Here is a perimeter section with the floor truss connections sheared off.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 27, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > In summary NIST estimated the towers "collapsed" in 9-11 secs.
> ...



To further illustrate my point, and your lack of comprehension, watch this video paying attention at :05. 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iedoXvTvO18&playnext=1&list=PL2EB6DAA9C5931382&feature=results_video]WTC 1 Peels open - Columns outpace Debris Cloud - YouTube[/ame]

See that perimeter column panel on the left, outside the towers footprint? Now look at the "white corner" of the tower in the middle. How can you say that the towers collapsed at free fall speeds when the perimeter column panel in that video is AHEAD of the collapse front?

THAT perimeter column panel is what NIST says hit the ground at freefall, not that the towers collapsed at free fall.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 27, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



This is correct (from what I understand). Gypsum itself doesn't burn. It's the paper covering on drywall/sheetrock that burns.


----------



## PredFan (Feb 27, 2013)

The problem with the CT people is that they really have nothing to support their theory so all they can do is try to disprove the NIST report. That report isn't perfect, no one is arguing that.

If you want me to believe that it happened another way, you need to stop trying to dispute the official investigation and try to support your theory. No one seems to want to do that.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 27, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Decent through air would have been in 9.22 seconds dumbass! They fell according to NIST in *NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. * Now explain how this is calculated given the mass/weight estimations you posted? Or are we to assume that the mass
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 27, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > In summary NIST estimated the towers "collapsed" in 9-11 secs.
> ...



I explained what I was trying to present already.
Do you understand my point? I do not agree that the towers collapsed at FF times. We know FF is 9.22 secs or so. Estimated collapse times ranges vary, but the point of contention is that given the amount of mass of the lower undamaged structure, and taking into consideration the amount of the upper's mass that was either ejected away from the collapse fronts, or was pulverized, the collapses were still too rapid.

I have been asking you to post whatever you have, that convinced you that it is reasonable to expect collapse times that are just a tad faster then FF, even after you take what I mentioned above regarding the towers into consideration.

There is no doubt that there was _some_ "minimal resistance"...I totally agree with NIST on this, the question is...why.

Why do you not answer the question regarding the 2 identical uppers hoisted by a crane and one dropped through air and another dropped on the remaining 90 stories?

Which one would be expected to arrive on the ground first?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 27, 2013)

PredFan said:


> The problem with the CT people is that they really have nothing to support their theory so all they can do is try to disprove the NIST report. That report isn't perfect, no one is arguing that.


It is far from accurate we can agree. They should be held to account for the discrepencies though. They should be more forthcoming in addressing the complaints too, as well as
release their computer simulation on 7 for replication as well. It is narrative based on assumptions that discredits their theory, and if it can be discredited by others, then the theory is false and has to be reconsidered, re analyzed and done again.



> If you want me to believe that it happened another way, you need to stop trying to dispute the official investigation and try to support your theory. No one seems to want to do that.


There are other independent analysis that have been done, and the people that have done them have been ignored by NIST, even though some are in the same fields of study.
Many of their papers are available for study, that point out specifically where the NIST analysis is lacking.
This is just one example that suggests an 11 sec. total collapse time based on the initial speed of the one of the top sections. We have been given
estimations anywhere from 10 to 15 secs. FF is 9.22. This suggests that all of the mass, steel, connections, concrete that comprised the towers
provided only a minimal amount of resistance.
You must look at the buildings, and take into consideration the amount of mass that is being pulverized, and ejected away from the collapse fronts
that can not be added into the equation. This further contradicts and calls into question why there is only a (estimated) 1 to 5 seconds difference
from FF (an object falling through air only).
The alternative theories suggest that something else had to have been used to remove the mass out of the way, and the analysis done by the independents seem to side with this, and against a fire and gravity ONLY theory provided from NIST.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 27, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> So you know FF would have been 9.22 or so. NIST says preliminary parts fell in 9-11 secs.



BULLSHIT!!!

Now you want to spin it huh because you got your ass handed to you?! What a lying asshole you are! NIST said nothing of "preliminary parts". They say the "exterior panels". That's the perimeter column sections. And yes they fell at freefall because the were OUTSIDE the tower's footprint. The floors were sheared from them and nothing was holding them up. They fell outward.



Mr. Jones said:


> Which is what I was trying to point out to you, and we have collapse time estimations from 10 to 15 secs,



Wrong yet again! I can't believe the friggin' lies that you post. The tower's did not collapse in 10 to 15 seconds you ass. Part of the damn cores from each tower stood for 15 to 25 seconds AFTER collapse initiation. And you want to claim differently?



Mr. Jones said:


> with absolutely nothing to quantify such rapid decents, especially taking into account the mass/weights of some of the floors you posted directly from NIST themselves...



*sigh*

For the last time. Look at the load ONE floor could could support and then tell me the load that impacted that first floor. How mush difference is there between the two? If you don't post the answer to this question, I will know for a fact you're being deceitful.



Mr. Jones said:


> Independent analysis studies have estimated at least 60 secs. or a little longer,



WTF Mr. Jones? Was there a revision to your "proper calculations" that you sited earlier in this thread:


Mr. Jones said:


> They should have according to proper calculations taken around 55 seconds.



Then you said, in the same damn thread:


Mr. Jones said:


> This is too fast for the energy to overcome against the more robust, lowers.
> Estimates have suggested times in the 50 to 60 second range if not more for a collapse of buildings without the assistance and use of other means, to remove the  underneath mass.



So which is it? 50? 55? 60? Longer? I see a pattern here. The more information that shows up proving your claim of freefall collapse in 9 to 10 seconds to be completely idiotic, the more time you seem to add to these "supposed estimates". How quaint eh? It would be because you've been shown that the complete collapse of each tower was getting kinda close to your 50 seconds huh? Maybe 30 seconds for total collapse?

So there was resistance huh?





Mr. Jones said:


> if indeed  the extreme office fire temps were even sustained locally, at the core, that caused the antennae that was connected to it, to start its downward movement, as witnessed in the videos.
> None of the extreme temps can be quantified, especially at the core.
> And no analysis has been done by NIST regarding the actual collapses.
> Did you have fun trying to find any info from NIST about them?



For the intelligent, the information is all right there in black and white. Unfortunately for you, you have been living on incorrect information as has been pointed out to you many times. That is why you believe this demolition garbage.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 27, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> and left out the shear studs in WTC 7 in 2008?



I read this and had to laugh. Watching gerrycan's videos huh Mr. Jones?

Do you want me to hand your ass to you regarding this crap? I dare you to ask me.

gerrycan doesn't know how to read construction drawings and made a HUGE blunder about the shear studs and NIST supposedly "leaving them out"...


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 27, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Why do you not answer the question regarding the 2 identical uppers hoisted by a crane and one dropped through air and another dropped on the remaining 90 stories?
> 
> Which one would be expected to arrive on the ground first?



What the hell are you talking about?

I can only guess.

NIST's reference was to a perimeter panel higher up in the tower that the floor connections were sheared from due to the upper section coming down and fell OUTSIDE the towers footprint to the ground. FREEFALL1

The collapse front/debris pile fell WAY behind that perimeter panel piece as evidenced by the video I posted showing the panel on the left, and the still intact perimeter facade in the middle. The collapse front/debris pile hadn't gotten that far yet inside the perimeter columns. NOT FREEFALL! That means SOME RESISTANCE!


----------



## PredFan (Feb 27, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with the CT people is that they really have nothing to support their theory so all they can do is try to disprove the NIST report. That report isn't perfect, no one is arguing that.
> ...



Again, you're poking holes in the NIST report.

Are you saying that that is the only point you are trying to make? That the government did a shitty job investigating?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 27, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> This is just one example that suggests an 11 sec. total collapse time based on the initial speed of the one of the top sections. We have been given
> estimations anywhere from 10 to 15 secs. FF is 9.22. This suggests that all of the mass, steel, connections, concrete that comprised the towers
> provided only a minimal amount of resistance.



Mr. Jones,

You need to clarify what you are applying this 11 seconds of total time to. 

There is 100% verifiable proof that the total collapse of the towers was not 11 seconds. From the time of collapse initiation to when the entire structure was no more was almost double that 11 seconds. That's because the parts of the core of each tower was standing 15 and 25 seconds AFTER collapse initiation.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 27, 2013)

PredFan said:


> You must look at the buildings, and take into consideration the amount of mass that is being pulverized, and ejected away from the collapse fronts
> that can not be added into the equation.



How much Mr. Jones?

I suppose you can quantify the amount ejected away through all the dust generated by the gypsum paneling, ceiling tiles, and other items?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 27, 2013)

Here is another video explaining how acceleration was calculated. NIST has admitted FF for WTC 7, but "has refused to address the obvious implications".
Which questions how the lower mass of a huge structure would simply move out of the way to allow FF. This would not occur, and never has occurred in a building with fires that are spread out unevenly within the building, like WTC 7.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJf7pWVyvIw]Acceleration + Serendipity - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 27, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > You must look at the buildings, and take into consideration the amount of mass that is being pulverized, and ejected away from the collapse fronts
> ...


 Is the amount of ejected and pulverized mass not visibly apparent to you?
Cmon stop being so blind, we can all see it, it is obvious enough. You are at least admitting that there were "other items" but leave out HUGE items in your definition that would be more appropriate.

What is still in question is why the rapid collapse fronts, and why only minimal resistance, and also what implications does FF for 2.25 secs in WTC, that suggest mass removal of 8 stories? It is obvious that these were not fire and gravity only 'collapses"


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 27, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> So which is it? 50? 55? 60? Longer? I see a pattern here.



Hey Mr. Jones?

Why wasn't this study, from a mathematics professor nonetheless, mentioned in your above bullshit?


Mr. Jones said:


> Mr. Ken Cutler, a professor in mathematics has studies it though-and he agrees with the mechanical engineer Gordon Ross, that the time to total collapse would be much larger then 10 secs, he gives a time figure estimate of 36 secs.



36 seconds huh? 

So from you touting 36 seconds back in 2011, you're now at 60 seconds or longer.

Not looking to good for you and your deceitful ways...


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 27, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Is the amount of ejected and pulverized mass not visibly apparent to you?



The AMOUNT???

Tell me how much debris, weight-wise, is in those clouds of dust. 

What is impossible to determine is what that dust consists of. Do you mean to tell me from photographs you can discern if that's gyspum planking dust, concrete dust, ceiling tile dust, etc? 

You trying to tell me the AMOUNT is immense is incredible. The size of a dust cloud is not indicative of the mass of the substance that created it.

Go think about that for a bit and come back.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 27, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


 It seems that it is more then just shoddy or shitty jobs. It is being called unscientific, and in some cases actual lies.

Here is a page for you to look at if you're interested that better explains it.
Review of 'A New Standard For Deception' A Presentation by Kevin Ryan


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 27, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Cmon stop being so blind, we can all see it, it is obvious enough. You are at least admitting that there were "other items" but leave out HUGE items in your definition that would be more appropriate.



Are you trying to tell me that huge pieces of steel were "ejected" with grate force (explosion) to land away from the tower?

Do you understand parabolic trajectories are? If so, can you explain how a heavy object, 1000 ft in the air might topple/fall sideways with a little bit of horizontal force applied at the top?

If I rolled a bowling bowl off the top of one of those towers, how far away from the base do you think it would land? 

You don't think that the descending debris pile, after shearing the floors from the perimeter columns, could have pushed those perimeter columns sideways, landing hundreds of feet from the base?



Mr. Jones said:


> What is still in question is why the rapid collapse fronts, and why only minimal resistance, and also what implications does FF for 2.25 secs in WTC, that suggest mass removal of 8 stories? It is obvious that these were not fire and gravity only 'collapses"



No, it's NOT in question. The force/load of the debris pile impacting each floor, as has been shown to you numerous times, was WAY OVER the designed load of each floor and could not resist it. So the debris pile hits the first floor below, shears the floor from its floor truss connection, and continues down WITH the floor it just sheared added to its mass. 

Onward to the next floor.

The perimeter columns were not crushed in the collapse. The were pushed outward after being sheared from the floors that helped hold them up. The floors tied the perimeter columns and the core columns together (along with the hat truss). Nether "tube" (box create by the perimeter columns or the box created by the core columns) could stand on it's own.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 27, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Is the amount of ejected and pulverized mass not visibly apparent to you?
> ...



But it's OK for NIST to say the same thing and you believe them? 
Look first of all, IMO, it appears from watching videos that we are seeing an explosive collapse, NOT a slow gravity induced one, as I at least would have expected.
From reading about conservation of momentum, I also would expect to see a hesitating, at times halting collapse front. Why? Because this is supposed to be a gravity collapse that was kick started by a local fire damaged components that gave out, and collided with UNDAMAGED HEAVIER COMPONENTS.

What do we see? Parts that are exploding even in the beginning of the "collapse". We also can trace explosive, expulsions all the way down the buildings, WAY ahead of the collapse fronts...

Look why haven't you posted any of NIST figures regarding what you are asking of me?
I am not the expert, rather I am trying to be as an astute observer as I can given what I know, and have learned from others.

So are you having trouble figuring out which top section would be expected to arrive on the ground sooner? One that would travel through 90 stories of mass/steel or one that goes through air?


----------



## PredFan (Feb 27, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Well if that's your only point then I have no issue.

Lacking a plausable alternative explanation, I have to go with the conclusion that Al Queda hijacked planes, flew them into the towers and they fell. The true details of what happened can probably never be known.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 27, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> I also would expect to see a hesitating, at times halting collapse front. Why? Because this is supposed to be a gravity collapse that was kick started by a local fire damaged components that gave out, and collided with UNDAMAGED HEAVIER COMPONENTS.



Nope.

Dead wrong. You cannot take the weight of everything below a certain area of a structure and tell anyone that it will resist the section above falling onto it. Total fail on your part.

The numbers are right there. The floor connections could resist a certain load. The descending debris was WAY higher than what those floors could hold. When the floors were sheared, the integrity of the perimeter facade and core were comprised. They need those floors connected to help keep the towers. That's how they were designed.

Also, some of the tower structure DID initially resist the debris pile. That's why you see the partial core in the previous photo I posted.

How much information have you gotten wrong in this discussion over the past few days? Information that you use to come to a conclusion.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 27, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Cmon stop being so blind, we can all see it, it is obvious enough. You are at least admitting that there were "other items" but leave out HUGE items in your definition that would be more appropriate.
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 27, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



If that's the only point you can conclude, then carry on and have a nice fantasy filled delusional existence in Amerika..


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 27, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Mr. Jones, here's a more layman's explanation of what I think is being discussed regarding the hesitation you expected during the collapse : 

The problem is that during the collapse, it was not a matter of the top portions impacting with the entire lower portions.  Instead, you must think of it as the upper portions falling and impacting with a single floor below them.  Now, if there is enough mass/momentum in those upper portions, the amount of resistance from that single floor they hit is so minimal that there is very little noticeable hesitation.  That then progresses from floor to floor, and because each floor is unable to provide significant resistance, you don't see the hesitations, the stop/start collapse you are expecting.

Or, put another way.....think of dropping a bowling ball onto paper.  Now, if you drop the ball onto a solid stack of paper, such as a sheaf of printing paper like you'd buy in a store, the bowling ball will hit that and be stopped.  It might break through the first few sheets, scatter some sheets around, but for the most part the papers will remain intact.

However, with the collapse of the towers, it was more like getting a bunch of sticks and taping those papers inside a square frame, with an inch of space between each sheet of paper and the next sheet of paper.  In this scenario, even if the frame is strong enough to remain upright, the bowling ball will easily pass through the sheets of paper.  The individual sheets won't be able to create enough resistance to significantly slow the bowling ball, so that is maintains plenty of momentum to go with it's mass to pass through the next paper, and the next, etc..

I realize that's an inexact analogy, but I think it is close enough to the issue in contention and works as a simplified analogy, without worrying about the math involved.  

As I've said, I too would have expected much more visible resistance from the collapse when I saw it.  I think this shows why, at least according to the NIST report, we didn't have that.  Whether or not it's true, it DOES have a common-sense kind of reasonableness to it when looked at this way.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 27, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > I also would expect to see a hesitating, at times halting collapse front. Why? Because this is supposed to be a gravity collapse that was kick started by a local fire damaged components that gave out, and collided with UNDAMAGED HEAVIER COMPONENTS.
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 27, 2013)

Bullshit videos..........gotta love em.........


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 27, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > I also would expect to see a hesitating, at times halting collapse front. Why? Because this is supposed to be a gravity collapse that was kick started by a local fire damaged components that gave out, and collided with UNDAMAGED HEAVIER COMPONENTS.
> ...



Jones is a textbook example of "BS in = BS out."


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 27, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 27, 2013)

Mr. Jones,

Are you going to address your 36 minute, 50 minute, 55 minute, 60 minute, or longer cluster-fuck-of-evidence-to-back-your-claims regarding how long the collapse SHOULD have taken?

According to a PROFESSIONAL MATHEMATICIAN no less...


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 27, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Your first sentence explains your insanity, there is no use going any further with you on this. To say that mass of a lower structure has no bearing is just plain ignorant.



Is it now?

So if I glue a nail to the side, at the top of a 30 foot high, 20' diameter solid steel column, I could accurately predict of that nail will resist my slamming a sledge hammer onto the top of that nail by performing stress/load calculations that would include the mass of solid steel column, therefore proving that the nail will in fact, resist? Regardless of the way it was attached to said steel column?

Is that what the fuck you're saying?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 27, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


another false assumption.

Catch It/ Keep It: Burning Drywall : Video : Science Channel


http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire77/PDF/f77002.pdf


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 27, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Is the amount of ejected and pulverized mass not visibly apparent to you?
> ...



How much weight can you allocate the the debris that damaged or destroyed all those other buildings? 

I think it's clear that THOSE massive pieces didn't have anything to do with the 'progressive collapse'.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 27, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with the CT people is that they really have nothing to support their theory so all they can do is try to disprove the NIST report. That report isn't perfect, no one is arguing that.
> ...


now this is funny ..sister jones is attempting to pass off A&E for twoof as credible lolololol!


----------



## daws101 (Feb 27, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Here is another video explaining how acceleration was calculated. NIST has admitted FF for WTC 7, but "has refused to address the obvious implications".
> Which questions how the lower mass of a huge structure would simply move out of the way to allow FF. This would not occur, and never has occurred in a building with fires that are spread out unevenly within the building, like WTC 7.
> 
> Acceleration + Serendipity - YouTube


A&E again  hahahahahahahahahahah
1


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 27, 2013)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


 You're trying to use thermite, a substance you all deny was anywhere near the towers, to try and demonstrate that gypsum burns?

Really?

And just so you know, the thermite didn't actually ignite the gypsum, it just got it hot enough to burn off ALL it's H2O content and cause it to fall apart. The ONLY part of drywall that burns is the paper that encases it, about 5% of it's total mass.


http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire77/PDF/f77002.pdf[/QUOTE]

Nowhere in that boring .pdf does it say that gypsum ignites. ONLY the paper burns, gypsum is NON-COMBUSTIBLE.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 27, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Bullshit videos..........gotta love em.........


no kidding  this last one is so chicken shit the maker did not even use his or hers own voice!


----------



## daws101 (Feb 27, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Nowhere in that boring .pdf does it say that gypsum ignites. ONLY the paper burns, gypsum is NON-COMBUSTIBLE.[/QUOTE]



 just what I expected .
are you always this stupid or just on week days 
only in your twisted  pov the first thing you comment on was the imaginary rub your nose in thermite nonsense.
I used that clip to show that gypsum does burn if it did not it would not fall apart  the heat breaks down it structural integrity.
your answer is just as stupid your false question in post # 1361.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 27, 2013)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...





 just what I expected .
are you always this stupid or just on week days 
only in your twisted  pov the first thing you comment on was the imaginary rub your nose in thermite nonsense.
I used that clip to show that gypsum does burn if it did not it would not fall apart  the heat breaks down it structural integrity.
your answer is just as stupid your false question in post # 1361.[/QUOTE]

Falling apart and burning are two entirely different things, jackass. You fools have tried to say that the millions of pounds of drywall burned in order to generate enough heat to weaken those floor trusses.

Didn't happen, and the fires didn't burn long enough or hot enough to cause it's disintegration, either.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 27, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Falling apart and burning are two entirely different things, jackass. You fools have tried to say that the millions of pounds of drywall burned in order to generate enough heat to weaken those floor trusses.

Didn't happen, and the fires didn't burn long enough or hot enough to cause it's disintegration, either.[/QUOTE]in reality they're not.. also you're intentionally misstating what us" fools" said.  jet fuel, paper, office furniture,  office cubicles, plastics, gypsum, sound proofing, celling tiles,  pvc, chemicals etc. all in the millions of tons kept the fire burning long enough and hot enough to weaken the floor joists.
you have no proof otherwise....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 27, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Here is another video explaining how acceleration was calculated. NIST has admitted FF for WTC 7, but "has refused to address the obvious implications".
> ...



They like Arts and Entertainment.....Makes their lives easier......


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 27, 2013)

daws101 said:


> in reality they're not.. also you're intentionally misstating what us" fools" said.  jet fuel, paper, office furniture,  office cubicles, plastics, gypsum, sound proofing, celling tiles,  pvc, chemicals etc. all in the millions of tons kept the fire burning long enough and hot enough to weaken the floor joists.
> you have no proof otherwise....



Umm no, I'm not. But regardless, let's look at your list.

1. Jet fuel - Mostly consumed at impact in the huge fireballs we witnessed, Residual amounts burned off in 10-15 minutes. Even if jet fuel burned hot enough in open air to damage steel beams and trusses (which it doesn't) it was burned off long before it could accomplish the feat.

2. Paper - Doesn't burn hot enough.

3. office furniture & cubicles - what percentage of that furniture was metal and couldn't burn, and where is your proof that wood and plastic can obtain a high enough temperature burning in open air to accomplish the necessary damage to the floor trusses?

4. Gypsum, sound proofing and ceiling tiles - Doesn't burn. Commercial applications mean code wouldn't allow them to use flammable substances in ceilings and sound proofing, and we already know that gypsum is not flammable.

5. PVC and chemicals - From what, exactly?


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 27, 2013)

Didn't Popular Mechanics, or some similar publication, actually do an experiment with a steel beam and a jet fuel fire, and the steel beam was weakened to the point of collapse within a few minutes?  Hell, I may have posted that video in here.

My point, of course, is to question why you are insistent that the fires could not have burned long or hot enough to weaken the structure to the point of collapse.  I have seen repeatedly that steel loses approximately 50% of its strength at 1100 degrees, and that jet fuel burns at anywhere from 800-1500 degrees.  Now, of course, the fuel would have burned away long before the collapse took place, but that would rebut the argument that jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to weaken steel beams.  After that it's a question of how hot it would have gotten within the buildings after the fuel was gone.  That I don't know, but it certainly SEEMS to have gotten hot enough to weaken the steel and cause a collapse.  Despite repeated claims that it could not have been hot enough, I haven't seen any evidence showing that to be the case.  How hot can an average fire burn?  What's the difference in temperature if it's a wood fire, or different cloths, or whatever other materials were likely to be in the towers?  

These definitive claims (fires COULD NOT burn hot enough to cause collapse!) never seem to be backed up with strong evidence.  So, even if the NIST conclusions are wrong, the conclusions bandied about in here are rarely as persuasive.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 28, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Didn't Popular Mechanics, or some similar publication, actually do an experiment with a steel beam and a jet fuel fire, and the steel beam was weakened to the point of collapse within a few minutes?  Hell, I may have posted that video in here.
> 
> My point, of course, is to question why you are insistent that the fires could not have burned long or hot enough to weaken the structure to the point of collapse.  I have seen repeatedly that steel loses approximately 50% of its strength at 1100 degrees, and that jet fuel burns at anywhere from 800-1500 degrees.  Now, of course, the fuel would have burned away long before the collapse took place, but that would rebut the argument that jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to weaken steel beams.  After that it's a question of how hot it would have gotten within the buildings after the fuel was gone.  That I don't know, but it certainly SEEMS to have gotten hot enough to weaken the steel and cause a collapse.  Despite repeated claims that it could not have been hot enough, I haven't seen any evidence showing that to be the case.  How hot can an average fire burn?  What's the difference in temperature if it's a wood fire, or different cloths, or whatever other materials were likely to be in the towers?
> 
> These definitive claims (fires COULD NOT burn hot enough to cause collapse!) never seem to be backed up with strong evidence.  So, even if the NIST conclusions are wrong, the conclusions bandied about in here are rarely as persuasive.



I saw the same video, and the biggest problem with it was the fact that the source of the fire was less than 3' below the beam instead of the 10' required to simulate the distance between the floor and the joists above. Triple the distance to the flame source and the whole demonstration fails miserably.

As to the temperature of the burning office contents the most repeated estimates are 8-1100 degrees, based on the material burning and the color of the smoke emitted. 

Additionally, the fires were randomly spread around the building. In order to cause a  collapse those fires would have had to been much more pervasive. Floor joists are set every 24 inches. You could weaken several adjoining trusses to the point of failure and it still wouldn't cause the entire floor to collapse at the same moment.


----------



## PredFan (Feb 28, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



I've asked you a number of times to come up with a plausable alternative, you cannot. I guess this is the point where you start calling me names. That doesn't make your position seem strong in the least.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 28, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > in reality they're not.. also you're intentionally misstating what us" fools" said.  jet fuel, paper, office furniture,  office cubicles, plastics, gypsum, sound proofing, celling tiles,  pvc, chemicals etc. all in the millions of tons kept the fire burning long enough and hot enough to weaken the floor joists.
> ...



Cardington test results were used. Last page of the inked document, Figure 3. The temperatures of the simulated office fire reached 1200 C in 40 minutes.





http://fire.fsv.cvut.cz/difisek/CZ_EN/WP5a-01-CZ_EN_TEXT.pdf


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 28, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't Popular Mechanics, or some similar publication, actually do an experiment with a steel beam and a jet fuel fire, and the steel beam was weakened to the point of collapse within a few minutes?  Hell, I may have posted that video in here.
> ...



Guy,

The point is this. 

For example, the plane that struck WTC1 severed about 31 perimeter columns. Those columns took and transferred some of the load. You effectively removed about 53% of one face of the perimeter facade. That means 53% of the load that those columns helped support has now been transferred to the remaining support components.

Now damage/severe a couple of core columns.

Now heat them up so they lose strength.

The other support components in that damaged area become overburdened and fail.

Let me ask a question.

If explosives were used to blow all the columns and supports on that one floor to initiate the collapse, how come the upper section tilted?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 28, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones,
> 
> Are you going to address your 36 minute, 50 minute, 55 minute, 60 minute, or longer cluster-fuck-of-evidence-to-back-your-claims regarding how long the collapse SHOULD have taken?
> 
> According to a PROFESSIONAL MATHEMATICIAN no less...



Just in case you missed it Mr. Jones...


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 28, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> As to the temperature of the burning office contents the most repeated estimates are 8-1100 degrees, based on the material burning and the color of the smoke emitted.



The test I quoted above shows the office simulated fire reached 1200 C (2192 F) in 40 minutes.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 28, 2013)

Gamolon said:


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



Where, oh where is the evidence of explosives and explosions, who planted them at whose command, what did they use and who does a controlled demo from the middle floors of an enormous skyscraper? Those who dismiss the NIST report are obligated to offer viable alternatives and evidence. 11+ years later they still have nothing.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 28, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > and left out the shear studs in WTC 7 in 2008?
> ...



Since you're too much of a chickenshit to respond, I'll show you just ONE of the many areas gerrycan and his videos fail miserably.

In his video he makes the claim that shear studs were on all the beams and girders. His evidence for this is 3 drawings from the Emery Roth & Sons set of blueprints, particularly S-8-10, S-8-19, and S-8-20. These three drawings DO show shear studs, but only for those floors (10, 19, 20). He assumes, stupidly, that there are missing drawings for all the rest of the 44 floors in WTC7. 

The problem is that there is a drawing S-8 that was typical for floors 8 through 20 and floors 24 through 45. This drawing shows NO SHEAR studs for any of the girders on those floors.

The three drawings he sites above were drawings made from COPIES of S-8 in order to show changes on certain beams (they added plates to the bottoms of some of them on those floors) for those three floors only (10, 19, 20).

Even the Frankel Steel fabrication drawings for the floors don't show shear studs.

So my question to you is, how can you claim NIST changed their documents based on the fact that they discovered shear studs on the girders when there were no shear studs on those girders to begin with?

I have MANY more mistakes made by gerrycan if you want me to list them.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 28, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



What I would like to have explained to me from the truthe side of things is how they separated the floors from the perimeter columns.

How was thermite and explosives used to create this partial core?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 28, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



As your expose on the gerrycan videos clearly demonstrates, most of the "truthers" are actually liars or simply Internet "experts" spewing CT BS from the script. Some, like Jones, have a more nefarious agenda.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 28, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



As depressing as it may be to think it, the only plausible alternative is a CD of some type.
What we can conclude when taking all the available info into account, is that the NIST theory can not stand up to scrutiny, for various reasons that can be pointed out.
If the NIST version does not quantify, and contradicts itself, AND does not even attempt to explain the actual "collapses" then it is obvious that it is wrong, and deceitful.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 28, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > in reality they're not.. also you're intentionally misstating what us" fools" said.  jet fuel, paper, office furniture,  office cubicles, plastics, gypsum, sound proofing, celling tiles,  pvc, chemicals etc. all in the millions of tons kept the fire burning long enough and hot enough to weaken the floor joists.
> ...


still wrong! the code or codes are written for maximum fire resistance not fire proof (meaning impervious to flame or high heat)
all those materials burn at a certain point some higher some lower.
if they did not burn or lose their structural integrity due to exposer to high temps then there would be no reason to have building codes or fire departments.
fun fact: high explosives do not cause fires.
Also shit head none of us "fools" ever said that fire ALONE caused the collapse.
that's you assholes attempting to minimize all the other contributing factors.

pvc for electrical conduit 
chemicals for janitorial use and chemicals and solvents for maintenance..


----------



## PredFan (Feb 28, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Ok, now we can actually get somewhere.

You subscribe to a theory that it had to be a controlled demolition. Well, let's apply the same keen scrutiny to that theory as you have to the NIST's report. 

Problem #1 with your theory:

How did a demolition crew rig both towers to explode and drop without any office worker, floor sweeper, or maintenance man knowing about it?

Problem #2 

We've all seen buildings brought down by explosives. We watch the explosives go off and the flash of each explosion as the building drops. Why didn't we see the subsequent explosions that brought the towers down?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 28, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Didn't Popular Mechanics, or some similar publication, actually do an experiment with a steel beam and a jet fuel fire, and the steel beam was weakened to the point of collapse within a few minutes?  Hell, I may have posted that video in here.
> 
> My point, of course, is to question why you are insistent that the fires could not have burned long or hot enough to weaken the structure to the point of collapse.  I have seen repeatedly that steel loses approximately 50% of its strength at 1100 degrees, and that jet fuel burns at anywhere from 800-1500 degrees.  Now, of course, the fuel would have burned away long before the collapse took place, but that would rebut the argument that jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to weaken steel beams.  After that it's a question of how hot it would have gotten within the buildings after the fuel was gone.  That I don't know, but it certainly SEEMS to have gotten hot enough to weaken the steel and cause a collapse.  Despite repeated claims that it could not have been hot enough, I haven't seen any evidence showing that to be the case.  How hot can an average fire burn?  What's the difference in temperature if it's a wood fire, or different cloths, or whatever other materials were likely to be in the towers?
> 
> These definitive claims (fires COULD NOT burn hot enough to cause collapse!) never seem to be backed up with strong evidence.  So, even if the NIST conclusions are wrong, the conclusions bandied about in here are rarely as persuasive.


[ame=http://youtu.be/CGsOkT__M7Y]National Geographic Science & Conspiracy Part 3 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Feb 28, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't Popular Mechanics, or some similar publication, actually do an experiment with a steel beam and a jet fuel fire, and the steel beam was weakened to the point of collapse within a few minutes?  Hell, I may have posted that video in here.
> ...


[ame=http://youtu.be/CGsOkT__M7Y]National Geographic Science & Conspiracy Part 3 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Feb 28, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


 not the old and debunked had to be a CD of some kind ploy!

here's who really did it : Directed-energy weapon Nikola Tesla - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main article: Teleforce

Later in life, Tesla made claims concerning a "teleforce" weapon after studying the Van de Graaff generator.[148][149] The press called it a "peace ray" or death ray.[150][151] Tesla described the weapon as being able to be used against ground based infantry or for antiaircraft purposes.

Tesla gives the following description concerning the particle gun's operation:


[The nozzle would] send concentrated beams of particles through the free air, of such tremendous energy that they will bring down a fleet of 10,000 enemy airplanes at a distance of 200 miles from a defending nation's border and will cause armies to drop dead in their tracks.[152][153]

In total, the components and methods included:
An apparatus for producing manifestations of energy in free air instead of in a high vacuum as in the past.
A mechanism for generating tremendous electrical force.
A means of intensifying and amplifying the force developed by the second mechanism.
A new method for producing a tremendous electrical repelling force. This would be the projector, or gun, of the invention.[154][155]

Tesla claimed to have worked on plans for a directed-energy weapon from the early 1900s until his death.[156][157]

In 1937, at a luncheon in his honor concerning the death ray, Tesla stated, "But it is not an experiment... I have built, demonstrated and used it. Only a little time will pass before I can give it to the world." His records indicate that the device is based on a narrow stream of small tungsten pellets that are accelerated via high voltage (by means akin to his magnifying transformer).[149]

During the same year, Tesla wrote a treatise, "The Art of Projecting Concentrated Non-dispersive Energy through the Natural Media," concerning charged particle beam weapons.[158] Tesla published the document in an attempt to expound on the technical description of a "superweapon that would put an end to all war". This treatise is currently in the Nikola Tesla Museum archive in Belgrade. It describes an open-ended vacuum tube with a gas jet seal that allows particles to exit, a method of charging particles to millions of volts, and a method of creating and directing non-dispersive particle streams (through electrostatic repulsion).[158] Tesla tried to interest the US War Department,[159] the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia in the device.[160]

During the period in which the negotiations were being carried on, Tesla claimed that efforts had been made to steal the invention. His room had been entered and his papers had been scrutinized, but the thieves, or spies, left empty-handed. He said that there was no danger that his invention could be stolen for he had at no time committed any part of it to paper. The blueprint for the teleforce weapon was all in his mind.[161]


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 28, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> If the NIST version does not quantify, and *contradicts* itself, AND does not even attempt to explain the actual "collapses" then *it is obvious that it is wrong, and deceitful*.



Oh the sweet, sweet irony is killing me Mr. Jones!!!!!!



Mr. Jones said:


> Mr. Ken Cutler, a professor in mathematics has studies it though-and he agrees with the mechanical engineer Gordon Ross, that the time to total collapse would be much larger then 10 secs, he gives a time figure *estimate of 36 secs*.





Mr. Jones said:


> Estimates have suggested times in the *50 to 60 second* range if not more for a collapse of buildings without the assistance and use of other means, to remove the  underneath mass.





Mr. Jones said:


> They should have according to proper calculations taken around *55 seconds*.





Mr. Jones said:


> Independent analysis studies have estimated at *least 60 secs*. or a little longer,





Why won't you address your contradictions Mr. Jones?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 28, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't Popular Mechanics, or some similar publication, actually do an experiment with a steel beam and a jet fuel fire, and the steel beam was weakened to the point of collapse within a few minutes?  Hell, I may have posted that video in here.
> ...



Also notice how dark the smoke was....was this an oxygen starved fire?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 28, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > If the NIST version does not quantify, and *contradicts* itself, AND does not even attempt to explain the actual "collapses" then *it is obvious that it is wrong, and deceitful*.
> ...



What the fuck are you talking about? There are varying estimates concerning this you fucking idiot!
Dude..You have not answered anything that I have requested. This keeps going round in circles..how about we find a common ground where to re-start this?
I will attempt to show you and others why I have a problem with NIST.
I will post where I have found contradictions regarding the NIST report.

Your thoughts rest on the beliefs, that fires weakened the steel structure.
and that the towers were not designed to redistribute loads. That the steel was badly compromised, due to proof of fire retardant being knocked off etc....
What I have found will contradict what you are saying, using the NIST reports.
It casts sever doubt regarding its legitimate use of available material and data.

Your have a contradictory belief that the towers HAD to have had extreme elevated temps, BUT you deny the existence of such temps at the same time???
You are all over the place, and deny basic physical laws, so I will post in segments what I can find, and we can tackle the issues as they are presented, yes or no?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 28, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



When taking the available NIST reports, it points to just such a scenario, but you must start at that point and not jump to scenarios that you or I can not conclusively prove.
Let us start at the official explanation and see if it can stand scrutiny using the available evidence.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Feb 28, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Yeah sorta like the smoke from the towers...Your reasoning is contradictory and cherry picking. How about we try to use the NIST reports and their data to figure this out?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 28, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


how is this contradictory ?
nothing in the nist report disagrees with the content of the clip.
the basis of your whole "theory" is jet fuel could not deform steel to the point of failure that clip is solid evidence of just how wrong you are.
you complaining about cherry picking! ever thing you've ever posted is freshly cherry picked and packaged for your convenience...


The story...

Black smoke in photos of the WTC fires showed they were oxygen-starved and could have been controlled.

Our take...

There is no absolute rule of &#8220;black smoke = an oxygen-starved fire&#8221;. It&#8217;s not as simple as that. You need to consider the materials that are burning, for instance
http://www.911myths.com/html/black_smoke.html
fyi  this is the only site with 911 in it's title that's credible.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 28, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > As to the temperature of the burning office contents the most repeated estimates are 8-1100 degrees, based on the material burning and the color of the smoke emitted.
> ...


I noticed in your simulated fire scenario that they used ONLY wooden furnishings, providing a much more robust fuel source, and your maximum temperature lasted less than 5 minutes. The temperature exceeded 1000 C for maybe 10 minutes.

I also noted that measuring air temperature doesn't mean that heat is transferred instantaneously to solid steel. Considering how long it takes for a pot to heat up on your stove while in DIRECT contact with the heat source, it's hard to imagine that steel EVER getting above 800 C. I know it takes AT LEAST that long for something in the oven to reach the temperature you set it at. 

Air really sucks at heat transference.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 28, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
WOOD IS NO MORE OR LESS ROBUST A FUEL SOURCE then plastics.
your cooking  pot example is fucking hilarious and soooo wrong.
the metal in a pot is not the problem it's the temperature of water or  what ever you have in the pot that regulates the heat.
try this, put an empty pot on the stove fire it up and see how long it takes to heat up.
asshat!


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 28, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Pay attention, Princess. 
One of your sources estimates 36 seconds, another says around 55 seconds and a third says at least 60 seconds or longer.
If 36 seconds is correct, the next two guesses are BS. The same can be said if you accept the 55 second or the 1 minute or more guesses. Whichever guestimate you buy into renders the others incorrect. The bottom line? They are all just guesses and they do not prove a CD.
Explosives or explosions would but 11+ years after the fact you still have no hard evidence of either.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 28, 2013)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



It's against code to use pvc for electrical conduit, although it is used for waste water.

With a janitor's closet on each floor and a couple of gallons of cleaners in each closet (some flammable, some not) you've got a MAXIMUM of a couple hundred gallons spread out over 100 floors. You MIGHT get a couple 30 gallon barrels in the sub-basement, but I don't see that as being the cause of any great fire, do you?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Feb 28, 2013)

daws101 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



But wood is much more robust than metal, is it not? Most cubicle-type offices I've been in have been furnished mostly with METAL desks, not wood ones. They're actually cheaper and last longer.

And don't even TRY to talk to me about pots, pans and cooking, I've been doing that for 50 years, and 6 of those years I was getting PAID for it. Pots and frying pans are 1/8 to 1/4 inch thick. Tell me something, shit for brains, how long would it take for a 2" thick piece of steel to attain the same temperature of the setting in your oven? Because what we're talking about is heat absorption through the AIR, not through conduction.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 28, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Air sucks huh? Is that why they use fans on top of copper heat sinks for processors? Why do they have fans in computers?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 28, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



Air? Tell me goofball? Are their combustibles inside the oven? You don't know the difference between an office fire and an oven???

Wow!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 28, 2013)

Excuse me! What does an oven have to do with anything????????


----------



## GuyPinestra (Mar 1, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Air is GREAT for cooling things. Heating them up? Not so much...

Let me ask it again, how long would it take for a SOLID piece of steel to go from room temp to 400F in your oven? 

I'm guessing a helluva lot longer than your simulated office fire exceeded 800C.


----------



## candycorn (Mar 1, 2013)

Any word on what took down the light poles if it wasn't AA77 yet?  No?  Carry on.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 1, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



You really have no clue do you?

An oven compared to an office fire? You HAVE to be kidding me. Let me hit you with some knowledge. 

1. First a little about the high thermal conductivity of steel from the ASHI (American Society of Home Inspectors). Inpormtant points in red.
Link: The Effects of Fire on Structural Systems | The ASHI Reporter | Inspection News & Views from the American Society of Home Inspectors


> 3  Steel
> 
> The yield strength of steel is reduced to about half at 550 ºC. At 1000 ºC, the yield strength is 10 percent or less. Because of its high thermal conductivity, the temperature of unprotected internal steelwork normally will vary little from that of the fire. Structural steelwork is, therefore, usually insulated.
> 
> ...



2. Increase in temperature of steel due to fires.
Link: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apa.pdf






3. An article about fireproofing and restrained vs. unrestrained structural components.
STRUCTUREmag - Structural Engineering Magazine, Tradeshow: Fireproofing Steel Structures

4. How gas ovens work.
Link:How Does a Gas Oven Work? | eHow.com


> Conventional and Convection Ovens
> A conventional gas oven uses heating elements exclusively to heat the food. The hot air does some of the cooking, but a lot of the work is done by infrared radiation from the heating elements. Conventional ovens tend to have some hotter spots and some cooler spots, which can make it hard to cook food evenly. Convection ovens improve on this design by simply adding a fan. The fan blows the air around the oven, spreading the heat around evenly. The hot air blowing past the food tends to cook it faster as well. Even at lower temperatures, convection ovens will sometimes cook food faster than conventional ones.



I hope you feel stupid about your "oven" analogy because an oven doesn't have burning materials inside it or gases generated from those burning materials. PLUS it's enclosed and insulated.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 1, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Air is GREAT for cooling things. Heating them up? Not so much...
> 
> Let me ask it again, how long would it take for a SOLID piece of steel to go from room temp to 400F in your oven?



There is no radiant heat from the heating elements in the oven eh? It's strictly convection right?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 1, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Your thoughts rest on the beliefs, that fires weakened the steel structure.
> and that the towers were not designed to redistribute loads. That the steel was badly compromised, due to proof of fire retardant being knocked off etc....
> What I have found will contradict what you are saying, using the NIST reports.
> It casts sever doubt regarding its legitimate use of available material and data.
> ...



Yeah, let;s do this Mr. Jones.

Let's start with the first thing you state above. That my thoughts rest on the belief (or one of them) that the towers were not designed to redistribute loads.

This is pure bullshit. I NEVER said anything close to that. I said the towers (or any building for that matter) were NOT designed to redistribute and resist loads created from failure of other components due to unforeseen events.

I want you to explain, in your own words, how you think a structural engineer could possibly design any structure to stay erect for any and all possible permutations of structural failures that could be possible.

Structural engineers design structures to resist the loads that they will be placed under when working at 100% efficiency. Loads such as workplace furniture, people, wind, snow, etc.

If you think that John Q. Engineer calculates every possible failure scenario that could occur and then design the structure to hold up, you are SADLY mistaken.

Let's take one of the towers for example.

Do you think that they did load/stress calcualtions for:

1. Failure of 1 core column on floor 87?
2. Failure of 2 consecutive core columns on floor 87?
3. Failure of 3 consecutive core columns on floor 87?
4. Failure of 4 consecutive core columns on floor 87?
5. Failure of 2 consecutive core columns on the east side of the core and 2 consecutive core columns on the west side of the core?
6. 30% loss of yield strength of 2 core columns and 10 perimeter column on floor 87?
7. 30% loss of yield strength of 2 core columns and 10 perimeter column on floor 87 and floor 88?
8. 40% loss of yield strength of 2 core columns and 15 perimeter column on floor 87, 88, 89?

And so on, and so on, and so on.............

Do you get my point yet? Did it sink in? You are assuming that engineers do the impossible.

That's why they fireproof steel and rate that fireproofing by time. Why do they give fireproofing a time limit? TO get people evacuated? To give time for the fire department to arrive?

Your turn.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 1, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Your thoughts rest on the beliefs, that fires weakened the steel structure.
> ...



Nothing illustrates the utter failure of the 9/11 "truthers" better than their need to lie and willfully distort the truth because facts just don't support their preconceived notions.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 1, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Your thoughts rest on the beliefs, that fires weakened the steel structure.
> ...



I think it's time to start a new thread regarding what is being discussed, as none of this is about the thread title. We hold conflicting views regarding what happened, and who we are choosing to believe, and the discussion has gotten all over the place, and distracting.
I don't know about you all, but I find it better to discuss this in some kind of orderly fashion, so I'll start a new thread that deals with what is in the NIST report, and how it conflicts with observables, and other topics pertinent to finding some answers.
We should try to stay away from assumptions as much as possible, and go by the known facts and known quantifiers.
Going from stuff like conservation of momentum, to fire retardants, to 'nobody saw anyone rigging the buildings" is just too fucking scattershot to keep track of..So I'm going to leave this thread and who ever wants to chime in on the new one is welcome, but I'm hoping you'll post things relevant to the flow that I'm going to attempt to start.
We'll only get clusterfucked again if we don't, so lets start with the temps, the steel, and what NIST has to say about it---


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 1, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> I think it's time to start a new thread regarding what is being discussed, as none of this is about the thread title. We hold conflicting views regarding what happened, and who we are choosing to believe, and the discussion has gotten all over the place, and distracting.
> I don't know about you all, but I find it better to discuss this in some kind of orderly fashion, so I'll start a new thread that deals with what is in the NIST report, and how it conflicts with observables, and other topics pertinent to finding some answers.
> We should try to stay away from assumptions as much as possible, and go by the known facts and known quantifiers.
> Going from stuff like conservation of momentum, to fire retardants, to 'nobody saw anyone rigging the buildings" is just too fucking scattershot to keep track of..So I'm going to leave this thread and who ever wants to chime in on the new one is welcome, but I'm hoping you'll post things relevant to the flow that I'm going to attempt to start.
> We'll only get clusterfucked again if we don't, so lets start with the temps, the steel, and what NIST has to say about it---



Sounds good to me. I'm in.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 1, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's time to start a new thread regarding what is being discussed, as none of this is about the thread title. We hold conflicting views regarding what happened, and who we are choosing to believe, and the discussion has gotten all over the place, and distracting.
> ...



Excellent I'm looking forward to it. I already started it...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 1, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Air is GREAT for cooling things. Heating them up? Not so much...
> ...



Damn Guy,you're stupid.......

How hot does your oven get?

Now how hot does an office fire get....

See the difference? If not you need more help than anyone here can give you......


----------



## daws101 (Mar 1, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


so you worked at mc Donald's..
as to cubicles..in the last thirty years most cubicles air 90% plastics or composite materials ... I did office remodeling for awhile..
  to the steel question...  that would depend on the heat of the fire and a little thing called convection...


----------



## GuyPinestra (Mar 1, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > Air is GREAT for cooling things. Heating them up? Not so much...
> ...



Why do you want to argue about the three methods of heat transference rather than answering that simple little question? You fucks ALWAYS do that when you get questions you don't have an answer for, you try to 'flip the script', and ask your own irrelevant question instead of answering the question on the floor.

Now, one more time....

How long would it take for a SOLID piece of steel to go from room temp to 400F in your oven? 

Next question...

How long would it take for a SOLID piece of steel to go from room temp to 400F in your oven if it had 3" of fireproofing covering it? 

And BTW, your graph shows heat transference to steel in direct contact with flame, WITHOUT ANY insulation. Even NIST's shotgun experiment didn't prove that the insulation was dislodged from the steel. I've spent years in commercial construction, and removing that sprayed on fireproofing takes a helluva lot more than banging on it, no matter how hard you bang.

And tell us again how this insulated steel got hot enough to fail when your office fire simulation showed only 20 minutes of 800C air temperatures?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Mar 1, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Your thoughts rest on the beliefs, that fires weakened the steel structure.
> ...



Good God, denial is not just a river in Egypt! The fucking builders of the towers (Skilling, et al) have stated that they purposely designed the towers to withstand airliner impacts, and that they believed they could withstand MULTIPLE impacts.

Or did you sleep through that part?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 1, 2013)

And they did withstand the impact....Just not the fires......


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 1, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> And they did withstand the impact....Just not the fires......



How many times have you had to post that in response to these CT's half-truths?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Mar 1, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > And they did withstand the impact....Just not the fires......
> ...



Those buildings didn't come down because of sporadic, low temperature fires. In case you missed Mr. Skilling's comments several pages back, he stated quite clearly that the fires would be 'horrendous', but that the buildings would remain standing.

THAT is what they were DESIGNED AND ENGINEERED to do.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 1, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



What he said in 1993 was that according to their study, conducted the early 1960s, the World Trade Center was strong enough to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, which it did. Unfortunately their ability to perform the necessary tests was, by today's standards, primitive. 
His comment about the "horrendous fire" was subjective. You provide no info from that study but he stated that they were more concerned about the fire than the collision and in that regard they were correct but his belief that the structures would remain intact was incorrect. The combination of impact and fire brought the towers down, just as the NIST study explains. Pretending you have proof of a controlled demo is still just pretending.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 1, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...


so you cook for the guys on your crew?


I for one have never been dumb enough to put insulation or a piece of construction grade steel in an oven. do you or have you done it?
I have seen insulation burn  by direct heat from a  leko  (theatrical lighting fixture) with a 1000watt lamp and bow the rebar that it covered  from 6' away.
fyi it was a fake snow machine mounted on flying rig.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 1, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


the key word there is "believed" it's not the same as knowing in the case of 911 tragically so.
as I've stated many times the builders and designers used a mathematical theory as a basis for their belief.. there were no scale model or wind tunnel tests.
I thought you said you were in construction?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 1, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



He was wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please explain the bowing in of the buildings just before the collapse....


----------



## daws101 (Mar 1, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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


 wrong how could he have been wrong that's blasphemy


----------



## GuyPinestra (Mar 2, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Pretending the NIST study is logical, rational, correct and complete is still just pretending.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 2, 2013)

GuyPinestra said:


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



Perhaps, yet it is infinitely better than the pre-construction study from the early 1960s which, BTW, you have repeatedly referenced yet never posted.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 2, 2013)

Still waiting to hear what else caused the bowing in of the buildings if the fires weren't causing the floor joists to bend........


----------



## daws101 (Mar 2, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Still waiting to hear what else caused the bowing in of the buildings if the fires weren't causing the floor joists to bend........


they were made in china and part of the collapse planned by the illuminati back in the 16th century.
my god man ...can't you see how deep this goes!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 2, 2013)

three farts in a row from the shills.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 3, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> three farts in a row from the shills.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Mar 3, 2013)

Didn't any of you read the 9/11 Report? That's all you need to know.


----------



## eots (Mar 3, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Still waiting to hear what else caused the bowing in of the buildings if the fires weren't causing the floor joists to bend........



what bowing...link


----------



## eots (Mar 3, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



infinitely better why ?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 3, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting to hear what else caused the bowing in of the buildings if the fires weren't causing the floor joists to bend........
> ...



Please, you can't tell me after all this time you haven't heard about and seen the bowing for yourself. And if you haven't we have little to talk about because you are too far gone....


----------



## eots (Mar 3, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArjGOlhggOY]NIST FOIA: R14 -- CNN Dub18 01-15, Timer Added (Twin Towers Burning/Impact Zones/WTC2 Collapse) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 3, 2013)

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Sagging Trusses and Bowed Columns


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 3, 2013)

eots said:


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



Because the technology and thus our ability to conduct such studies has improved significantly. I thought that would be obvious.


----------



## eots (Mar 3, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Sagging Trusses and Bowed Columns



not very convincing...


----------



## eots (Mar 3, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



_only if properly applied that... should be obvious_

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

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST&#8217;s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, &#8220;Questions on the WTC Investigations&#8221; at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. &#8220;I wish that there would be a peer review of this,&#8221; he said, referring to the NIST investigation. &#8220;I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they&#8217;ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.&#8221;

&#8220;I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,&#8221; explained Dr. Quintiere. &#8220;Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.&#8221;

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

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


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 3, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Sagging Trusses and Bowed Columns
> ...



Take off your sun glasses and put down the pipe for a week........


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 3, 2013)

eots said:


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



Typically you post half the story and we both know why:

Although Dr. Quintiere [*who left NIST in 1989] was strongly critical of NIST&#8217;s conclusions and its investigatory process,* he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives.*

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...9MEE0s3hXjS46WpdOniTt0w&bvm=bv.43148975,d.dmg


----------



## Capstone (Mar 5, 2013)

In the spirit of the video in the original post, here's a nicely preserved copy of E.P. Heidner's 58 page essay, _Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001_  (complete with charts and references), which connects the dots between the financial/regulatory  fallout of the destruction, the impact on several ongoing investigations at the time, and a number of those who benefited from the collective demise of a slew of investigators and much of the evidence that might have put away some of the biggest scumbags in the history of the planet ...as well as provided the catalyst for _meaningful_ political reform at home and abroad.

Here's a brief synopsis of the paper.


----------



## eots (Mar 5, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



_he made it clear blah blah is an editorial comment just let the man speak for himself..._
.

* &#8220;If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the &#8216;conspiracy theories&#8217; that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it&#8217;s one of the floors falling down.&#8221;*

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


----------



## eots (Mar 5, 2013)

_More likely_

Synonyms:	allegedly, as if, as though, at a glance, at first sight, evidently, externally, in all likelihood, intuitively, it appears that, it seems that,,Most likely on the face of it, ostensibly, outwardly, plausibly, possibly, probably, professedly, reasonably, reputably, seemingly, speciously, superficially, supposedly, tangibly, to all appearances


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 5, 2013)

There was a report from some guy on the phone with 911, on the 105th floor that claimed several floors below him had caved in or fallen. I forget his name or where I saw it......


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 5, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Quoted from Mr. Quintiere:


> Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students&#8217; research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. *&#8220;I suggest that there&#8217;s an equally justifiable theory and that&#8217;s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,&#8221;* he said.



Fire, heat, and failed trusses.

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


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 5, 2013)

eots said:


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



So you think that means there were explosives? BTW, Quintierre's prob with the NIST findings is _his belief_ it relies on the impact as the destructor while he believes it was the fire and he was not a contributor to the study but rather an observer.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 5, 2013)

Go to Youtube and search for building demolition. You will see how buildings look in the nanoseconds before they fall. You will see the explosions, the flames and the destruction. You will also notice that the buildings that are demolished purposefully, either collpse all at once or from the bottom up. NEVER in succession like the towers fell.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 5, 2013)

Hey, it happened exactly the way Big Brother said. And if you believe otherwise, you're clearly a baby-hating, puppy-murdering, America-Hating Terrorist. So just STFU and stop asking questions!...Or else.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 5, 2013)

paulitician said:


> Hey, it happened exactly the way Big Brother said. And if you believe otherwise, you're clearly a baby-hating, puppy-murdering, America-Hating Terrorist. So just STFU and stop asking questions!...Or else.



I don't believe it happened exactly the way the government said. I do believe that the government's version is the closest to the truth.

The fact that the NIST's report has flaws proves to me that it is truth and not fabrication. If the government was involved in it they would have made a story that covered all the bases, dotted all the "i's" and crossed all the "t's". They didn't. that's because they are trying to piece together a scenario from scratch, AFTER the fact.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 5, 2013)

PredFan said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, it happened exactly the way Big Brother said. And if you believe otherwise, you're clearly a baby-hating, puppy-murdering, America-Hating Terrorist. So just STFU and stop asking questions!...Or else.
> ...



Fair enough. I wont attack you for believing that. But i believe otherwise.


----------



## eots (Mar 5, 2013)

PredFan said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, it happened exactly the way Big Brother said. And if you believe otherwise, you're clearly a baby-hating, puppy-murdering, America-Hating Terrorist. So just STFU and stop asking questions!...Or else.
> ...



drivel..


----------



## eots (Mar 5, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



he also said and most imortantly...

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


I had high hopes&#8221; that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. &#8220;They&#8217;re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But wha*t I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], *which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would *put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information.* What prevented all of this? I think it&#8217;s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, *those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.&#8221;*


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


SOUNDS A LOT LIKE A COVER-UP...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 5, 2013)

The only cover up is the one that CT'rs put over their heads at night to keep them safe from whatever lurks in the dark.......


----------



## daws101 (Mar 5, 2013)

eots said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


is that kinda like babbling?
or do you need a Kleenex to wipe your mouth?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 5, 2013)

eots said:


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


everything sounds like a cover up to you...what's your point?


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 5, 2013)

eots said:


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



Even if there IS a cover up, that does not mean the towers were brought down by explosives planted by the US government.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 5, 2013)

Move along. Nothing to see here folks. Big Brother's got it all under control.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 5, 2013)

paulitician said:


> Move along. Nothing to see here folks. Big Brother's got it all under control.



You are nearly as repetitive (and pointless) as 9/11 IJ with his farts.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 5, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Move along. Nothing to see here folks. Big Brother's got it all under control.
> ...



Well then piss off dummy. No one said you had to visit this thread. And take your significant other dawgshit with ya. Later.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 5, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



Oh, do you own this thread?  Are you the only one posting in the 100 pages?

You're showing off your ego again. 

Besides, why you think I'd listen to anything you tell me to do I don't know.  I thought I only did what the government told me to?  

Or maybe you just don't think you say the same tired bs over and over again....


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 5, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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



What he showing is his lameness. He can't hang so he just whines.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 6, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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



oh the irony.

all you do is prove in spades over and over you kiss the governments ass to know end and these agent trolls like sayit  as well and also prove in spades you are afraid of the truth about government corruption and worship them and these shills on  what they say to know end defending them over and over again like the brainwashed sheople you are.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 6, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


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


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 6, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


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



When you define 'kissing the government's ass' as not believing what you say, most people are going to fall into that category.  

Oh, and at least I know when to use no!


----------



## Capstone (Mar 6, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> [...] Oh, and at least I know when to use no!


But how do you know 911IJ didn't mean that you're kissing the government's ass _in order_ to know its "end" (the ass itself)?


----------



## paulitician (Mar 6, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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



I'm the OP of this thread. And you weren't forced to visit it. So quit your whining and piss off. See ya.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 6, 2013)

Capstone said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > [...] Oh, and at least I know when to use no!
> ...



*groan*

Because he's not smart enough to "no" he meant that. Just read my sig in order to get a feel for his understanding of the English language...

Trust me. It was a mistake.


----------



## Capstone (Mar 6, 2013)

paulitician said:


> I'm the OP of this thread. [...]



Notice that none of the debunkers have anything to say about Heidner's analysis of the potential motives of those who actually benefited from these targeted attacks (which was referenced in the video in the original post). 

But then, why dwell on things like possible motives and the question, "Cui bono?", when you can simply keep harping on the crusty but trusty talking points put out by the official coverup effort?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 6, 2013)

paulitician said:


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


 bad day in the basement paulie?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 6, 2013)

Capstone said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > I'm the OP of this thread. [...]
> ...


heidner's  analysis is just more specious speculation ..if he had anything other than assumptions then his shit might be worth a second look..


----------



## paulitician (Mar 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



You still here? Why? We all know you're a Big Brother Boot-Licking dipshit. It's ok for you to go now. Seriously, you won't be missed. Later.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 6, 2013)

So to clarify : Paulitician's creedo is to question everything.....except the things he posits?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 6, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> So to clarify : Paulitician's creedo is to question everything.....except the things he posits?


don't forget endless and imagination less big brother references...


----------



## paulitician (Mar 6, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> So to clarify : Paulitician's creedo is to question everything.....except the things he posits?



You weren't questioning, you were insulting. So you and dawgshit can go to Hell. No one forced you two numbnuts to visit this thread. So bye bye.


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 6, 2013)

whitehall said:


> We saw the planes hit the Towers. We know that the Clinton administration prevented the CIA from sharing information with the FBI. Stranger things have happened. Could the democrat party have engineered the biggest October surprise in history?



There was no election in 2001 you fool


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 6, 2013)

paulitician said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > So to clarify : Paulitician's creedo is to question everything.....except the things he posits?
> ...



He has to hurry off to scream at some kids who survived Sandy Hook.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 6, 2013)

paulitician said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > So to clarify : Paulitician's creedo is to question everything.....except the things he posits?
> ...


funny everything you post insults somebody...now you pull up your skirts and run away..


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 6, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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



I love how you like to pretend  like "I" am the only one saying it and no experts are. the truth hurts that you are brainwashed and afraid.I would rather be in a hurry pressed for time when i come on here which forces mistakes to be made on the computer when typing, than be someone who is so brainwashed and programmed, they cant face  facts and deal with reality

yep I'm the only one saying this alright,all of these people are not real people,they are all of my imagination I made up.

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

makes you feel good to shoot the messenger and avoid the truth.hee hee.

comedy gold from you as always.you frady cat deniars really need to get that comedy club going.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 6, 2013)

Truthmatters said:


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



Lame. You guys seem obsessed now. Why visit my thread so often? You ran out of insult material a long time ago. So why are you still here?


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 6, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


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



There are experts saying that I am kissing the government's ass?!  Who knew there were 'experts' in what constitutes government ass kissing?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 6, 2013)

paulitician said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



some people have no life or friends so they come on here seeking attention sense they cant get it anywhere else. so they come on here seeking it from you.

they cant handle facts about government corruption so it makes them feel good about themsleves to shoot you the messenger. they want to believe that me and you are the only ones here that are saying 9/11 is in inside job in the world and that experts in their fields in that patriots question  9/11 link I posted,dont exist,that they are all figments of my imagination.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 6, 2013)

I haven't seen a valid point made here for pages and pages.....

Can we graduate from the fourth grade? (Kindergarten for 911)


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 6, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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



nice game of dodgeball you play.can my kid neighbor play? I see you love to play kids games and are on the same level of them.

like a kid afraid of the dark,you are afraid of the truth so you and kiddies have something in commom.close your eyes and be afraid and hope it goes away.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 6, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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


it's called the department anal research ....a brown op.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 6, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...


"some people have no life or friends so they come on here seeking attention sense they cant get it anywhere else. so they come on here seeking it from you."-- hand job 

hand job revels his darkest secret...


----------



## paulitician (Mar 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



You numbnuts still haven't answered my question. Why are you still here obsessing on my thread? It's a simple question.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 6, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



Because I'm bored and there's nothing good on TV.

So I figured I would just come here for a good game of "Mock-A-Mope".


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 6, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



Posting in a thread subscribes you to that thread.  I haven't gotten bored enough with this to unsubscribe.

Why do you suddenly want to suppress dissenting opinions?  You are acting like big brother!


----------



## daws101 (Mar 6, 2013)

paulitician said:


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


the answer is we're not ...
if you are going to open yourself to criticism and ridicule by posting the shit you post then you should be prepared to handle the outcome.
somewhere you misunderstood what freedom of speech means.
they're is nothing in that amendment that says you can say inflammatory shit and not get called on it.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 6, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You're here to insult. Nothing more, nothing less. But that's ok, i often attract creepy stalkers like you on Message Boards. It's my magnetic personality. You're definitely nothing new & original. But hey, stalk away i guess. Whatever floats your boat.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Still believe that the Bazant/NIST theory is a "steaming pile "?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 6, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


never said that .. but it is a classic example of your propensity for misrepresentation and lying


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 6, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



What a flamin' pompous jackass. If you don't want Norms exposing your CT silliness don't post it, Princess, but in any event please quit the incessant whining. Woo.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 6, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



Your thread? 
As with your CT silliness you simply _presume_ something here belongs to you, Princess, and that someone _owes_ you a response. If you don't like my being here feel free to whine to the Mods you arrogant jackass.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 6, 2013)

3 farts in a row from the agent trolls.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 6, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



Like I said,they are desperate for attention.just look at how many times they talk to themselves quoting me addressing my posts all the time even though my sig clearly shows they are on my ignore list.guess they cant read and have alzheimers diseace.Thats scary stuff that they are so desperate for attention they talk to themselves all the time.I wonder how many years they have been out of the mental institution.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 6, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



More like little sister. Big Bro doesn't try to supress my opinions.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 6, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



creepy stalkers is right.trolls who talk to themselves like they do here,now that IS creepy.

I myself when someone puts ME on ignore,unlike them,i wise up.

Predfan troll for instance,has made it perfectly clear he has me on his ignore list after I asked him to debunk facts about the 9/11 case a long time ago   pointing out the facts how the commission lied about multiple things and omitted many key facts.He of course got frustrated that he could not counter them and  could not refute my facts so he  cussed me out and called me names and has had me on ignore ever since and claims that he has debunked me when he wont even address  facts as you have seen many times before.

Unlike them though,i am not desperate for attention and could care less about his moronic posts he posts.But you dont find ME talking to myself addressing him like they do with me all the time actually talking like i read their posts.these guys are as much psycho loons as anywhere you will find.

Im glad they entertain you though and you enjoy stalkers.lol.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 6, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



Montro logically, rationally and factually refutes the silly ass CTBS here, Princess, and all you can do about it is whine like a little girl.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 6, 2013)

I see one of the agents is desperate for my attention right now.notice how he replied so quick seeking attention from me?


This message is hidden because SAYIT is on your ignore list


----------



## daws101 (Mar 6, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> I see one of the agents is desperate for my attention right now.notice how he replied so quick seeking attention from me?
> 
> 
> This message is hidden because SAYIT is on your ignore list


really dumb shit  then why can we read your posts..


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 6, 2013)

Capstone said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > I'm the OP of this thread. [...]
> ...



You can speculate all you like but no _rational_ adult would bother doing so considering the lack of evidence (other than more speculation) of explosives, a controlled demo, or whistle blowers. The cast of thousands necessary to plan, perpetrate and cover-up the 9/11 attacks would certainly yield some talkative patriots with _first hand_ knowledge.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 6, 2013)

Considering the last two pages of deflection by the CT loons it is clear the molten steel issue has been completely debunked and the Nutters are now in damage control mode. They are trying to slink away without openly admitting there is no proof of molten steel so they can try to make an issue of it again tomorrow.
They have all the integrity of slimy snakes in the grass.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 6, 2013)

So 911shitforbrains says that we're all on ignore but we never try to answer his posts about his 5 minute cartoon.... They have doctors who could help him with that....


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 6, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> 3 farts in a row from the agent trolls.



What a well thought out and written post about how the govt was behind the events of 9/11. It certainly convinces me. 

I'm going to run off and sign *THE PETITION* right now.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 7, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> I see one of the agents is desperate for my attention right now.notice how he replied so quick seeking attention from me?
> 
> 
> This message is hidden because SAYIT is on your ignore list



Yeah, the stalker trolls are pretty weird. They obsess over my posts. I could understand if they really were paid Government trolls, but i'm guessing they're not. So that makes them real loser kooks.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 7, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Whatever SAYIT, dawgshit, Candyass, del, and so on and so on. You're a real Sock Puppet nutter.


----------



## Jos (Mar 7, 2013)

> &#8220;I gave the instructions that we&#8217;d authorize our pilots to take it out,&#8221; he says, referring to the jet headed to Washington that crashed in a Pennsylvania field. He adds: &#8220;After I&#8217;d given the order, it was pretty quiet. Everybody had heard it, and it was obviously a significant moment.&#8221;
> Dick Cheney


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/opinion/dowd-repent-dick-cheney.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=1&


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 7, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Considering the last two pages of deflection by the CT loons it is clear the molten steel issue has been completely debunked and the Nutters are now in damage control mode. They are trying to slink away without openly admitting there is no proof of molten steel so they can try to make an issue of it again tomorrow.
> They have all the integrity of slimy snakes in the grass.



So if you ignore all the evidence of molten steel or metal, even if credible people including those hired by the government or its agencies, then that automatically means that there is no evidence?
This is the only way that you can defend the unprovable, and it is a cowardly way to debate an issue. The CT that you adhere to is not in the least plausible, nor is it solid in its assumptions. There are holes in it that you can drive wreckage trucks through. You can not openly admit this for it destroys your fairy tale. Not once have you bothered to engage anyone with a different opinion about it with any concrete proof that solidifies your CT as a
case that is closed because of verifiable, factual data.You have debunked absolutely nothing.
You post nothing relevant, and nothing solid, that has no other explanation.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 7, 2013)

Where are these pools of molten steel? What happened to them when they cooled off? No one has ever seen them......


----------



## Jos (Mar 7, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Where are these pools of molten steel? What happened to them when they cooled off? No one has ever seen them......



sent off to china, with no investigation, i'm sure your cool with that


----------



## daws101 (Mar 7, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Considering the last two pages of deflection by the CT loons it is clear the molten steel issue has been completely debunked and the Nutters are now in damage control mode. They are trying to slink away without openly admitting there is no proof of molten steel so they can try to make an issue of it again tomorrow.
> ...


lol! there's tons of evidence none of it is proof of anything other than 19 nut jobs had any part in it...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 7, 2013)

Jos said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Where are these pools of molten steel? What happened to them when they cooled off? No one has ever seen them......
> ...



Why did no one see them?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 7, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


The story...

Molten steel was discovered in the basements of the collapsed WTC. Fire couldn't raise the temperature high enough to melt steel, but explosives, particularly thermite, could.

As Lisa Giuliani put it:

The existence of these burning pools of molten steel were confirmed by: 

- Mark Lorieux of Controlled Demolition, Inc 
- Peter Tully, President of Tully Construction 
- and the American Free Press newspaper 

Please explain where these molten pools of steel came from, because hydrocarbon fires are not going to burn in an oxygen-starved environment as these underground fires did. 
portland imc - 2005.03.06 - Me, Art Bell, and 9-11

Our take...

So we have three sources? Maybe not. Let's go back to a more complete telling of the story.

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York, told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center. Tully was contracted on September 11 to remove the debris from the site. 

Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland, for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself "the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures." 

Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived on the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation. 

AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. 

Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800° Fahrenheit (1535° Celsius). Asked what could have caused such extreme heat, Tully said, "Think of the jet fuel." 
Seismic Evidence Points to Underground Explosions Causing WTC Collapse

Okay, so we have two sources here, Tully and Loizeaux, who were then reported in the third (American Free Press). Or do we? Note that Tully is the one claiming he saw the steel, and the article then says he called Loizeaux. So it Loizeaux simply repeating what he's heard from Tully? That would make sense, and it appears to be confirmed by this claimed email from Loizeaux:

Here is what he wrote to me today at 10:38 PST:
Mr. Bryan:

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation. 

Regards,
==========================

Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman's Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
Tel:  1-410-667-6610
Fax: 1-410-667-6624
Controlled Demolition, Inc. |
Puddles of steel at WTC (was Re: China takes credit for 9/11) - alt.alien.visitors | Google Groups

If accurate, the source has now moved from Loizeaux back to contractors, but theres no information here on how the substance was identified as molten steel, or who might have performed the analysis to figure it out.

Theres another complication in terms of the WTC debris temperatures, according to NASA analyses made on September 16th and 23rd.

Initial analysis of these data revealed a number of thermal hot spots on September 16 in the region where the buildings collapsed 5 days earlier. Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800 degrees F. Over 3 dozen hot spots appear in the core zone. By September 23, only 4, or possibly 5, hot spots are apparent, with temperatures cooler than those on September 16. 
USGS Spectroscopy Lab - World Trade Center USGS thermal

Over 800 degrees F is hot, but not nearly hot enough. A more speculative view on the paper suggests maximum temperatures of 1341 degrees F ( USGS Spectroscopy Lab - World Trade Center USGS environmental assessment ), but that's still well below the about 2,800° Fahrenheit we need to get "literally molten steel". 

The get-out here is that NASA could only see surface temperatures, obviously. And they took their first measurements on the 16th, so temperatures could have been even higher before then. Keep in mind that the hotspots had reduced significantly by the 23rd, though, and excavators wouldnt have been digging anywhere close to the basement levels until some time after that.

Other accounts suggest the temperatures neednt have been that high to produce noticeable and dramatic effects.
WTC Molten Steel


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 7, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



Your CT is full of shit, can not stand up to scrutiny and is based on lies and junk science.
You had no idea what the Bazant theory was,and are totally clueless when it comes to explaining your position and belief in your CT.

You think that ignoring numerous witnesses, their testimony, and pretending that things do not exist constitute honesty, and integrity and credibility.
You are so naive that you have no idea what could have possibly driven prestigious agencies, and the personnel within them to make themselves look like fools in front of their peers, nor do you want to acknowledge that history of this nation when it comes to nefarious things like false flag attacks, corrupt officials, or real hidden from the public agendas, that are prevalent throughout the history of the nation you say you reside in.

All in all you're a dumbfuck.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 7, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


 still trying to pass your lack of reading comprehension off as insight..as to the rest of yours deluded rambling. you have no idea what I think.
it's that kind of assumption that makes you the queen of dumbfucks....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 7, 2013)

Like the CT crowd doesn't pick and chose their so called eyewitnesses.......

That's funny......


----------



## daws101 (Mar 7, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Like the CT crowd doesn't pick and chose their so called eyewitnesses.......
> 
> That's funny......


lol! that's all they do..


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 7, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Considering the last two pages of deflection by the CT loons it is clear the molten steel issue has been completely debunked and the Nutters are now in damage control mode. They are trying to slink away without openly admitting there is no proof of molten steel so they can try to make an issue of it again tomorrow.
> ...



   
You cling desperately to quotes about molten metal which do not support your claims and others about molten steel from those who deny having made the statement or admit someone told them about it but never actually saw it first hand. 
Do any of your witnesses to the alleged "molten steel" have proof of what those molten mats were? 
Of course not. 
Do you or they have any evidence of some secret super accelerant that could melt steel or continue to burn for weeks? 
Of course not. 
All you have is speculation, half-truths, outright fabrications and your unshakable preconceived conclusions. Pathetic, really. Case closed.


----------



## Jos (Mar 8, 2013)

The truth seeks to include evidence, The lie seeks to exclude evidence


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 8, 2013)

paulitician said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > I see one of the agents is desperate for my attention right now.notice how he replied so quick seeking attention from me?
> ...



yeah I've noticed.disagree with you that they are not though.How could they spend so much times on these threads making up so many lies like they do without any income? they couldnt unless they were being paid.Just look at the way they devote themselves to posting lie after lie and ignoring evidence all the time here in this section.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 8, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Retired and Laughing...... What can be better? But if you can find someone to pay me to laugh at you and make you look stupid I'll take the extra dollars......


----------



## paulitician (Mar 8, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


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



I hear ya, there are paid Government Trolls all over the Internet. But frankly, a troll like dawgshit/SAYIT/Candyass just isn't smart enough. He or she's just a run-of-the-mill Goose Stepper. They happily worship Big Brother for free. They simply enjoy Boot-Licking. It's all they know.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 8, 2013)

You know Gomer Pyle Ollie for sure is.that traiterous scum  is a disgrace to his fellow military officers .they are paying him right now at this instant as you can see to troll these boards.He is such a joke.He goes around CLAIMING he has debunked videos when as you know,in all his years he has been here he has never even attempted ONCE to debunk one.


Reminds me an awful lot of the logic of of predfan troll who got frustrated with me once because he could not refute facts I posted once that proved the governments version was wrong.Now HIM I know is just a brainwashed Bush dupe in denial and afraid because he got frustrated and cussed me out calling me names without even trying to refute the facts then and has had me on innore ever sense then CLAIMING he has debunked me.Gomer here reminds me an awful lot of him.

sad that he is willing to disgrace his fellow military officers willing to take money and troll these boards thinking that will bring him happiness in the future.Boy is he in for a rude awakening.He is obviously clueless about karma and how he will suffer from that in the future.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 8, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> You know Gomer Pyle Ollie for sure is.that traiterous scum  is a disgrace to his fellow military officers .they are paying right now at this instant as you can see to troll these boards.He is such a joke.He goes around CLAIMING he has debunked videos when as you know,in all his years he has been here he has never even attempted ONCE to debunk one.
> 
> 
> Reminds me of predfan troll who got frustrated with me because he could not refute facts I posted once that proved the governments version was wrong.Now him I know is just a brainwashed Bush dupe in denial and afraid because he got frustrated and cussed me out calling me names without even trying to refute the facts then and has had me on inogr ever sense then CLAIMING he has debunked me.Gomer here reminds me an awful lot of him.



Well, i still have some respect for Ollie. At least he's not a cowardly Sock Puppet like SAYIT/dawgshit/Candyass/del etc etc. I truly understand where he's coming from. He served in our Military for some time. Receiving and following orders is all he's ever known. Obedience & loyalty to Authority is something he'll never shake. But that doesn't make him a bad person. That just makes him a victim of sorts. Just my opinion anyway.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 8, 2013)

paulitician said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > You know Gomer Pyle Ollie for sure is.that traiterous scum  is a disgrace to his fellow military officers .they are paying right now at this instant as you can see to troll these boards.He is such a joke.He goes around CLAIMING he has debunked videos when as you know,in all his years he has been here he has never even attempted ONCE to debunk one.
> ...



Yeah but he is a paid shill who has sold out his military officers so I DONT have any respect for that traiterous scum.I find him worse than the others you mentioned because those other trolls you mentioned if they are not paid,are sad excuses for a human being who have no life or friends so i can understand why they would feel the need to come on here and troll like they do.

But HIM a paid shill that has sold out his fellow officers and knows it was an inside job as much as we do,I have LESS repect for,he will die a slow painful death selling them out for money like he has and making up lies like he does also.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 8, 2013)

btw,have you seen this video here below?




 It cracks me up.the proof is in the pudding how Obama just like Bush before him,bows down to Israel.You can tell from the video and his body language,he is obviously pissed at Bibi for the way he is the master there at the white house and Obama is the dog serving him.That he is obviously angry how he gets to rule the roost there at the white house.

then of course sense congress is bought off and paid for by the zionists,they applaud him at the end of the speech with a loud thundering ovation.Like that guy said,you would NEVER see Obama prising someone like that like the president of new zealand for instance or see congress give that president a loud thunderous ovation like they did with that Israeli primi minister.

Obama would NEVER bow down to some other president of a country in his own white house and let him rule the roost like that the way he let Bibi do so.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 8, 2013)

Jos said:


> The truth seeks to include evidence, The lie seeks to exclude evidence


there has to be evidence before either can be done.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 8, 2013)

paulitician said:


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


paulie shares another masturbation fantasy..


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 8, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


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



I've wondered when you CTers accuse people of being 'paid government shills' because of spending too long on these CT threads.....is there some way to see how long a poster has spent reading a particular thread?  Is there some way to see how long a poster has spent replying in a particular thread?

Also, if these posters are paid to troll the CT forums, why are they so often found in other sections of USMB?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 8, 2013)

I truly enjoy 911 lying about me and my service. Too bad he'll never get the opportunity to say it to my face. I also enjoy how he says we never debunk him because he has us all on ignore. Almost makes sense, to him.... And paulie, fuck you. In fact double fuck you, you haven't a clue what my life is about and your false patronizing is as bad as nutjobs slurs against my service.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 8, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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



That plus writing on 3 other boards and Modding on another.... And still having a full life outside of the internet.....


----------



## daws101 (Mar 8, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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


if you click on the poster name (sister jones hand job) etc. you'll go to their personal page there you will find a list that says find al post started by ---- click on that.
in sister jones's case there are 20 pages of posts ,this should give you a fair idea of how much time they spend on a particular sub forum.
just for fun count all the time hand job uses the word fart.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 8, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> I truly enjoy 911 lying about me and my service. Too bad he'll never get the opportunity to say it to my face. I also enjoy how he says we never debunk him because he has us all on ignore. Almost makes sense, to him.... And paulie, fuck you. In fact double fuck you, you haven't a clue what my life is about and your false patronizing is as bad as nutjobs slurs against my service.


lying about other posters is they're way of feigning strength.


----------



## Capstone (Mar 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> [...]in sister jones's case there are 20 pages of posts ,this should give you a fair idea of how much time they spend on a particular sub forum.



http://www.usmessageboard.com/search.php?searchid=6410658&pp=25&page=20


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 8, 2013)

??????????


----------



## daws101 (Mar 8, 2013)

Capstone said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > [...]in sister jones's case there are 20 pages of posts ,this should give you a fair idea of how much time they spend on a particular sub forum.
> ...


vBulletin Message 
Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 8, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> ??????????


that's what I said !


----------



## Capstone (Mar 8, 2013)

Just a link to page 20 of Daws101's post list.

The request was apparently too voluminous for the server to handle...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 8, 2013)

Capstone said:


> Just a link to page 20 of Daws101's post list.
> 
> The request was apparently too voluminous for the server to handle...


more likely operator error.


----------



## Capstone (Mar 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > Just a link to page 20 of Daws101's post list.
> ...



Good one.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



The guy is well on his way to total blindness.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 8, 2013)

someone farted in here


----------



## daws101 (Mar 8, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


 on his way? naw  he's using braille porn now!


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 8, 2013)

Capstone said:


> Just a link to page 20 of Daws101's post list.
> 
> The request was apparently too voluminous for the server to handle...



So you're claiming both Jones and Daws are paid trolls?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 8, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > Just a link to page 20 of Daws101's post list.
> ...


that would mean that the admins and everybody else except the twoofers are paid trolls too.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...



Yep, we've all been payed off, close to 300 million of us now.........


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...



That would make sense. After all, everyone but the "truthers" was in on the 9/11 conspiracy and yet only the "truthers" are enlightened and the rest of us are just blind, ignorant sheeple.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 8, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Evidently all but the "truthers." Maybe they're just pissed 'cause nobody paid them off.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 9, 2013)

five farts in a row from the agent trolls.


----------



## Jos (Mar 9, 2013)

Jos said:


> The truth seeks to include evidence, The lie seeks to exclude evidence



MHunterB  did not like this post
New reputation!
Hi, you have received -511 reputation points from MHunterB.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
.

Regards,
MHunterB


----------



## Jos (Mar 9, 2013)

Why do certain jews seek to confuse the issue of 9/11?


----------



## PredFan (Mar 9, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Dammit! Someone owes me money! I haven't seen a cent.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 9, 2013)

Jos said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> > The truth seeks to include evidence, The lie seeks to exclude evidence
> ...



   
Need some cheese with your whine, you fuckin' crybaby? You started neggin' me _without comment_ the day I got here. How do you like it?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 9, 2013)

Jos said:


> Why do certain jews seek to confuse the issue of 9/11?



You have evidence there are "jews" in the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Movement?


----------



## paulitician (Mar 10, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > Just a link to page 20 of Daws101's post list.
> ...



You silly Sock Puppet Trolls aren't worthy of even the lowliest of Government positions. So i seriously doubt you're paid Government Internet Trolls. Frankly, you're just too damn dumb. You're just creepy Big Brother-Worshipping nutters. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 10, 2013)

paulitician said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...



   
You have no idea who or what I am, Princess, but unlike you what I clearly am not is some Loony Tunes CT robot spewing all the mindless CTBS he can find or fabricate.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 11, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



You're a Loony Tunes Sock Puppet Troll. How long are you gonna stalk my thread? We get it already. We know you're a loyal Goose Stepper. You're not adding anything new. So why are you still here on this thread? I mean if the Government isn't paying you to troll, you really are one sick twisted nutter. Think about that a bit.


----------



## pjnlsn (Mar 11, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > Just a link to page 20 of Daws101's post list.
> ...



So this forum actually has a dedicated conspirary theory section, huh? wow.

And btw, it could simply be that they're deluded. That is to say, the reasons why they do what they do are not entirely completely rational. As if most people's reasons are.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 11, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



Are YOU adding anything new? 

I would think that having people who disagree in these threads is a good thing.  Ok, I'll grant you, there's a lot of insults and one-liners as opposed to argument or debate, but still.   

Maybe you should just be happy that people are interested enough to keep coming back.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 11, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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



It's my thread asshole. If you don't like it, exit it now. No one forces you Goose Stepping Trolls to stalk it.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 11, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



"We get it already?" Exactly how many little morons are rolling around in that pinhead of yours, Princess?


----------



## paulitician (Mar 11, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Still stalking ay? Man, you really are deranged. I mean, going the Sock Puppet-stalk route really is just plain craaazy. Time for you to go. And you can take your socks dawgshit, Candyass, del etc. etc .with ya. Bye bye.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 11, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



  
Would you like some cheese with your whine, Princess?


----------



## paulitician (Mar 11, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Damn, you Sock Puppet stalkers are just plain creeeepy.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 11, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



You _assume_ I don't like this thread and if you don't like peeps responding to your silly CTBS, don't post it on a _public_ message board. Woo.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 11, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



I don't like creepy Sock Puppet stalker-nutters like you. Seriously, you really are deranged. You should reconsider your Sock Puppet stalking thing. You're losin it.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 11, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



You sure seem upset about having people who don't follow your particular theories posting here of a sudden.  

I'll stop looking at the thread when I feel like it.  I hate to tell you this, but while you may have started this thread, you don't own it.  As long as I continue posting within the USMB guidelines, there's no reason I can't read and respond to what's written in here as I wish.

For all your ranting about government overreach, authoritarianism and the like, you sure are hot to suppress other people's voices here!  

Would you care to stop whining about people you disapprove of frequenting 'your' thread and get back to the subject?


----------



## paulitician (Mar 11, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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



You're just stupid Goose Stepper trolls. You worship your beloved Big Brother. You've all made that point many many times on this thread. So why are you still here? We get it already...'Big Brother is good and would never lie to us.' You made your point. So now it's time to piss off. And you can take the Sock Puppet creep SAYIT/dawgshit/Candyass/del with ya. Bye bye.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 11, 2013)

Jos said:


> Why do certain jews seek to confuse the issue of 9/11?


because they're in on it ! 

how was the for twoofer imitation?


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 11, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



You're just a stupid conspiracy nut.  You believe government is behind all the evil in the world.  You've made that point many many times on this thread.  So why are you still here?  We get it already...'Nothing bad happens that the secret masters of humanity aren't behind'.  You made your point.  So now it's time to piss off.  And you can take that half-illiterate creep 9/11 IJ with ya.  Bye bye.  

See how that works?


----------



## paulitician (Mar 11, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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



Yeah, you Goose Steppers have said that many many times on this thread. So why are you still here? 'Big Brother knows what's best for us, and would never lie.' There, happy now? Time to piss off. See ya.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 11, 2013)

this thread should be renamed  Paulie's Nazi fetish and boot licking thread.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 11, 2013)

daws101 said:


> this thread should be renamed  Paulie's Nazi fetish and boot licking thread.



Switched to your dawgshit sock huh? Man, you really are one twisted stalker loon. How many days have you posted on this thread? Seriously, you're a mess.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 11, 2013)

paulitician said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > this thread should be renamed  Paulie's Nazi fetish and boot licking thread.
> ...


really paulie? I'd say a poster who can't or is unwilling to notice the difference between posters is the fucked up one!


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 11, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



In the interest of fairness I went back to the last time you posted on the thread subject. 
On 2/19 you whined (you do that a lot, Princess) that "false flag ops" work.
Since then you have dozens of posts in which you whine (yeah, you do that a lot, Princess) about one poster or another fukin' up your thread. Most of what has transpired since is Jones or Pinhead getting run over but only whining from you. Clearly you are embarassed and humiliated at the inability of the CTs to get any traction here but your whining adds nothing and simply makes your abject failure obvious.
The bottom line is _you_ have become the "sock puppet troll" you constantly whine about, Princess.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 11, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



And now, back to your SAYIT Sock. Wow, you're bleepin nutso. I guess your other sock Candyass should be up next huh? Seriously, time for you to get some help.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 11, 2013)

paulitician said:


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


a tip from paulie: when getting your ass handed to you: repeat the same false presumption until the voices in your head stop.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 11, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



And...back to your dawgshit sock. You're so damn deranged.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 11, 2013)

paulitician said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


a tip from paulie: when getting your ass handed to you: repeat the same false presumption until the voices in your head stop.[/QUOTE]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 11, 2013)

Too bad you are so wrong about so many things...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 11, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Too bad you are so wrong about so many things...


you do mean paulie ..I hope.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 11, 2013)

Of course........


----------



## paulitician (Mar 13, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Of course........



Ollie, don't make me lose all respect for you. You're going all-in with a deranged Sock Puppet asshole. SAYIT/dawgshit/Candyass/del etc etc, is a real mess. He or she has stalked my thread for several weeks now. I would say he or she posts on it every day of the week. Now either he or she really is a paid Government Troll, or their just plain crazy. I'm going with the latter. So don't go all-in with that Sock. You're better than that.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 13, 2013)

paulitician said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Of course........
> ...


still attempting to sell that lie ....


----------



## paulitician (Mar 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Still doing your weird Sock Puppet stalking thing? Seriously, do you post on my thread every day of the week? Just curious?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 14, 2013)

paulitician said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


not really, only when you spew hateful inaccurate bullshit... 
tell you what, stop posting shit and I'll stop replying.


----------



## eots (Mar 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



oh bullshit this is your job..this is what you do...you are paid to do so


----------



## daws101 (Mar 14, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


speaking of inaccurate bullshit...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 14, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



same with Gomer Ollie,Moron In the hat,Candyass-aka obamerican,and sockpuppet troll Sayit which is probably candyass as well.after all that guy was caught at another forum posting under many socks there before it shut down.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 14, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


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


another useless post by hand job...


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 14, 2013)

paulitician said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Dude, you have serious dilusions of self-importance. Evidently you actually have so little you cling to the misconception this thread belongs to you.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 14, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



More stupid, self-serving assumptions by the Queen of Assumption. It's kinda like your 9/11 "facts" ... all bluster and no substance.
Tell you what, Princess, could you post a copy of one of Daws paychecks and see if you can hook me up with some of that troll money?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



It's seems to be all any of these 9/11 CT trolls has to offer.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 14, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


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



You're a liar, Hand Job. I have never posted under multiple SNs anywhere. Now go back to chokin' your little chicken, Princess, and clean up your mess.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 14, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Don't you know he has us all on ignore so we can't debunk his stupidity.....


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 14, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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



His stupidity is impervious to debunking. It's a historical certainty.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 14, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Ollie posts regularly in the Coffee Shoppe and has for a long time.  I would guess he has at least 10x more posts in that thread than the whole CT forum.  That's some dedicated misdirection to try and convince a few message board readers that your half-illiterate drivel isn't the truth.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 15, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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



And in the military and political threads. Not as much as i used to but I've been busy elsewhere alot.........


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 15, 2013)

NINE farts in a row from the trolls.

wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 15, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> NINE farts in a row from the trolls.
> 
> wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



What an absolutely fact filled post that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that 9/11 was an inside job.

I'm sure that Dickie the G is proud of your efforts getting his new investigation. (with fabulous new subpoena powers.)


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 15, 2013)

thanks again for showing your pathetic  and sad life you have moron in the hat with your  obsession you have over me.congrats.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 15, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I'm the OP of this thread, ya Sock stalker loon. Seriously though, do you post on my thread every day of the week? And why? Just curious?


----------



## paulitician (Mar 15, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Yeah, the Sock Puppet stalkers really are truly whacked. What's their point? Why stalk? It's just too weird.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 15, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



Just wondering,before I posted this video on my thread,had you seen this video before then of Obama bowing down to Bibi letting him rile the roost at ther white house? 

had you already seen it or was that the first time after I posted it?

here again is the video i am talking about as a refresher.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 15, 2013)

yes or no paul? had you already seen it before i posted it or was that the first time by chance?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 15, 2013)

paulitician said:


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


stalkers? a few post back we were all one guy?!
look who's talking about weird!!!!!!!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 15, 2013)

Anyone have any Idea what Obamas politics has to do with 911?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 15, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Anyone have any Idea what Obamas politics has to do with 911?


there is a conspiracy myth that some political candidates are groomed from the time they are young to  be world leaders.....the convoluted gist of it is, that Obama and all the 4 preceding presidents were in on it..
on the other hand handjob says it because he thinks it sounds cool .


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 15, 2013)

It seems you can debate these CTs until you come to a critical fact on which you can't agree, then the rational conversation comes to a screeching halt.
With the molten mats there is no evidence it was steel and since no known substance can burn hot enough to melt steel and continue melting it for weeks, norms conclude the mats must have been something else.
CTs, on the other hand assume that since there is no evidence it wasn't steel that therefore it must have been steel. See how that works?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 15, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> It seems you can debate these CTs until you come to a critical fact on which you can't agree, then the rational conversation comes to a screeching halt.
> With the molten mats there is no evidence it was steel and since no known substance can burn hot enough to melt steel and continue melting it for weeks, norms conclude the mats must have been something else.
> CTs, on the other hand assume that since there is no evidence it wasn't steel that therefore it must have been steel. See how that works?


 they believe a lack of evidence is evidence!


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > It seems you can debate these CTs until you come to a critical fact on which you can't agree, then the rational conversation comes to a screeching halt.
> ...



That's pretty much their deal.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> It seems you can debate these CTs until you come to a critical fact on which you can't agree, then the rational conversation comes to a screeching halt.
> With the molten mats there is no evidence it was steel and since no known substance can burn hot enough to melt steel and continue melting it for weeks, norms conclude the mats must have been something else.
> CTs, on the other hand assume that since there is no evidence it wasn't steel that therefore it must have been steel. See how that works?


And you assume since NIST ignored numerous reports, that hundreds of GZ people were wrong.
No one reported seeing "molten aluminum".
And besides it was reported in a molten state for weeks, in oxygen starved conditions.
The point is, that NIST ignored overwhelming reports of molten steel.
There was waay more steel involved in the towers then aluminum.
I presented the figures and calculations from your own site.
I presented where the aluminum was mostly placed in the towers.
In relation to where the reports and instances emanated from.
After they had time to analyze and test, the concluded that fires within the towers did not actually get hot enough to melt steel..and the new theory then was that the steel only weakened.
But the numerous reports of molten steel warranted  further analysis by NIST.
They chose to ignore the numerous reports as though they did not even exist.
Strike one against NIST's credibility, honesty and integrity in many peoples minds.
Gee people don't agree with this result, who would have thought?

You can't honestly say that there was no evidence it didn't exist, because NIST ignored it and contradicted the numerous credible people including a WTC engineer.
It is not rational to conclude there was "no evidence" simply because NIST ignores something that contradicts hundreds of other witnesses.
NIST can not change the fact these reports and confirmations by so many at GZ occurred.
Neither can you by using flawed logic, or by magically making them disappear or wishing them away.
It happened, NIST ignored it, and some speculate it was because it would point towards another agent, or people, end of story period.

You need to use flawed logic, about highly improbable scenarios and speculation in order to keep your "official" conspiracy theory alive in your mind. You aren't willing to concede that this phenomena actually did occur, was widely reported, and confirmed by credible people, and that happened in a third building that was not hit by a fucking plane, therefore, one can not rationally use a Boeing plane as the little source of aluminum that might be where the molten steel was reported to have been seen. 

If anyone is honestly trying to understand why there is opposition and distrust towards the NIST investigation and subsequent reports. then this is just one instance.
You can't use twisted logic, and the fact NIST ignored and contradicts so many reports of something, to justify declaring "there is no evidence" of it. If you do, then you are not being honest, and trying to deceive yourself and others, and display a poor sense of objectivity, and honesty.
Isn't there anything else that you can use that substantiates your views and adds any credence to your CT, then having to close your eyes and mind to the facts laid out regarding the molten steel?
You have to jump through hoops when trying to defend your loony CT.
Which includes assuming hundreds of people were lying, hallucinating.
Lying about how many reports there actually were,
Lying about what a chief original WTC engineer said he saw,
Assume that what little aluminum there was on the outside of the towers compared to the 200,000 tons of steel in each tower magically transported itself up to 70 feet deep into the centers of the towers.
You have to assume that somehow the little aluminum from the towers magically transported itself deep under the WTC 7, that had NO ALUMINUM OUTER CLADDING,
AND NO BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRLINER INSIDE OF IT.

You have to resort to insanity and bs , while I present facts...see how it works now??


----------



## daws101 (Mar 16, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > It seems you can debate these CTs until you come to a critical fact on which you can't agree, then the rational conversation comes to a screeching halt.
> ...


all ways have ...the eyewitness reports cannot be validated..
nist did not ignore anything they tested only what they were tasked to test meaning that your accusations of collusion have no basis in fact, no matter how hard you bitch...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


Neither of you have tried to explain how you can assume it was molten aluminum, despite overwhelming evidence of the presence of there being more steel that made up the towers.
What aluminum there was was present on the outsides of the towers, with the exception of 2 planes, but that still doesn't explain WTC 7, that had no plane inside of it.
The plane parts in the towers were waay up high in the buildings, and the reports of molten steel were up to 70 feet deep in the centers of  all 3 the buildings...You can't honestly reason that the molten steel was probably aluminum when one honestly considers these facts.
And you fucks believe saying there is a lack of evidence because NIST ignores it, somehow is YOUR evidence that justifies contradicting hundreds of people, reports and confirmations who were at GZ? You 2 fucks have to twist shit up so bad, to even conclude this is at all reasonable..


I presented instances where NIST ignores evidence, as just one of the reasons why people question NIST's honesty credibility, and integrity, and hence the accuracy of their work.
Ignoring molten steel, ignoring explosions,ignoring FEMA reports, ignoring FF at WTC 7,
ignoring the actual collapses etc are a few instances that explain why there is opposition and doubt regarding the accuracy of their investigation and reports, end of story..


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 16, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_sx4XJfGR0]9/11 Molten Steel At World Trade Center Site For Weeks After The 1 Hour Fires - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Mar 16, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


there is nothing to explain we can no more assume it was aluminum then you can assume it was all steel
all that's really known is there were pools of molten materials ,the most likely explanations remains that the molten substance was a mixture of materials.
you have no evidence otherwise.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



There is more overwhelming evidence that it was steel, then aluminum that has been presented,hands down.Case closed.
You ignoring all that has been presented is your solution to keep your CT going, but it is a joke when watching you try to do so.

You can't conduct a proper investigation and claim you have a valid and plausible theory by dismissing over whelming evidence and reports and keeping them out of the equation, that point to other possible explanations. It is dishonest, at best and criminal at worst.

I suppose all the reports of explosions are attributable to exploding aerosol cans too...


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 16, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > It seems you can debate these CTs until you come to a critical fact on which you can't agree, then the rational conversation comes to a screeching halt.
> ...



None of your "hundreds of GZ people", many of whom were simply repeating what they heard others say, had any way of knowing what the molten mats were as no one tested them or even took their temp.
The fact that there was still molten mats weeks later does not mitigate in favor of molten steel but rather in favor of something which melts at a much lower temp. No known substance could have both melted steel on 9/11 and continued to maintain that temp for weeks after and no evidence of some secret super stuff was found.
Finally, the predominance of steel vs. aluminum does not mean that any of the steel melted. There was plenty of aluminum both in the building structure and the furnishings to create streams and puddles of molten metal.
You're gonna need either proof of molten steel (unsubstantiated opinions are not proof) or that secret super stuff which could both melt the steel and keep it at melting temp _for weeks_ to move your CT beyond the silly conjecture and speculation stage. If you find that missing link I will join you in contacting our elected officials to demand further investigation. See how that works?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 16, 2013)

I would like to know what can keep steel in a molten state under oxygen starved conditions for weeks at a time.......

As I sit here at my mostly Aluminum computer desk.........


----------



## eots (Mar 16, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> I would like to know what can keep steel in a molten state under oxygen starved conditions for weeks at a time.......
> 
> As I sit here at my mostly Aluminum computer desk.........



they dont make office computer desk from aluminum its way to expensive


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 16, 2013)

6 farts in a row from the agent trolls sense my last post. and another again from agent say it.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 16, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



There is absolutely no proof it was steel. Just unsubstantiated observations of some molten metal and plenty of second hand comments. No one tested the molten mats or even took its temp. I too would like to know what that stuff was but assuming it was steel without proof is just silly speculation. Case closed.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 16, 2013)

still ANOTHER fart from you sock puppet stalker.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 16, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to know *what can keep steel in a molten state under oxygen starved conditions for weeks at a time*.......
> ...



Oops. You forgot to address Sarge's question (bold, above). An oversight perhaps?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 16, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to know what can keep steel in a molten state under oxygen starved conditions for weeks at a time.......
> ...



You want a fucking picture dipshit?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 16, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



That's just it, if there is anyway to do this it has  nothing to do with their theories. The only way I know of to keep steel molten is to keep it hot enough to remain molten and there is no demolition system that would do that....


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 16, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> still ANOTHER fart from you sock puppet stalker.



You're like a 12 year old ... all farts and shit. No wonder your 6700 posts since 2008 have garnered an unbelievably low 298 thanks. No one respects you or what you have to say, not even those who promote the same silliness you do. You are the quintessential village idiot, Princess, and no one wants their name attached to anything you say. No one.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 16, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to know what can keep steel in a molten state under oxygen starved conditions for weeks at a time.......
> ...



Maybe not a lot of them, but....

Glass &#39;Miranda&#39; Computer Desk | Overstock.com

There are chairs made with aluminum as well.

I have no clue if there was any used in the WTC offices.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 16, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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



The CTs can make giant leaps of speculative faith but can't comprehend a simple metaphor. Go figure.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 16, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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



It is far more rational to presume (and prove) there was enough lower temp metals in and on those 100+ story buildings to create both molten streams and puddles than it is to assume some secret super stuff melted steel on 9/11 and continued to do so for weeks. Unfortunately rationality is frowned upon in the CT Movement.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 16, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> 6 farts in a row from the agent trolls sense my last post. and another again from agent say it.



I really have to hand it to you. It's informative, thought provoking posts like this that have people from all walks of life flocking to support the Truth Movement.

Well done.  Keep using well written posts like this going to inform the masses.


----------



## eots (Mar 16, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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



yes


----------



## eots (Mar 16, 2013)

funny how we do not hear of molten metal flowing like a river in all these other far more intense building fires or molten metals dripping from the the buildings wonder why that is ??

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


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 16, 2013)

eots said:


> funny how we do not hear of molten metal flowing like a river in all these other far more intense building fires or molten metals dripping from the the buildings wonder why that is ??
> 
> Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube



You still seem to be avoiding Sarge's very pertinent question: what substance can melt steel and keep it in a molten state under oxygen starved conditions for weeks?


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 16, 2013)

eots said:


> funny how we do not hear of molten metal flowing like a river in all these other far more intense building fires or molten metals dripping from the the buildings wonder why that is ??
> 
> Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube



Honestly, it could be as simple as that none of those other building fires are surrounded by conspiracy theories about how they happened.  There could well have been molten metal at some of them, but it may have been seen as no big deal, given the massive fires.

I don't know vaguely enough about any of those fires to say what was or was not reported about them.  Do you?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 16, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > funny how we do not hear of molten metal flowing like a river in all these other far more intense building fires or molten metals dripping from the the buildings wonder why that is ??
> ...



All you really have to see in watching them is that none of them collapsed in just under FF acceleration, and all had been consumed by more intense fires for longer periods of time, and did not produce the results of WTC 7...


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 16, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Can the difference be that the WTC buildings used significantly different core support systems? Reinforced concrete was not used in the WTC (but I'm certain you knew that). You seem to know enough about this subject to be aware of this critical difference, forcing me to conclude you are being disingenuous.  

http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm/

https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNE-6HFLY5kKGyABekL7YErlZUftSQ


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 16, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



First, that says nothing about whether molten metal was present at any of those building fires or not.

Second, not all buildings are equal, either in planning, construction or materials.

Third, is there a large enough sample size of high-rise buildings undergoing these types of massive fires to know how they are likely to react?

Fourth, if the collapse of WTC 7 WAS completely out of the ordinary, that does not mean it wasn't fire that caused it.  It's perfectly fine as a reason to question, but not to come to conclusions.


----------



## eots (Mar 16, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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



WE SEE MOLTEN METAL COMING OUT OF THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING THE CLAIM IS ITS ALUMINUM BUT YET IN OTHER BUILDING FIRES WE NEVER SEE THIS


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPu9IqBfMIw]9/11: South Tower Molten Metal & Collapse - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Mar 16, 2013)

And the tower had   a core wtf happened to the core ???..nist does not even attempt to answer this question


----------



## eots (Mar 16, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__gUjUv1vvw]Building the World Trade Center and Twin Towers - 1 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 16, 2013)

eots said:


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



Other buildings didn't have jetliners crash into them......I'm sure you can see the difference... plus there is some discussion about a battery bank near that area of the building. Which could be part of what we see.....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 16, 2013)

We can all see the core trying to stand up to about 60 floors of it.....


----------



## eots (Mar 16, 2013)

sayit said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > funny how we do not hear of molten metal flowing like a river in all these other far more intense building fires or molten metals dripping from the the buildings wonder why that is ??
> ...



who says it was in a molten state for weeks ?


----------



## eots (Mar 16, 2013)

sfc ollie said:


> we can all see the core trying to stand up to about 60 floors of it.....



*link*


----------



## eots (Mar 16, 2013)

sfc ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > montrovant said:
> ...



other building don't have battery rooms ?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 17, 2013)

NIST never showed how any of this was even possible.
The other towering infernos did not collapse when subjected to more severe fires and heat. None.
The towers were designed with plane impacts considered, but you all knew this...and 7 was the gotcha moment were the plan was exposed. Strange how flight 93 and WTC7 seemed to be malfunctions in the plan...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 18, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


among other things....


----------



## daws101 (Mar 18, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to know what can keep steel in a molten state under oxygen starved conditions for weeks at a time.......
> ...


bullshit ..


----------



## daws101 (Mar 18, 2013)

eots said:


> funny how we do not hear of molten metal flowing like a river in all these other far more intense building fires or molten metals dripping from the the buildings wonder why that is ??
> 
> Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!! - YouTube


like clock work, eots uses a false comparison to bolster his non knowledge!
none of the buildings in that clip were hit by planes, only an willfully ignorant fuck head will keep presenting it as proof.
you might as well have said 3 farts in a row...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 18, 2013)

eots said:


> sayit said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


your girlfriend sister jones!


----------



## eots (Mar 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > funny how we do not hear of molten metal flowing like a river in all these other far more intense building fires or molten metals dripping from the the buildings wonder why that is ??
> ...



no plane hit wtc 7...NIST  concluded damage was not a factor in the collapse


----------



## eots (Mar 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sayit said:
> ...



it was at extremely high temperatures for weeks


----------



## paulitician (Mar 18, 2013)

eots said:


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



Man, why do you still bother? You know he or she is just gonna come back with another Sock Puppet, and call you a "Tinfoil Hat-wearing Nut." I truly do respect your tenacious determination, but i don't know how you do it. lol! Anyway, have you seen 'Harodim' yet?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 18, 2013)

eots said:


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


another false comparison, if  debris from the towers hadn't damaged wtc7 there would have been no fires and column failure... so you inference that something else is responsible is like all you shit, false...


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 18, 2013)

eots said:


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



So what could have melted the steel and kept it molten for weeks?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 18, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



It's a secret........


----------



## eots (Mar 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



the falling debris where responsible for the fires and nothing more according to NIST..and the failure of the single column under any circumstance would have initiated the collapse sequence if you assume this correct then it clearly is not required the entire building be wired with explosives or the any wiring of any kind was required


----------



## wihosa (Mar 19, 2013)

We had a special prosecutor  to investigate President Clinton's penis but no prosecutor to investigate the attack on America and the righties think I'm wearing a tin foil hat because I point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE, repeat, IMPOSSIBLE!!!! that a modern steel frame high rise can collapse due to fire. Don't forget that no person or agency presented any science to support this assertion but numerous, no make that thousands of people trained in the design and construction of such buildings have presented the science that proves it impossible.

We'll never solve the question here. We need a real investigation by a prosecutor with subpoena power. Considering that this has not been done I ask all the nay sayers what are you afraid of?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 19, 2013)

> Don't forget that no person or agency presented any science to support this assertion but numerous, no make that thousands of people trained in the design and construction of such buildings have presented the science that proves it impossible.



Actually you have this almost backwards.........


----------



## paulitician (Mar 19, 2013)

wihosa said:


> We had a special prosecutor  to investigate President Clinton's penis but no prosecutor to investigate the attack on America and the righties think I'm wearing a tin foil hat because I point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE, repeat, IMPOSSIBLE!!!! that a modern steel frame high rise can collapse due to fire. Don't forget that no person or agency presented any science to support this assertion but numerous, no make that thousands of people trained in the design and construction of such buildings have presented the science that proves it impossible.
> 
> We'll never solve the question here. We need a real investigation by a prosecutor with subpoena power. Considering that this has not been done I ask all the nay sayers what are you afraid of?



Well said. Yup, quickly shipped the steel off to China and wrapped up a completely phony investigation. Unfortunately, it's probably too late for truth now. The evidence was quickly destroyed and disposed of. The only truth we're left with, is the fact we were lied to. Sadly, that will always be the only truth we'll get on 9/11.


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> > Don't forget that no person or agency presented any science to support this assertion but numerous, no make that thousands of people trained in the design and construction of such buildings have presented the science that proves it impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you have this almost backwards.........



really ? list twenty


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 19, 2013)

wihosa said:


> Don't forget that no person or agency presented any science to support this assertion but numerous, no make that thousands of people trained in the design and construction of such buildings have presented the science that proves it impossible.



What "thousands" of people trained in design and construction of such buildings are you talking about?


----------



## paulitician (Mar 19, 2013)

Yeah, buildings burn and collapse perfectly symmetrically all the time. Happens every day in fact. Seriously, it's true.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


> Yeah, buildings burn and collapse perfectly symmetrically all the time. Happens every day in fact. Seriously, it's true.



What was perfect and symmetrical about how the towers fell?


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2013)

predfan said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > yeah, buildings burn and collapse perfectly symmetrically all the time. Happens every day in fact. Seriously, it's true.
> ...



NIST described the collapse as symetrical


----------



## PredFan (Mar 19, 2013)

wihosa said:


> We had a special prosecutor  to investigate President Clinton's penis but no prosecutor to investigate the attack on America and the righties think I'm wearing a tin foil hat because I point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE, repeat, IMPOSSIBLE!!!! that a modern steel frame high rise can collapse due to fire. Don't forget that no person or agency presented any science to support this assertion but numerous, no make that thousands of people trained in the design and construction of such buildings have presented the science that proves it impossible.
> 
> We'll never solve the question here. We need a real investigation by a prosecutor with subpoena power. Considering that this has not been done I ask all the nay sayers what are you afraid of?



1. Prosecutors "investigate" crimes. We did have a prosecutor. It isn't his job to come up with a theory. He isn't an engineer.

2. It is NOT impossible for a modern steel high rise to collapse due to fire.

3. The people who are skeptical of your conspiracy theory aren't "righties" they are composed of sane people from all political walks of life.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 19, 2013)

PredFan said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, buildings burn and collapse perfectly symmetrically all the time. Happens every day in fact. Seriously, it's true.
> ...



Oh, just about everything.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > We had a special prosecutor  to investigate President Clinton's penis but no prosecutor to investigate the attack on America and the righties think I'm wearing a tin foil hat because I point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE, repeat, IMPOSSIBLE!!!! that a modern steel frame high rise can collapse due to fire. Don't forget that no person or agency presented any science to support this assertion but numerous, no make that thousands of people trained in the design and construction of such buildings have presented the science that proves it impossible.
> ...



Wrong again. They used the steel to make a US Navy ship.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 19, 2013)

eots said:


> predfan said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



That is an odd description imo.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



I don't know what you were watching, it didn't look perfect or symmetrical to me.

What do you think a perfectly symmetrical collapse implies?


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2013)

predfan said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



thats not true one piece was used on a u.s ship for pr purposes..


----------



## paulitician (Mar 19, 2013)

PredFan said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Some of it was. But most was shipped to China and other foreign nations. And it was done very quickly. Way too quickly. There was no credible investigating done. They just wanted the evidence out of the way as quickly as possible. It's a real shame.


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2013)

PredFan said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



So NIST was wrong ?


----------



## paulitician (Mar 19, 2013)

PredFan said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Look again.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 19, 2013)

The USS New York was made with 24 tons of steel from the WTC Towers.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



They wanted to clear the site. They had to move the stuff, it's a shame they sent it to China (if in fact they did). That in no way means there was some conspiracy. How was the steel sent to China different from the steel used to make the ship? What would ordinary steel tell us about how the towers fell?

You CT people are long on imagination, short on facts or logic.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 19, 2013)

And then there's the fact all planes in the U.S. were ordered grounded, yet the Bin Laden Family was allowed to fly away on their private jet. People don't find that just a little bit suspicious?


----------



## PredFan (Mar 19, 2013)

eots said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Imo it was a inaccurate description. You think I believe that the NIST's report is infallible?


----------



## PredFan (Mar 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



I did. Still looks the same to me. What do you think the way it collapsed implies?


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2013)

PredFan said:


> The USS New York was made with 24 tons of steel from the WTC Towers.



where do you get your bullshit from they used a single column weighing about 7 ton


----------



## paulitician (Mar 19, 2013)

PredFan said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



No excuses, they should have done a proper investigation. They violated all acceptable protocols of proper investigating. They simply wanted to get rid of the evidence as soon as possible. They shipped that steel off way too quickly. It wasn't right.


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXwp87-_wh8]Ship Built From 9/11 Steel - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PredFan (Mar 19, 2013)

eots said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > The USS New York was made with 24 tons of steel from the WTC Towers.
> ...



USS New York Built With World Trade Center Steel


----------



## PredFan (Mar 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



They did a proper investigation. The NIST's report is the result.


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2013)

PredFan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



no wonder any credible sites ?...did you view the video


----------



## paulitician (Mar 19, 2013)

PredFan said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



All a very sad sham. Evidence was destroyed and disposed of. It was anything but a proper investigation.


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2013)

New York
USS New York comes to life; *ship born of 7.5 tons of World Trade Center steel*
BY STEPHANIE GASKELL / DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER



Read more: USS New York comes to life; ship born of 7.5 tons of World Trade Center steel - NY Daily News


----------



## paulitician (Mar 19, 2013)

Still don't get how all U.S. planes were ordered grounded, yet the Bin Laden Family was allowed to fly away on their private jet. Doesn't anyone else find that just a tad bit suspicious?


----------



## eots (Mar 19, 2013)

Welcome To The USS NEW YORK

The USS NEW YORK (LPD 21), *built with 7.5 tons of steel from the World Trade Center in her bow, *was commissioned in New York City on Nov. 7, 2009. At approximately 8:00 a.m., on November 2, the USS NEW YORK came to a standstill across from the World Trade Center site, dipped her flag, and delivered a 21-gun salute. Members of the Fire Department of New York, the New York Police Department, Port Authority Police, members of the families of 9/11 victims and veterans gathered on the shore at the North Cove in the World Financial Center to return the salute. Members of the general public were in attendance.

USS New York LPD-21 | About the USS New York


----------



## PredFan (Mar 19, 2013)

eots said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



So, YOUR sites are credible, mine are not. Ok so why won't you answer the question?

What difference does it make how much steel went where? What would that mean if anything at all?


----------



## PredFan (Mar 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Well they did enough to come to the correct interpretation.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 19, 2013)

PredFan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



It means everything, if you take the time to think about it. Why the rush to ship all that steel off to China? That doesn't cause you to be even a tad bit suspicious or curious?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 19, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > > Don't forget that no person or agency presented any science to support this assertion but numerous, no make that thousands of people trained in the design and construction of such buildings have presented the science that proves it impossible.
> ...



Of the 500,000 or more? You forget the people who know there was no CD don't make a big deal out of knowing that. Only the nutters make noise about it and they have nothing but opinion.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


> Yeah, buildings burn and *collapse perfectly symmetrically* all the time. Happens every day in fact. Seriously, it's true.



Really? It didn't happen on 9-1-01.........


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 19, 2013)

eots said:


> predfan said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Now why do you want to lie like that?



> In an historic event in New York City on November 7, 2009, the nation watched USS NEW YORK, with 73/4 tons of World Trade Center steel in her bow, as she was commissionioned into U.S. Navy service.


USS New York (LPD 21) | The Official Website. Commissioning Event Information.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 19, 2013)

PredFan said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > We had a special prosecutor  to investigate President Clinton's penis but no prosecutor to investigate the attack on America and the righties think I'm wearing a tin foil hat because I point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE, repeat, IMPOSSIBLE!!!! that a modern steel frame high rise can collapse due to fire. Don't forget that no person or agency presented any science to support this assertion but numerous, no make that thousands of people trained in the design and construction of such buildings have presented the science that proves it impossible.
> ...



Just as flaming CT loons themselves come from all sides of the political spectrum. Their commonality? Lunacy.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


> And then there's the fact all planes in the U.S. were ordered grounded, yet the Bin Laden Family was allowed to fly away on their private jet. People don't find that just a little bit suspicious?



Suspicious? Put yourself in the bin Laden's shoes. America had just been attacked by Muslim extremists. Would I;
1) use my money, power and influence to get out of here 
or;
2) hang around and see what comes next
They did not go to Mars. If we want to get to them personally we still have that option.
You seem to believe everything is a nefarious CT, Princess.
I seem to think you're a paranoid loon.   
Clearly you are wrong and I am right.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 19, 2013)

eots said:


> predfan said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...








10. Some people have said that a failure at one column should not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What is NISTs answer to those assertions?

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.
FAQs - NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


> And then there's the fact all planes in the U.S. were ordered grounded, yet the Bin Laden Family was allowed to fly away on their private jet. People don't find that just a little bit suspicious?



Ah yes the infamous Bin Laden flight. When was that? 20 September and sanctioned by Richard Clarke. (not exactly a friend of Bush)


----------



## paulitician (Mar 19, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > And then there's the fact all planes in the U.S. were ordered grounded, yet the Bin Laden Family was allowed to fly away on their private jet. People don't find that just a little bit suspicious?
> ...



Obviously, the Bin Laden Family had many close friends in our Government.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



One twisted steel beam looks pretty much like the next, Princess, and you have no proof (because there is no proof) they "wanted to get rid of the evidence as soon as possible." That's just more BS on your ever growing list of CTBS.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


your point?


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



So you are thinking maybe GWB and the bin Laden clan spent a summer weekend together planting explosives?


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 19, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Now why do you want to lie like that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is what I've found also.

7.5 to 7.75 tons of WTC steel is part of the ship.

They salvaged 24 tons (48,780 lbs.) from the WTC steel and lost 10% of it when that melted it down. The remaining steel (about 21,000 lbs.) was to be used for anchor-handling castings.
World Trade Center Steel is Shaped into PCU New York


----------



## paulitician (Mar 19, 2013)

daws101 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



What do you think?


----------



## G.T. (Mar 19, 2013)

lol "solved"




...but only reported on loon sites followed by loon lemmings.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 19, 2013)

On the night of September
12, 2001
the Fresh Kills
Landfill on Staten Island
was designated a crime
scene and trucks began
arriving from Ground Zero
with steel and
crushed
debris that was
once
the World Trade Center.
Over the next ten months,
an operation to recover
human remains, personal
effects and the objects
of everyday life from 1.8
million tons of material was
undertaken by the New
York Police Department,
an FBI evidence recovery
team, twenty-five state
and federal agencies, and
fourteen private contractors.
The story of this operation
unfolds in many rare images
and compelling objects that
are now preserved for history.
Thousands of detectives,
agents, and forensic evidence
specialists worked around
the clock to recover rem-
nants of the lives lost
at the World Trade Center.
Over 1.7 million hours were
spent working at the landfill.
The exhibition photographs,
taken over several months,
document the immense
task. 


But there was no investigation or examination of any evidence.........

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/exhibits/longterm/documents/recovery.pdf


----------



## daws101 (Mar 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


 why are you asking me? I'm a goose stepping sock with five different I.D.s on this site..but to answer, I don't think I know what your opinion on this is I know what it is and it's wrong.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 19, 2013)

Personally, i'm not so much a proponent of George Bush being involved in the 9/11 attacks. He was only in there 8 months when it happened. The planning for such a large-scale heinous attack like 9/11, had to be in the works all throughout Clinton's 8 year reign. I think too many concentrate too much of their anger and suspicion on George Bush. I mean, take a look at the man. Do you really think he was in charge of anything? 

More focus should be shifted to the Clinton reign. That's when most of the planning had to take place. But the Bush's do have a very long-standing close relationship with the Bin Laden Family. So i can see why so many focus all their anger on them. But something like 9/11 had to be planned by others for a very long time. It's much bigger than just George Bush. But that being said, here's a pleasant little musical interlude for ya...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H99TdRm9_08]Bush knocked down the towers?????? - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 19, 2013)

Do you even realize that one of those Bin Laden family members was an American citizen who was afraid for her life? There was nothing to keep them here. After all do we shoot the children of a murderer?


----------



## paulitician (Mar 19, 2013)

Check out the film 'Harodim.' It's pretty interesting.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0I12SZ0H6U]HARODIM: LOOK CLOSER - OFFICIAL TRAILER ENGLISH (HD) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 19, 2013)

Oh please, now a Hollywood movie means something?


----------



## PredFan (Mar 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


> Still don't get how all U.S. planes were ordered grounded, yet the Bin Laden Family was allowed to fly away on their private jet. Doesn't anyone else find that just a tad bit suspicious?



Wait. You guys claim that the US Jets were ordered to Canada for drills of some sort. Make up your minds.

The Bin Ladens were probably sent away for their own protection. Not really much more to that.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



"It means everything" is not an answer. What does it mean is the question, or rather what do YOU think it means?

Frist of all, it didn't all go to China, second, if they were trying to hide something, why send it to a country that would love to scandalize us?

No, it doesn't make me suspicious at all. Why would it?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 19, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2dvv-Yib1Xg#]Luke's Change: an Inside Job - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PredFan (Mar 19, 2013)

It is easy to poke holes in the NIST's report and conclusions. After all the events had to be pieced together after the fact and it would be impossible to know exactly what happened. It's MUCH harder to support a conspiracy theory and in fact the very few who tried, failed miserably to do so.

The NIST's report is the closest thing to reality that we will ever know. It's the onlyn theory that fits the facts. It does not fit it 100% and never will. So far no alternative theory7 fits the facts better and most fall abysmally short.

WE do know this:

1. 4 planes were hijacked.
2. 2 planes struck the towers.
3. All the real people onboard those two planes died.
4. The towers collapsed from the point of impact down.

The NIST's report fits these facts whereas no current CT fits them all.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 19, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_w6CS-b49U]Brilliant Conspiracy Rap - InTeLLeGeNtZ - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


> Personally, i'm not so much a proponent of George Bush being involved in the 9/11 attacks. He was only in there 8 months when it happened. The planning for such a large-scale heinous attack like 9/11, had to be in the works all throughout Clinton's 8 year reign. I think too many concentrate too much of their anger and suspicion on George Bush. I mean, take a look at the man. Do you really think he was in charge of anything?
> 
> More focus should be shifted to the Clinton reign. That's when most of the planning had to take place. But the Bush's do have a very long-standing close relationship with the Bin Laden Family. So i can see why so many focus all their anger on them. But something like 9/11 had to be planned by others for a very long time. It's much bigger than just George Bush. But that being said, here's a pleasant little musical interlude for ya...
> 
> Bush knocked down the towers?????? - YouTube



Woo. First you argue the quick exit of the bin Laden's from US soil following 9/11 is "at least suspicious" and then you admit you don't think Bush, who had to sign off on allowing the bin Ladens to leave, was in on the conspiracy. So why interject the bin Laden thing in the first place and why now add in that the family was friendly with the Bush clan?
Your thinking is all over the fucking place. No wonder you're such a fuck-up ... you're a loon.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


> Check out the film 'Harodim.' It's pretty interesting.
> 
> 
> HARODIM: LOOK CLOSER - OFFICIAL TRAILER ENGLISH (HD) - YouTube


it's fiction....but then again everything you yammer about is fiction.
why not mention Olympus has fallen... that would be far more doable.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 19, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Luke's Change: an Inside Job - YouTube



OK Sarge ... I'm convinced. It was definitely a conspiracy!


----------



## paulitician (Mar 19, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, i'm not so much a proponent of George Bush being involved in the 9/11 attacks. He was only in there 8 months when it happened. The planning for such a large-scale heinous attack like 9/11, had to be in the works all throughout Clinton's 8 year reign. I think too many concentrate too much of their anger and suspicion on George Bush. I mean, take a look at the man. Do you really think he was in charge of anything?
> ...



The Bush and Bin Laden Families do have a very close relationship. But my point was that i don't think George Bush had much to do with it. The man just isn't capable. He's a bit of a clueless buffoon. Now, his Father? Maybe. And the planning would have begun long before he took office. That's why i said most of it was likely planned during Clinton's reign. Regardless, all planes were ordered to be gounded...Except for the Bin Laden Family's apparently. And yes, i do find that suspicious and curious. But hey, you don't have to. I'm not forcing you to agree with me, or post on my threads. That's your call.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



In fact, for probably the first time in months we did agree on something just hours ago but you rejected even my agreement with your assessment of Del:
"Finally we agree on something! Del is a weasel who would creep around my posts to neg me while never posting a word in response. That is weird but he hasn't bugged me in months."


----------



## daws101 (Mar 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


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


the problem is you find everything suspicious ....


----------



## daws101 (Mar 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


> Check out the film 'Harodim.' It's pretty interesting.
> 
> 
> HARODIM: LOOK CLOSER - OFFICIAL TRAILER ENGLISH (HD) - YouTube


if it's that good why did it go straight to video?


----------



## paulitician (Mar 19, 2013)

daws101 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Check out the film 'Harodim.' It's pretty interesting.
> ...



Matter of opinion i guess. Didn't make a lot of money. But that doesn't mean it wasn't interesting. You should check it out.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 19, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



Nah, the problem is you find nothing suspicious.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


wrong paulie straight to video means it was not good enough for general release. so it went to video to make back some of the lost.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


wrong again paulie, I get the facts and then decide if it's worth being suspicious about.
you do neither.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 19, 2013)

paulitician said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Translation: Normal peeps won't waste their time and cash on that which CT loons like Pauli find "interesting." Evidently norms are a lot smarter than pompous CTs give us credit for.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 20, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Yeah, like a deranged Sock Puppet troll like you is 'normal'? Priceless.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 20, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Normal, rational thinking adults don't let assholes like you dictate what is considered "normal" and fear your juvenile ridicule. Normal people should not be afraid to question or seek answers concerning the attacks of 9-11, or try to learn about the reality of the nation or the world they live in.
You subscribe to and defend an outrageous conspiracy theory that is full of lies and instances where it needs to lie, ignore, and falsify data, evidence and circumstances and  demands plausibility because it comes from an "official" source LOL...That "official source" is a historic lying entity, and research of history, and 9-11 will show that this is true.
People like you are anti truth, and anti American, and use false information, lies, and ridicules anyone who questions your OCT, all the while never putting up anything that substantiates your beliefs against anything that counters your OCT. while spending daily work shift hours on message boards propagating your anti American stance and your insane views..


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 20, 2013)

> instances where it needs to lie, ignore, and falsify data, evidence and circumstances



I suppose you would be willing to show examples and proof of each of these things?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 20, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> > instances where it needs to lie, ignore, and falsify data, evidence and circumstances
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose you would be willing to show examples and proof of each of these things?



We have...for years now, but you always ignore whatever examples are provided. Anyone who doesn't know about it and is new to the boards can look through the many threads, whereas people like you are only asking for "proof" yet again to continue your circle of wash rinse repeat.
You know how it goes troll. We post proof and evidence, that includes many sources, facts, calculations, news reports, and videos...and you pretend you never heard of them, while also pretending you are some kind of valiant warrior who defended our "freedumbs" once upon a time, while never once standing up for your fellow military comrades who went off and died, or were wounded for the lies that you try to defend while using "amnesia" on these boards...
You're a fucking disgrace and a joke.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > > instances where it needs to lie, ignore, and falsify data, evidence and circumstances
> ...



Fuck you. how many Veterans funerals have you been to in the past 10 years?  I have news for you dickhead I've forgotten how many times I've taken that folded flag and held back my tears as i presented it to the next of kin. "From the president and a grateful nation". BS not when it comes to you CT assholes. 
You haven't a clue what honor is and all you do is demonize the government and the freedoms that men better than yourselves have died for to make sure you have. The freedom to come on your little internet and talk shit was purchased by the lives of way better men than you will ever be.
You have never offered a shred of proof, just as you sidestepped it again today. You had to go after the personal attack. Come walk with me asswipe I'll show you the real fucking world.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> while also pretending you are some kind of valiant warrior who defended our "freedumbs" once upon a time, while never once standing up for your fellow military comrades who went off and died, or were wounded for the lies that you try to defend while using "amnesia" on these boards...
> You're a fucking disgrace and a joke.



The above is the kind of pathetic, soulless, gutless, and decrepit bullshit that makes you the fucking asshole that most people think you are.

What a gutless turd.

I dare you to go say that same line of crap to some of the men and woman in the armed forces. 

You'd get your ass handed to you.

I talk all the time to my friends and family who are in the armed forces right now and they think you people who believe/say this type of shit are all fucksticks.

Rightfully so I might add.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 20, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


on the other hand somebody is making a shit load of cash off suckers like paulie and sister jones.
their sub culture has certain needs ,what movies to watch, books to buy, tee shirts ,coffee mugs....personal appearances, just to name a few. 
somebody has to supply it ...wish I'd though of that scam...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 20, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > > instances where it needs to lie, ignore, and falsify data, evidence and circumstances
> ...


who the fuck is we ?
do you belong to a twoofer organization? if so name it ,if not then you have no right to represent or in this case misrepresent other people with out their permission. you self aggrandizing limp dick..


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 20, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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



He won't be able to keep up. You'll have to hold his hand.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 20, 2013)

I'll Low crawl and he can run....It still might be difficult for him though.............


----------



## daws101 (Mar 20, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> I'll Low crawl and he can run....It still might be difficult for him though.............


with an ego that large it's a wonder he can move at all.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 21, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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



You say you attend so many funerals, but still defend the lies that sent them to their graves. You defend the lies so adamantly over the lives of your so called comrades and fellow military brothers and sisters, in spite of so many vets, and facts that are totally against the criminals who sent them to die, and the lies they told to accomplish this.
You can't name one fucking instance where Americans "freedumbs" were ever in any jeopardy, and that your "brave actions" or service protected..
If you think thinking Americans will wilt because of your BS, and defense of the lies that caused the death of their sons and daughters, you're even more full of shit then I previously thought.
Instead of educating the young impressionable recruits, you help spread lies, and defend the ones already told, right to their faces....There are many honorable military veterans, who have had the guts to at least speak out about what are clear violations and orders given to them, and the lies they were told so they would "protect American" freedumbs,
and you are a phoney ass liar, if you as a military man, don't give them their due respect.

The instances that show what fucking liars the chicken hawks who concocted the lies that sent our military off to die, for resources, and strategic  military conquests, and in defense of Israel, who NEVER EVER has their military fight alongside Americans, is fucking vast, and well known, especially to the military men and women who woke up after realizing they were fucking lied to.

You saying that some how, spending trillions on wars to save Americans freedoms, and their continued use of the internet is laughable on its face, especially when it's obvious that our freedoms have been trampled on, and have been curtailed...not by any outside "terrorists" forces , but by our own fucking government.

Fuck you you damn phoney ass liar. Many Americans have awakened to the truth about why they were told to go off to foreign lands and die, and it had nothing to do with American freedoms, or values, or their fucking internet service.
If you are indeed telling the truth about attending any military funerals, you should feel shame when looking their grieving relatives in the face after all that is now known about the sons of bitches and cowards who concocted the massive lies that sent them to their deaths and who you disgustingly fucking defend..
I would caution any one from even listening to such a willfully ignorant, indoctrinated stooge like you, especially anyone who wants to know anything about the disaster that has befallen America the last 12 years, and who wont even respect the sentiments or opinions of those he calls fellow comrades in arms, who are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.
You are the last person someone should go to for advice or knowledge.

You others should indeed support our military, by NOT defending the lies that have proven to be detrimental to them, their families and to Americas security around the world, and by not supporting any candidate who would out source American foreign policy to an distrustful, so called "ally"..

I'm done responding to you, and trying to reason with you after all these years, especially when you lie so much and defend and try to cover, everything the criminals have said, instead of our own military and their families. who have more guts then you do and speak out..and are the REAL PATRIOTS of the American Republic.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 21, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 21, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



Woo. Shrill, desperate, self-serving and hateful. Typical CTBS. Oh, and fuck you too, asshole.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 21, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


----------



## daws101 (Mar 21, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 21, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



You hate this country so much why don't you just get the fuck out? 

You talk about lies this and lies that and you can't prove one of them.

Reason with me? You deny that our military has kept us free and you want to reason with me.... Go ahead asswipe let's pretend we haven't had a strong military all these decades. Which language do you want to learn?


And you have never ever seen me post a lie....... You want my fucking address you can stand on my front porch and call me a liar if you'd like. but you wouldn't stand there very long.

And that is not a threat, it's a promise.........

Now go report me to whomever...........


----------



## PredFan (Mar 22, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



You're right it IS suspicious. I suspect it was for their protection.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 22, 2013)

PredFan said:


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



Possibly. But i would think our Law Enforcement authorities would have wanted to thoroughly question and investigate them before allowing them to just pack up and fly away. They were his Family after all. It just reinforces the opinion of many, that there was no credible 9/11 investigation.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 22, 2013)

paulitician said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


what paulie and co mean by a credible investigation is they would be proven correct. the reality is that a credible reinvestigation would not result in their much wished for conclusion.
a credible investigation would have to be objective and all twoofer evidence would have to be investigated for the possibility of fraud.
also no conspiracy theorists could participate due to a conflict of interest.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Goose Stepper illogic.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 22, 2013)

paulitician said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...




Most likely they have already questioned them as much as they could. Remember that OBL didn't just show up on 9-11. The US was probably satisfied a while back that they knew nothing about OBL.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 22, 2013)

paulitician said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Yeah, yeah, yeah. Everybody who doesn't share your POV is a Nazi and a goosestepper and a promoter of a final solution for you paranoid CTs.
Now rather than run away again perhaps you will stop spinning and crying wolf and acting like a paranoid asshole long enough to explain how you determined from his paper that Harvard Law professor Cass Sunstein is a Nazi? And please post some credible support for your claim that the fams of the Sandy Hook vic's are "locked down" and soon to "disappear." Dealing with you is like playin' Whack-A-Mole. Smack you over here and you pop up over there.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 22, 2013)

PredFan said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Not good enough. A proper Law Enforcement investigation requires much more time and effort. This was a monumental horrific attack after all. It certainly deserved much more attention. The Bin Laden Family should have never been allowed to pack up and fly away so quickly. It violated all acceptable norms in proper investigating.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 22, 2013)

Since they didn't leave until nearly a week after flight restrictions ended there is nothing to even talk about..........


----------



## paulitician (Mar 22, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Since they didn't leave until nearly a week after flight restrictions ended there is nothing to even talk about..........



Well, we disagree. That was not a proper investigation. These were his Family for God's sake. It certainly required more than just a week of investigating.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 22, 2013)

And you always have to question a 3rd cousin when someone commits a murder.....

His family had disowned him years before.....Seems like some people forget things like that......


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 22, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> And you always have to question a 3rd cousin when someone commits a murder.....
> 
> His family had disowned him years before.....Seems like some people forget things like that......



In the CT world of woo, they think Bin Laden called every member of his family and told them what he was up to.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 22, 2013)

paulitician said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Concidering that the US Government has very likely grilled them about OBL since probably before the USS Cole bombing, it would probably have been a waste of time. They had more important things to focus on at that time.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 22, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > And you always have to question a 3rd cousin when someone commits a murder.....
> ...



Yeah, but what do you know?


----------



## PredFan (Mar 22, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Since they didn't leave until nearly a week after flight restrictions ended there is nothing to even talk about..........



I was not aware of that. Thanks.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 22, 2013)

PredFan said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



That's not how Law Enforcement investigations work. You don't allow the Bin Laden Family to fly away because you think it would be a 'waste of time.' That's not how crimes are investigated.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 22, 2013)

paulitician said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



But what would be the point of grilling someone who you've already grilled before?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 22, 2013)

I don't see why Bin Laden's family even matters, considering Dr Judy Wood and Dr Tracy Bleven both say the towers & the Solomon Brothers building were destroyed by space based energy weapons.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 22, 2013)

PredFan said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



We don't know that they were ever 'grilled' by anyone. But regardless, a proper investigation requires much more time. Especially with such a monumental heinous crime.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 22, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> I don't see why Bin Laden's family even matters, considering Dr Judy Wood and Dr Tracy Bleven both say the towers & the Solomon Brothers building were destroyed by space based energy weapons.



Ok ok, get your stale 'Tinfoil Hat' insults out of your system. Then kindly leave. The adults are talking. Thanks.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 22, 2013)

paulitician said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...





thats the logic of predfan troll for you and how his warped logical mind works.



dont forget to tell him as well they were the only ones to allow to fly out of the country that day when everyone else was grounded.that may be a little too complicated for his little warped mind to comprehend though.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 22, 2013)

paulitician said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see why Bin Laden's family even matters, considering Dr Judy Wood and Dr Tracy Bleven both say the towers & the Solomon Brothers building were destroyed by space based energy weapons.
> ...



Dr Dusty Blevin must be taken seriously.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 22, 2013)

PredFan said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Since they didn't leave until nearly a week after flight restrictions ended there is nothing to even talk about..........
> ...



I love how the troll worships and believes EVERYTHING proven liar agent Gomer Olle posts. Gomer as always is caught telling some 


These are the kind of people Gomer Ollie and Moron In the Hat have been sent to brainwash and keep them believing in the government.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 22, 2013)

paulitician said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Since they didn't leave until nearly a week after flight restrictions ended there is nothing to even talk about..........
> ...



your wasting your time with agent gomer Ollie  and his lies? Gomer Ollie of course ignores facts like Bin Laden and al-qeuda were funded by the CIA.you might mention that to predfan troll as well.It will be funny to see how what his answer is to that.

please mention to that to him to see how he replys.I cant cause he has me on ignore. He put me on ignore months ago after he got frustrated with facts i posted that took him to school and proved him wrong and he cussed me out and has had me on it sense then and now he CLAIMS he has debunked me. even though he has NEVER had any answers for that short 5 minute video of yours.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 22, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Here's a New Jersey senator's site in which he questions why the Bin Laden family members were allowed to leave a week after 9/11 :

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg

From what I've read the full grounding of planes lasted 2 days, with a restricted third day; after that the restrictions were pretty much lifted.

Also, supposedly the FBI vetted the Saudis who left.  How stringent that was I don't know, but supposedly it just involved checking identities against suspected terrorists.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 22, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I'll reply to that very vague question.  Did the CIA back Bin Laden?  So I've been led to believe.  Of course, if I remember correctly, that came about as a result of our helping the mujahideen against the Russians in Afghanistan.  That doesn't in any way mean that the CIA continued to support him after that war ended.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 22, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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



lets see,the CIA CONTROLLED LAMESTREAM MEDIA announces IMMEDIATELY that VERY DAY that Bin Laden was behind the attacks,who was funded by the CIA by the way,and yet he is ALLOWED to fly out of the country.sorry,thats the most key stone cop invetigaation of a joke in the history of the united states ever.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 22, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Stupid here thinks Bin Laden was in the US on 9/11.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 22, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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



yeah they didnt support him after that,thats why a CIA official visited him in the hospital a couple months later  after the attack before he died back then despite what the CIA CONTROLLED LAMESTREAM MEDIA  tells us.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...obama-lied-about-osama-bin-laden-s-death.html


and oh,the Bush family had A LONG STANDING relationship with the Bin Laden family.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 22, 2013)

paulitician said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Ok so what does that prove? I say it's because they have already given the US government all the info they could, and they were sent out for their own safety. You say there was something sinister involved. What?


----------



## PredFan (Mar 22, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


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



Stupid is as stupid does.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 22, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



There is good reason 9/11 Hand Job has received the impossibly low 299 "thanks" for his 6700+ posts; no one respects a word he mutters and no one - not even his loony CT comrades - wants their SN's attached to anything he says. Obviously he a terrible embarassment for them but he's great entertainment for everyone else and irrefutable evidence that the CT Movement attracts the dimmest peeps.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 22, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



And once again 911shitforbrains sticks his foot in his mouth....
Flight restrictions were lifted on 14 September, the infamous Bin Laden Family flight wasn't until 20 September.....

As usual you got your facts totally fucked up.........


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 22, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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



The full truth is that Al Queada was formed after the end of the Russian/Afghanistan conflict....


----------



## paulitician (Mar 23, 2013)

PredFan said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Biggest Terrorist attack in our History, carried out by a man named Bin Laden, yet our Authorities allow the Bin Laden Family to just fly away a week later? That and the fact the Bush & Bin Laden Families have been very close for years, are cause to be at least a little bit curious or suspicious. I'll never get why so many are so dismissive of this. But regardless, it's clear a proper investigation was not conducted. And that should be disturbing to all.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Or it's because almost everyone here has him on ignore. Like I do.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 23, 2013)

paulitician said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...




You are just repeating what you already said. My question is why? I said it's because they have already been questioned. You disagree. What do you think it means?


----------



## paulitician (Mar 23, 2013)

PredFan said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



We don't know if they were questioned at all. I've never seen any reports on that. As far as what it could mean, i'll have to let you contemplate the possible implications.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 23, 2013)

What was the motive for the 911 attacks again?

To get Iraqi Oil I believe is the general CT consensus....

Yet we still don't have that oil, and we don't need that oil....

Not to mention the fact that we were already bombing Iraqi military targets and didn't need much to start a full scale war, Just crash one fighter would have been enough.

And then there's the confusion of why use a bunch of Saudi's and bin Laden in Afghanistan if Iraq was the target......

Makes about zero sense......

But of course Ct'ers won't understand that......


----------



## paulitician (Mar 23, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> What was the motive for the 911 attacks again?
> 
> To get Iraqi Oil I believe is the general CT consensus....
> 
> ...



Just because you can't understand the reasons, doesn't mean it's not possible. It just means you can't or won't accept the possibilities.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 23, 2013)

paulitician said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



I have already done that. It means that the Bin Laden family didn't know where OBL was, that they didn't know he was going to do that, and that they've been asked about him from at least as far back as the USS Cole bombing. So the US Government let them go.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 23, 2013)

No Pauline, the only reason is pure stupidity. Why spend all that time and energy and take the chance of having it found out when all you needed was to have one missile take out one fighter to get the same end result......

You think our Government is smart enough to pull off 911 but to stupid to see how much easier and safer for them it could be?

Pull your head out of your ass and think for a change.........


----------



## PredFan (Mar 23, 2013)

paulitician said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > What was the motive for the 911 attacks again?
> ...




Here's the problem my friend, you guys are long on "possibilities" but short on reason.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 23, 2013)

PredFan said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Well then you answered all your questions yourself. I'm not gonna attack you for your beliefs. It's your call.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 23, 2013)

PredFan said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Well there it is. You can't or won't accept the possibilities. Case closed i guess. So why do you still come here every day.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 23, 2013)

paulitician said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



I never said I wouldn't accept the possibilities. I said that you guys only discuss possibilities. "Possibilities" won't get any answers will they?

If i only talked possibilities, I could tell you that it's possible that space aliens destroyed the towers because a secret lab in one of the towers was developing warp drive, and the aliens had to destroy both because they didn't know which one had the lab.

I'm trying not to be disrespectful here but I'm using a ridiculous analogy to bring home the point.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 23, 2013)

PredFan said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Well like i said, i wont attack you for your beliefs. The case is closed in your opinion. I'm good with that. I disagree, but it is your call in the end.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 23, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> No Pauline, the only reason is pure stupidity. Why spend all that time and energy and take the chance of having it found out when all you needed was to have one missile take out one fighter to get the same end result......
> 
> You think our Government is smart enough to pull off 911 but to stupid to see how much easier and safer for them it could be?
> 
> Pull your head out of your ass and think for a change.........



What I'll never understand is why the CT crowd thinks the govt would want to collapse the towers.

If the govt really wanted an excuse to go to war, they would have gotten more people riled up had the towers sat like festering wounds on the New York skyline for years.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 23, 2013)

paulitician said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


typical no answer... please point where it's illogical..


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 23, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> What was the motive for the 911 attacks again?
> 
> To get Iraqi Oil I believe is the general CT consensus....
> 
> ...



My God...I can't believe a military man doesn't have the smarts to read all the vast amounts of information regarding this....
It was for oil, and no YOU weren't going to be given any stock or free fucking gasoline. 
It was also for the "security of Israel"...These 2 things have been repeated by many in the former administration, military, and intelligence people...
You got had, bamboozled, and fucking scammed, wake the fuck up to the reality, because no matter what you try to convince yourself of otherwise, it's the reality....you ignorant gump..


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 23, 2013)

PredFan said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



The American people were lied to about 9-11 and the reasons for war, plain and simple.
With all that has come forward since, and all we now have knowledge of, it should be obvious, especially when much of it comes from the mouths of may that had positions to know the real reasons...
You somehow find it so hard to digest that the wars for example, were based on lies, and that they were planned far in advance of the 911 attacks....You are oblivious to the many times Americans were lied to in the past, and there is documented historical proof of this, yet you believe this not to be so, and don't think it happened again,...this despite all that has come to light, and all the information that is available for you to research....
Grow up and face the real world, it's embarrassing to listen to grown adults deny this to themselves, and to others...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Logic would assume that if nothing was ignored, and everything available to investigate was indeed looked at, and questions about events and circumstances were answered instead of ignored, a different conclusion would be the outcome....This is just common sense you fucking idiot!

Any investigation that ignores, reports, proof, evidence and vital information and their sources, is not a proper investigative effort, and points to a cover up to hide something.
You also can not take the testimony of tortured sources, and deem their information accurate or credible, this is also common sense and common knowledge that is known around the world....even by the torturers  themselves!

Why do you people continue to lie to yourselves and others? Your government has lied to you for generations. Why do you deny this fact, and the fact that they did so again, and continue to?? Why do you side with the people and entities that are at odds with the nations citizens? How much information do you people need, or how many times must this be shown to you?
It is you all that are illogical in the face of overwhelming evidence...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


if you really want to see embarrassing just look in the nearest mirror.. ever wonder why you're never invited anywhere?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


yes dear now put the crack pipe down..


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Yet again another useless response from the idiot who never has any rational answers for the things he is asked to explain....You always resort to this and NEVER EVER will admit that your CT and rational for believing in it is fatally flawed.
Take a good look at yourself, and do an accounting of just how you answer these questions, and if you do this honestly, you will find that you are just plain ridiculous, and have been in a state of denial for a long time...
I doubt that people like you will ever do this honestly, as denial of reality is the staple of your insane CT premises, and denial of reality must be protected by you at all costs in order to preserve your twisted views about yourself, the nation you claim to live in, and the world at large...
What a sad existence it would be to be someone like you...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



Yet another fine example of someone who has no honest reply to an honest inquiry about their perception of reality. You simply must avoid an honest answer, so you post nothing but imagined non sense..What a sad sad creature you are....


----------



## daws101 (Mar 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


no sister jones it's you who's existence is a sad one.. how exhausting it must be to driven by your overwhelming obsession.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Easy to say but much harder to actually prove. You're addressing someone who doesn't trust the government at all. You should be able to prove it to me, yet I'm also a logical person who knows bull shit when he sees it and knows that the government isn't the only source of the world's bull shit.




Mr. Jones said:


> With all that has come forward since, and all we now have knowledge of, it should be obvious, especially when much of it comes from the mouths of may that had positions to know the real reasons...



Really, the only things that have come forward, besides the NIST's report, is conspiracy theory arguments, most of which are easily shown to be junk.



Mr. Jones said:


> You somehow find it so hard to digest that the wars for example, were based on lies, and that they were planned far in advance of the 911 attacks....



Which lies were that? You cannot be talking about Iraq's WMDs. Thye had them, they used them, that is fact.




Mr. Jones said:


> You are oblivious to the many times Americans were lied to in the past,



Actually I'm not, but I'll bet that you have some examples of "lies" that only exist in the CT Handbook.



Mr. Jones said:


> and there is documented historical proof of this, yet you believe this not to be so, and don't think it happened again,...



Jumping to conclusions about me kinda suggests that you're not to be trusted in your other "conclusions" either.



Mr. Jones said:


> Grow up and face the real world, it's embarrassing to listen to grown adults deny this to themselves, and to others...



Now I have not gotten into the name-calling and visiousness that these threads have experienced. I have been respectful of the oninions of the Conspiracy Theorists here. Let it be known that YOU chose to be rude and condescending.

I face the real world, I'm not the one inventing fantacies, that would be you.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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




From my experiences with you today, I'm willing to be that he tried having a civil discussion with you at some point previously, and you resorted to name-calling. Who's the sad sad creature?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


bahahahahahahahahah!
honest inquiry by assholes like you now that is funny ...
btw nice effort in attempting to color everyone else  as being in denial, that's a rock solid indicator of a tenuous grip on reality.
that tactic is only good if it's true  since nothing you say, infer or yammer about me is even remotely close to being fact, makes me immune. 
you on the other hand go bat shit when it's pointed out how far from reality you are..


----------



## daws101 (Mar 23, 2013)

PredFan said:


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


not really, from the very first post sister jones has been nothing but a self important, hubris laden, paranoid  asshat. (I could go on but I think you get the gist )


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 23, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



which is what predfan troll shows what he always is all the time here.

Okay I was in a rush yesterday when i made the post,i met to say his FAMILY was flown out of the united states,and that STILL doesnt get around the fact a CIA man visited Bin Laden a couple months before 9/11 in another country just to spell it out dummies style for agent troll moron in the hat.

.as usual,agent troll Moron In the hat evades THAT LITTLE FACT in the process.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 23, 2013)

wihosa said:


> We had a special prosecutor  to investigate President Clinton's penis but no prosecutor to investigate the attack on America and the righties think I'm wearing a tin foil hat because I point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE, repeat, IMPOSSIBLE!!!! that a modern steel frame high rise can collapse due to fire. Don't forget that no person or agency presented any science to support this assertion but numerous, no make that thousands of people trained in the design and construction of such buildings have presented the science that proves it impossible.
> 
> We'll never solve the question here. We need a real investigation by a prosecutor with subpoena power. Considering that this has not been done I ask all the nay sayers what are you afraid of?



yeah thats another little pesky fact they always ignore is they spent so much more money on that little stupid thing of Clinton and did not spend anywhere near as much money in the investigation of 9/11.frady cat deniars like montrovent and predfan troll cant comprehend that little fact though that it wasnt a REAL investigation especially with Bush and Cheney allowed to testify behind closed doors. together


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 23, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



You act as though what is widely known does not come from knowing sources, and instead some handbook...
You are in denial of what has already been known and come to light, some from Bushes own administration members...
Do you think coincidences can be excepted as totally within the realm of possibility multiple times? How possible is it for the Jihadists to have known that the US air defenses would be occupied on that day, at that time, with terror drills?
How about terrorists, doing the London bombings at the same time and day as their own drills??
Sorry man, but you can't come to grips that you have been lied to about 9-11, and the subsequent wars, the use of tortured information etc...You say you live in the real world but deny real world facts regarding much of 9-11 and the wars....
It is you that believe in a wild CT, I just point out where and why I don't subscribe to it.
With all that is available to learn about this topic, its funny that you act as though you have no assess to information...
People like you ask others to provide proof, of a conspiracy when it is so prevalent. What you fail to do is provide anything that substantiates the accuracy of the story you believe and defend, as though it needs no defending at all lol...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



Aw what's the matter dawgshit, are you upset that you can't substantiate your conspiracy theory and people are exposing it for the sham it is?
You people need to take a long hard look at the BS you are defending because it can't stand without lies. They have been exposed for years now, and you act as though there is nothing to question or to see..That is denial at its worst...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 23, 2013)

eots said:


> predfan said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



as usuaul,prefan troll and gomer ollie get their asses handed to them on a platter by Eots and they can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are.they worship NIST to no end so they cant get around this one that they dont know what they are talking about.

agent Gomer fucked up BIG TIME thanking predfan troll.

its funny how Gam likes to quote truthers of things they said before in the past but he will of course leave out Predfan trolls  comment of what was perfect and symmetrical about the collapse.such hypocrisy from agent Gamolon.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 23, 2013)

PredFan said:


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



such hypocrisy from predfan troll.Like the time he cursed me out and put me on ignore MONTHS ago  after in a civilized way,I  proved he was rambling and did not know what he was talking about.oh the Irony and hypocrisy here.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



How about an honest inquiry regarding the facts? You provide nothing that substantiates your position, and it is you that resorts to generalization statements that lump all who don't believe in your CT as...well...CT's!!!
You can never be specific about anything, and always get your ass kicked in..You didn't even know who Bazant was, and then tried to get me to show YOU that is WASN'T A "PILE OF STEAMING...."
I mean how many more times does one have to show you just how ridiculous your arguments are??

So many instances that reasonable people can point to that justify them not believing the OCT narrative, and you people act like you were born yesterday!!!
This is why you I can conclude you are in denial, and I have come to realize that most of you can not debate this topic rationally, because you depend on pretending none of the things brought up exist or have been posted and linked before....

You folks are sad....


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 23, 2013)

paulitician said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > We had a special prosecutor  to investigate President Clinton's penis but no prosecutor to investigate the attack on America and the righties think I'm wearing a tin foil hat because I point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE, repeat, IMPOSSIBLE!!!! that a modern steel frame high rise can collapse due to fire. Don't forget that no person or agency presented any science to support this assertion but numerous, no make that thousands of people trained in the design and construction of such buildings have presented the science that proves it impossible.
> ...



as it was in the oklahoma city bombing,waco,and the JFK assassination,But thats all too complicated for frady cat denying trolls like Predfan to understand that our government has a long history of destroying and removing evidence at a crime scene in political events like these and that they are illegal.

all that common knowledge,facts,logic and common sense is way too practical for them to understand and you'll overfry his brain with too much logic and comon sense like that if you lay it on him like that.

the agent trolls like gomer and Moron in the hat will make up some kind of crap of course to try and get around those facts.thats a given.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 23, 2013)

PredFan said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > We had a special prosecutor  to investigate President Clinton's penis but no prosecutor to investigate the attack on America and the righties think I'm wearing a tin foil hat because I point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE, repeat, IMPOSSIBLE!!!! that a modern steel frame high rise can collapse due to fire. Don't forget that no person or agency presented any science to support this assertion but numerous, no make that thousands of people trained in the design and construction of such buildings have presented the science that proves it impossible.
> ...



as usual,predfan proves what a lying troll he really is.He talks crap like its not impossible for a modern steel high rise to collapse due to fire yet he cant back  it up.sane people dont ignore the laws of physics that he does as well.oh the hypocrisy he constantly displays.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 23, 2013)

paulitician said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



all that is just a little too logical and practical for prefan troll to comprehend or understand though of course. and like I said before,its too complicated for him to understand as well that our government has a LONNGGGGGGGG history of doing that in political cases,that this wasnt the first time.


All a very sad sham. Evidence was destroyed and disposed of. It was anything but a proper investigation. 
 predfan troll REALLY needs to get that comedy club started.thats the riot of the century and his biggest lie as well his entire time here saying they did a proper investigation.



It means everything, if you take the time to think about it. Why the rush to ship all that steel off to China? That doesn't cause you to be even a tad bit suspicious or curious? 

not frady cat deniars like predfan troll obviously.


Obviously, the Bin Laden Family had many close friends in our Government. 

thats just a little too complicated for Gomer Ollie to understand.Its also too complicated for him to understand the Bush family had a long friendship with the Bin Laden family.hee hee.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 23, 2013)

PredFan said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



this idiot has REALLY topped himself now.Obviously he is not aware that Bin Laden and Al Queda were funded by the CIA and that a CIA official vistited Bin Laden in a hospital a couple months before 9/11.Oh the apologist is REALLY grasping at straws living in denial now.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 23, 2013)

paulitician said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



He kind of gave that way MONTHS ago when he first started trolling these boards never watching videos dismissing them as youtube videos.

 He comes here because he obviously has no life and no friends and just feels the need to troll for attention is why.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 23, 2013)

PredFan said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



I love the logic of predfan troll saying almost everyone has him on ignore because HE has me on ignore cause I embarrassed him and took him to school several months ago and he threw tantrems and cussed me out for it. 

funny that predfan troll listens to dawghists sock sayit and what HE says. no surprise. predfan is the one thats great for entertainment as evidenced on this entire thread.

He hasnt posted ONE coherant thing in his ramblings on here.hee hee.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > What was the motive for the 911 attacks again?
> ...



Let me be sure I undertsand your "reasoning." You claim Israel attacked us on 9/11 so we would go to war with Iraq "for the security of Israel?" Yeah ... that makes perfect sense.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> You act as though what is widely known does not come from knowing sources, and instead some handbook...



Like 99% of the CTers, you are long on imagination, but short on facts. Your theories are not widely known outside of your own group, and your sources are suspect at best.



Mr. Jones said:


> You are in denial of what has already been known and come to light, some from Bushes own administration members...



Again, according to you and your fellow conspiracy theorists only.



Mr. Jones said:


> Do you think coincidences can be excepted as totally within the realm of possibility multiple times?



if you're talking about real coincidences, yes. It happens every day.



Mr. Jones said:


> How possible is it for the Jihadists to have known that the US air defenses would be occupied on that day, at that time, with terror drills?



I have shown that they wouldn't care, they don't have to.



Mr. Jones said:


> How about terrorists, doing the London bombings at the same time and day as their own drills??



Drills happen on a regular basis, again why would the terrorists even care?




Mr. Jones said:


> Sorry man, but you can't come to grips that you have been lied to about 9-11, and the subsequent wars, the use of tortured information etc...You say you live in the real world but deny real world facts regarding much of 9-11 and the wars....



I don't deny real world facts. I just deny made up crap that makes no logical sense.



Mr. Jones said:


> It is you that believe in a wild CT, I just point out where and why I don't subscribe to it.



Do I believe it's 100% true? Of course not. It is however, the closest thing to the truth we'll ever be able to find out and it's waaaay closer to the truth that any conspiracy theory you or anyone else has ever been able to put forward (In the RARE cases that you or they have actually put a competing theory up for examination). All you guys can do is poke holes in the NIST's theory. That only proves what we all know to be true; that the government did the best they could piecing together the events after they happened without any for-knowledge.





Mr. Jones said:


> With all that is available to learn about this topic, its funny that you act as though you have no assess to information...



You're like that girl on the commercial that believes that you can't put anything on the internet that isn't true, right?




Mr. Jones said:


> People like you ask others to provide proof, of a conspiracy when it is so prevalent. What you fail to do is provide anything that substantiates the accuracy of the story you believe and defend, as though it needs no defending at all lol...



I don't see how in the world you can say that. All the thousands of posts on this forum about this subject that has been posted in defense of the NIST's report and you missed all of it? How could you miss it when you were part of it??? Now you are just making shit up.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Of course, there is nothing which supports your claim that anything of importance was "ignored," a claim you have made repeatedly but just as often have failed to support. The fact remains you often claim to have proven your CTBS but never actually do. It's just another of your bogus claims.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



Woo. Talk about your verbose yet useless responses.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



Now that's funny coming from the QIN (Queen of Imaginary 9/11 Nonsense).


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



IMHO he can't face the fact that his countless hours of 9/11 "research" were in vain, thus the shrill and desperate nature of his posts The poor guy probably hasn't laughed or taken a good dump in years. In other words, he's full of crap.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 23, 2013)

6 farts in a row from 9/11 IJ!  


That's strangely not satisfying.....


----------



## PredFan (Mar 23, 2013)

It's unfortunate that so few CTers can speak rationally and maturely on the subject they are so involved in. IMO, Eots and Paulitician are the only ones who can manage it. I might not agree with them but you can have a debate with them. Mr.Jones tests ones patience a lot (but I'm always willing to give him a chance) and 9/11 is totally irrational.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 23, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> 6 farts in a row from 9/11 IJ!
> 
> 
> That's strangely not satisfying.....



If the Conspiracy theorists won't listen to us, they should concider this:

If  9/11insidejob is thanking your posts, that would be a strong indication that you seriously need to re-examine your beliefs!


----------



## Pete7469 (Mar 23, 2013)

I can't believe how often I run into truthtards. If it wasn't for these fools Ron Paul couldn't be marginalized.

Ever notice how once a candidate for any office gives Alex Jones the time of day their poll numbers plummet.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...



*Normal peeps do not spend countless hours (as you seem to have) dredging the fetid bowels of the Internet for support for some predetermined conclusions (as you clearly have done). If you look at your CTBS with the same skepticism you reserve for the gov't, you would no longer be the wild-eyed loon you are today.*


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Thing is, when stacked up against your CTBS the NIST report looks like the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. You CTs are your "causes" own worst enemies.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 23, 2013)

Conspiracy Theorist: The attack on 9-11 was planned by (Insert mysterious cabal here) and not the way it was told to us in the official government report!

Skeptic: Where did you hear that?

Conspiracy Theorist: On the internet.

Skeptic: And you believe it?

Conspiracy Theorist: Yes, they can't put anything on the internet that isn't true.

Skeptic: Who told you that?

Conspiracy Theorist: The internet.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



  
Another funny! You are really on a roll today, Princess. The idea of you claiming someone else is irrational made my coffee squirt out my nose. Thanks.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 23, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Ya know, I used to think 9/11 Hand job was just a brain-dead fool but now I realize he's a paid gov't troll planted here to make the 9/11 CT Movement and CTs in general look really, really stupid. He certainly does a fine job.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 23, 2013)

PredFan said:


> It's unfortunate that so few CTers can speak rationally and maturely on the subject they are so involved in. IMO, Eots and Paulitician are the only ones who can manage it. I might not agree with them but you can have a debate with them. Mr.Jones tests ones patience a lot (but I'm always willing to give him a chance) and 9/11 is totally irrational.



IMHO Eots & Pauli are just inveterate liars ... bottom feeders. 
I think Eots is hoping for an Internet radio show like Terral and Pauli may well be a teenager. Jones is firmly wedded to his CTBS but at least he doesn't lie.
All of 'em are irrational.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 23, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > predfan said:
> ...



I thought we were all on ignore? I guess it's true, 911shitforbrains lies.........


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > What was the motive for the 911 attacks again?
> ...



Gee i thought Mrs Jones wasn't talking to me anymore.....

Oh well, Yes a military man can see how easy it would have been to restart the shooting war with Saddam without going through years of preparation and coverup. Simple as I said just one fighter blown out of the sky, and blamed on Saddam. 

Even if it was for oil or for Israel the same applies one plane, not 3000 innocent lives. And almost zero chance of getting caught.
Now who in the former administration has said these things? Please go ahead and quote where anyone in the Government said that 011 happened so we could go after Saddam....
We can wait......

BTW, Did you know that Nixon sabotaged the 68 peace accords? Now that's a conspiracy that has been proven.......


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 23, 2013)

> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > *No one has come forward with proof of a conspiracy. No one.*
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 23, 2013)

I think Mrs. Jones needs to look in a mirror.........


----------



## eots (Mar 23, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Conspiracy Theorist: The attack on 9-11 was planned by (Insert mysterious cabal here) and not the way it was told to us in the official government report!
> 
> Skeptic: Where did you hear that?
> 
> ...



what is it exactly you claim not to be true ?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 23, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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


----------



## eots (Mar 23, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > It's unfortunate that so few CTers can speak rationally and maturely on the subject they are so involved in. IMO, Eots and Paulitician are the only ones who can manage it. I might not agree with them but you can have a debate with them. Mr.Jones tests ones patience a lot (but I'm always willing to give him a chance) and 9/11 is totally irrational.
> ...


*
a teenager a heart perhaps...*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwQjCKO3Gvo]Its A wonderful world the eots - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 23, 2013)

Did anyone read Mrs jones's rant?

I gave up as soon as she called me a fake.

I have to go see if I am permitted by the establishment to neg the fuck out of her......

But First.........



> Well then if it was so fucking easy why didn't you volunteer your vast expertise and show them how they could fake a shootdown? Why didn't they just go ahead and do that instead of pretending it was democracy and liberation of Iraq, or that Iraq had something to do with 9-11? Or the whole fake WMD story?



That's what I'm asking you dipshit. Why the fuck plan this elaborate attack and coverup of which you would be caught  when all you had to do was blow up one plane and call it an attack.......

Do you deny that one plane being blown out of the sky by Saddam would not have given us the blessings of the UN? At least as much of a blessing as they gave us to start with....

You really are fucking stupid, but you knew that.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 23, 2013)

39 and falling fast


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 23, 2013)

How does Ollie's military service have anything to do with his beliefs about 9/11 Mr. Jones?

Do you think that all former and current military members believe 9/11 was an inside job?  Or do you think that all of those who believe the conclusions of the NIST report are un-American traitors, or whatever tripe you are saying?

Hell, neither one of us can say for sure whether Ollie is or is not a veteran.  The idea that he can't be a patriot and a veteran and still believe the events were an attack by terrorists which caused the collapse of the towers is asinine at best.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 23, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Did anyone read Mrs jones's rant?
> 
> I gave up as soon as she called me a fake.
> 
> ...



I could give 2 shits about your neg rep asshole. What I posted is true and factual, and was quoted from a US senator. Your delusional fantasy scenarios are irrelevant as the lies spread about the reasons for war in Iraq started out as lies about involvement in 9-11, and ended as lies just the same. The problem you have is that you think you can demand respect, when no one even knows who the fuck you are, or if you even did serve, and judging by your disrespectful attitude towards those that did serve in Iraq, and Afghanistan that have denounced those wars, it is not hard for anyone to imagine that your real loyalty and support lies with those that lied them into their deaths..

Name one instance that disgusts you about the way the American president and his cabinet full of Zionists lied to your fellow comrades...Just one...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 23, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> How does Ollie's military service have anything to do with his beliefs about 9/11 Mr. Jones?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 23, 2013)

I have never once demanded respect. But I do not tolerate flat out disrespect either.

I am one of the very few people you will find on any message board who posts their own pictures as an avatar and who doesn't hide from the nutcases like you. People on this site have traced down my home address and phone number.

You don't want to believe that I'm a retired SFC. To bad for you. I asked intelligent questions made intelligent observations and because it doesn't fit your dream of how crooked you want our government to be then I am anti American slime? I think not, your the klind who spit on us coming home from Nam.

I told you i didn't read your post. Did you think I lied?

Why don't you give up on this CT that you can't prove and try one even worse, a president who extended a war and caused 22,000 extra deaths... At least that one is actually true. Of course all the players are dead now. But9-11? Forget it, you got nothing.......


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 23, 2013)

No Mrs. Jones i will not prove to you who i am and what my background is. I would be willing to bet you that I hang with alot more veterans than you have ever met. I had dinner with about 150 of them just last night. But that's OK I'm probably lying about that.....

Dumbass.......


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> > SAYIT said:
> >
> >
> > > *No one has come forward with proof of a conspiracy. No one.*
> ...


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 23, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Did anyone read Mrs jones's rant?
> ...



Hmmm. A skeptical look at Hollings 2004 op-ed piece, one you found at a well known Nazi web site (IHR), would have caused you to scream "CONSPIRACY!"
As an outgoing Senator Hollings imposed upon Congress to fund a trust to benefit something known as The Hollings Center which, according to its mission statement is an "organization dedicated to fostering dialogue between the United States and countries with predominantly Muslim populations in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia, Eurasia and Europe." What better way to establish one's credentials in Turkey (and the Muslim World) where the Center is co-headquartered and where conferences are typically convened? What better way to travel the world in retirement on the public dime? What a slimy dirtball!
Throwing his former Congressional mates under the bus was no sweat off Hollings nose.   

Hollings Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Hollings Center for International Dialogue


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 23, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Did anyone read Mrs jones's rant?
> 
> I gave up as soon as she called me a fake.
> 
> ...



Jones is particularly angry and bitter tonight. I believe the knowledge that the countless hours of 9/11 "research" he has done over the years were badly misspent ... basically wasted, and that only like-minded hateful fools buy into his CTBS. He's reached a dead end and is thrashing at anyone within reach.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Did anyone read Mrs jones's rant?
> ...



You again show the true intent for visiting this site. and that would be to to distract from the message that is intended. You really are bad at your disinfo trolling job. Now you wish to discredit a US senator for speaking the truth. Ah it never gets old, as you and your kind have no emotional stake in what ever transpires in the US, to you its just a job, and your loyalty lies in the gutter with those you sell your integrity to, and have hurt this nation and her people.
Your disinfo trolling tactics have been well documented here and other threads, but for those that may not be aware they include,
Avoidance-you never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, choosing instead to imply in your responses, that the points made and facts presented about a topic are somehow tainted or invalid, because a particular web site or author may oppose your masters views...

You claim to be anti-conspiratorial, and have a disdain for so called conspiracy theorists
but those who see and read your postings should ask themselves why, if you hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do you focus on defending so many conspiracies, and even have an undying support of one such as 9-11?

Disinfo types also have the ability to not be deterred by the countless instances of being exposed as not having knowledge about a topic, or being caught in lies, and this certainly can be said about you,as I have exposed you as a liar and a totally uninformed idiot.

A favorite of yours is to play dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered,and presented, you avoid discussing issues and details, except with denials they have any credibility ,denials they make any sense, denials they provide any proof, denials they contain or make a point,denials they have logic, or support a conclusion.
This is evident in a recent post of yours in which you actually said the expected US air defense response was "immaterial" and the drills occurring on the morning of 9-11 were "irrelevant"...Serious classic, disinfo troll denial tactic at it's finest I must say...

You also like to try to change the subject and sidetrack your opponents by ridiculing the messenger, or a web site. You sometimes attempt this in connection with one of the other ploys I mentioned, and with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic, anything but the actual topic or facts that have been presented will do you tho..

Anyway, it's obvious to anyone who has a basic knowledge of these techniques, what you are..


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Hmmm. A skeptical look at Hollings 2004 op-ed piece, one you found at a well known Nazi web site (IHR), would have caused you to scream "CONSPIRACY!"
> As an outgoing Senator Hollings imposed upon Congress to fund a trust to benefit something known as The Hollings Center which, according to its mission statement is an "organization dedicated to fostering dialogue between the United States and countries with predominantly Muslim populations in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia, Eurasia and Europe." What better way to establish one's credentials in Turkey (and the Muslim World) where the Center is co-headquartered and where conferences are typically convened? What better way to travel the world in retirement on the public dime? What a slimy dirtball!
> Throwing his former Congressional mates under the bus was no sweat off Hollings nose.
> 
> ...



LOL...A Nazi site huh? Just whose opinion is that...let me take a guess, yours and your Zionist fiends? Fuck off with that non sense already. It's obvious your a Zionist,and want to cry and play the victim card... You seem to give a pass to the dirtbags that have thrown this nation under the wheels of the REAL Nazis, the ones who scream 'anti Semite, and 'Holocaust" when ever an American or any Gentile for that matter, musters the balls to speak out against your filth.

Many Americans are aware of the cancerous infiltration that has taken place, and the senator spoke the truth as many others have. Of course you being a hardline Zionist, feel that you can continue to bad mouth Americans for finally taking a stand in favor of the truth. There is nothing wrong with a senator or any American calling out the the hard-line Zionist lobby in America.
Again, this nation went to war in Iraq and shed its blood for Israel, and this can not be denied, no matter how hard you wish to deny it.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Woo. I guess you just couldn't keep your goose-steppin off this board, Princess. I've posted no lies but I now judge you, not by your shrill claims of patriotism, but by the source you use to support your hate (IHR). Once your 9/11 CT was exposed for the BS we both know it to be you slipped into something you clearly find more comfortable ... your SS uniform.
> Sieg Heil, Bubba, Sieg Heil.
> 
> The United Kingdom's Channel 4 describes the IHR as a "pseudo-academic body based in the United States which is dedicated to denying that the Holocaust happened," while the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette called the IHR a "blatantly anti-Semitic assortment of pseudo-scholars". The Daily Star, the leading English language paper in Lebanon, in response to a planned IHR meeting in the country called the IHR "loathsome pseudo-historians" and an "international hate group," and reported "as one former PLO official has put it, 'with friends like that, we don't need enemies.'"
> ...



 A Target of Bigotry

Predictably, we have come under fire from hostile sectarian groups that regard the IHR as harmful to their interests. Zionist groups such as the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League routinely smear the IHR, attacking us as a "hate group" or dismissing us as a "Holocaust denial" organization.

In fact, the IHR steadfastly opposes bigotry of all kinds. We are proud of the support we have earned from people of the most diverse political views, and racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds.

One prominent American journalist and author who has looked into the critical claims made about the IHR is John Sack, who is Jewish. He reported on a three-day IHR conference in an article published in the Feb. 2001 issue of Esquire magazine. He rejected as unfounded the often-repeated lie that the IHR and its supporters are "haters" or bigots. He described those who spoke at and attended the IHR conference as "affable, open-minded, intelligent [and] intellectual."

Joseph Sobran, who for years was a nationally syndicated columnist and a National Review senior editor, spoke about the Institute and its director at the 2002 IHR Conference:

"...If I'm 'courageous,' what do you call Mark Weber and the Institute for Historical Review? They have been smeared far worse than I have; moreover, they have been seriously threatened with death. Their offices have been firebombed. Do they at least get credit for courage? Not at all. They remain almost universally vilified. When I met Mark, many years ago, I expected to meet a raving Jew-hating fanatic, such being the generic reputation of 'Holocaust deniers.' I was immediately and subsequently impressed to find that he was just the opposite: a mild-mannered, good-humored, witty, scholarly man who habitually spoke with restraint and measure, even about enemies who would love to see him dead. The same is true of other members of the Institute. In my many years of acquaintance with them, I have never heard any of them say anything that would strike an unprejudiced listener as unreasonable or bigoted."

The Institute has been a target of authentic hate groups. It has come under repeated assault from the Jewish Defense League -- identified as a terrorist group by the FBI. On July 4, 1984, the JDL destroyed the Institute's office and warehouse in a major arson attack. Estimated property loss was more than $400,000, including tens of thousands of books, rare documents, irreplaceable files and expensive office equipment. This fire-bombing climaxed a months-long campaign by the JDL that included numerous death threats by telephone and mail, extensive property damage, five relatively minor fire bombings, one drive-by shooting and two physical assaults.

Sayit being a Zionist and anti American would probably defend the terrorist activities of the Jewish Defense League..
His hate and disdain for Americans is obvious.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 24, 2013)

eots said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Conspiracy Theorist: The attack on 9-11 was planned by (Insert mysterious cabal here) and not the way it was told to us in the official government report!
> ...



It's half joke, half general observation.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 24, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Woo. I guess you just couldn't keep your goose-steppin off this board, Princess. I've posted no lies but I now judge you, not by your shrill claims of patriotism, but by the source you use to support your hate (IHR). Once your 9/11 CT was exposed for the BS we both know it to be you slipped into something you clearly find more comfortable ... your SS uniform.
> ...



I've got to point out that they didn't seem to want to address the claim of being Holocaust deniers.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 24, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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



As if Holocaust Denial isn't firmly rooted in anti-Semitism, IHR in 2009 decided that it wasn't taking root as they had hoped and a more direct attack on Jews was in order. 
Any denial of IHR's blatantly anti-Semitic mission would fly in the face of Mark Weber's admission:

In January 2009, Weber, the IHR's director, released an essay titled, "How Relevant Is Holocaust Revisionism?" In it he noted that *Holocaust denial had attracted little support over the years*: "It&#8217;s gotten some support in Iran, or places like that, but as far as I know, there is no history department supporting writing by these folks." Accordingly, he recommended that emphasis be placed *instead* on opposing "Jewish-Zionist power", which some commentators claim is a shift to a directly antisemitic position. 

Institute for Historical Review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 24, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm. A skeptical look at Hollings 2004 op-ed piece, one you found at a well known Nazi web site (IHR), would have caused you to scream "CONSPIRACY!"
> ...



The list of those who recognize your favorite web site for what it is is practically endless and includes Lebanon's leading English language newspaper. The list of those who now recognize you for what you are has just grown by at least 1:

The United Kingdom's Channel 4 describes the IHR as a "pseudo-academic body based in the United States which is dedicated to denying that the Holocaust happened," while the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette called the IHR a "blatantly anti-Semitic assortment of pseudo-scholars". The Daily Star, the leading English language paper in Lebanon, in response to a planned IHR meeting in the country called the IHR "loathsome pseudo-historians" and an "international hate group," and reported "as one former PLO official has put it, 'with friends like that, we don't need enemies.'" 

Institute for Historical Review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 24, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Conspiracy Theorist: The attack on 9-11 was planned by (Insert mysterious cabal here) and not the way it was told to us in the official government report!
> 
> Skeptic: Where did you hear that?
> 
> ...



Every time I see that commercial I think of our CT loons.


----------



## PredFan (Mar 24, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Conspiracy Theorist: The attack on 9-11 was planned by (Insert mysterious cabal here) and not the way it was told to us in the official government report!
> ...



Actually, this is probably more accurate:

Conspiracy Theorist: The attack on 9-11 was planned by (Insert mysterious cabal here) and not the way it was told to us in the official government report!

Skeptic: Where did you hear that?

Conspiracy Theorist: On YouTube.

Skeptic: And you believe it?

Conspiracy Theorist: Yes, they can't put anything on YouTube that isn't true.

Skeptic: Who told you that?

Conspiracy Theorist: I saw it on YouTube.

Followed by a YouTube video saying that everything on YouTube is true.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 24, 2013)

There are no Conspiracies and Big Brother always tells the truth, yet a weird Sock Puppet like SAYIT/dawgshit/Candass/Obamerican comes to this Conspiracy Theory Forum every day of the week. There has to be just a tiny bit of doubt in his or her pea brain. Why else would they come here to this Forum every day? I mean, how many times can you spew the same ole tired 'Tinfoil Hat' insult? What's the point? Seems pretty loony to me.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 24, 2013)

paulitician said:


> There are no Conspiracies and Big Brother always tells the truth, yet a weird Sock Puppet like SAYIT/dawgshit/Candass/Obamerican comes to this Conspiracy Theory Forum every day of the week. There has to be just a tiny bit of doubt in his or her pea brain. Why else would they come here to this Forum every day? I mean, how many times can you spew the same ole tired 'Tinfoil Hat' insult? What's the point? Seems pretty loony to me.



I guess you think 9/11 IJ is loony as well.  After all, how many times can you spew the same ole tired 'Someone Farted' insult?  What's the point?  

I keep coming because it's still enjoyable.  I spent a long time going to the Creationists thread in the religion section, doesn't mean I think creationism might be real, I just enjoyed the thread.  Eventually I got bored of it and unsubscribed.  I might end up doing that here as well.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 24, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > There are no Conspiracies and Big Brother always tells the truth, yet a weird Sock Puppet like SAYIT/dawgshit/Candass/Obamerican comes to this Conspiracy Theory Forum every day of the week. There has to be just a tiny bit of doubt in his or her pea brain. Why else would they come here to this Forum every day? I mean, how many times can you spew the same ole tired 'Tinfoil Hat' insult? What's the point? Seems pretty loony to me.
> ...



Wasn't really addressing you so much. I was addressing the Sock Puppet weirdo SAYIT/dawgshit/Candyass/obamerican. He or she is literally here every day of the week. It seems as if it's a job or something. The 'Tinfoil Hat' insults are so tired and lame at this point. I mean, why come here if that's all you got? Just seems like such a waste of time.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 24, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



I know you weren't addressing that post to me, but the point of it fits for me as well.

Browsing USMB is part of my daily ritual.  I am here at least once a day while I eat my breakfast.  Sometimes that might be a short look at my subscribed threads, but that's enough to send me to the CT section, if not necessarily to this particular thread.

I don't mean to speak for anyone else, but it's very easy to come to a particular forum or even thread every day if it keeps getting traffic.

As far as the tinfoil hat insults, they were old years and years ago.  It doesn't mean they don't apply.    And considering your overuse of terms like goose-steppers, and 9/11 IJ's fart posts, I don't think that repetitive insults are in any way limited to a particular poster.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 25, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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



I hear ya, but you clearly don't subscribe to any of these Conspiracy Theories. You've made that point repeatedly. So what's the point of continuing to post on the threads? I just don't get people like you and Ollie. I mean, i understand the Sock Puppet SAYIT/dawgshit/Candycorn/Obamerican. He or she really is completely deranged. That one can't go a single day without stalking my threads. But you and Ollie seem like normal rational people. 

So why continue posting on the same threads over & over again? You both clearly don't subscribe to any of these theories. So why come here so often to express that? We got your point by now. So there's no need to continue repeating your disapproval or disbelief. It just seems like useless repetitive Trolling at this point. You guys don't believe in Conspiracy Theories. We get it. Maybe now it's time for you guys to move on?


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 25, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



Probably for the same reason you and other CT subscribers continue to respond to our posts.  We want to either find a way to get you to see why you are wrong (in our PoV) or, unlikely but perhaps possible, show us that bit of evidence or argument we've been missing that will bring us to your way of thinking.

Purely for myself, one of the big reasons I started going to message boards in the first place is because I like to argue.  I actually have found it less fun on message boards in some ways, but still, there's a lot more people to argue with and a lot greater variety of arguments, so I keep coming.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 25, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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



Oh, you enjoy useless repetitive Trolling. Ok. Hey, at least you're honest. Gotta give ya that.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 25, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


read previous post


----------



## daws101 (Mar 25, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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


I think he has a crush on me.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 25, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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


----------



## daws101 (Mar 25, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


major bump!


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 25, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



Ok, I see now....you are using your own definition of trolling.

Here's one for you :
Trolling is an Internet slang term used to describe any Internet user behavior that is meant to intentionally anger or frustrate someone else. It is often associated with online discussions where users are subjected to offensive or superfluous posts and messages in order to provoke a response.

Trolling | Know Your Meme

I clearly said nothing like that.  Enjoying argument is not the same as intentionally trying to get people angry or frustrated.  And considering I started off saying that I and others probably want to change other people's minds, or possibly have our own views changed, I truly wonder just what you define trolling as.  Continuing to discuss things with someone you don't agree with seems to be the definition you are using!

If you are going to be this far wrong on something this simple, it doesn't speak well for your ability to get points across.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



 Wow, you really are one crazed Sock stalker troll. Seriously, consider taking me up on my offer. If you can't go just one day without stalking my threads, you know you have a mental illness. The exercise will help you at least realize you have a problem, and start you down the road to recovery. So give it a shot. Good luck.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 25, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm. A skeptical look at Hollings 2004 op-ed piece, one you found at a well known Nazi web site (IHR), would have caused you to scream "CONSPIRACY!"
> ...


Zionist fiends !bhahahahahahaha
tell us where ze ark is mister jones!


----------



## daws101 (Mar 25, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Woo. I guess you just couldn't keep your goose-steppin off this board, Princess. I've posted no lies but I now judge you, not by your shrill claims of patriotism, but by the source you use to support your hate (IHR). Once your 9/11 CT was exposed for the BS we both know it to be you slipped into something you clearly find more comfortable ... your SS uniform.
> ...


link? shithead...


----------



## paulitician (Mar 25, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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



You're not gonna change any minds. So now you're just engaging in repetitive trolling. You don't subscribe to any of these Conspiracy Theories. You've made that point repeatedly. So why still hang around?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 25, 2013)

Somebody farted in here 32 times. 



Just trying to get back on topic.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 25, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Somebody farted in here 32 times.
> 
> 
> 
> Just trying to get back on topic.



Talk about repetitive trolling? Wait for the tired "You got Tinfoil Hat" insult. Wait for it...


----------



## daws101 (Mar 25, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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


don't forget  his ongoing delusion that's shared with hj sj eots etc. that at least 5 different posters are one person.
I prefer the idea that it paulie's way of feigning superiority. then again if the delusion is fact ....


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 25, 2013)

paulitician said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Somebody farted in here 32 times.
> ...



I never see posts like this from you when 9/11 inside blowjob makes these posts.

I wonder why that is?


----------



## paulitician (Mar 25, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


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



 Seriously, how long have you nutter trolls been trolling this forum? 1, 2, 3 years, longer? You and that Sock mutant SAYIT/dawgshit/Candyass/Obamerican have been coming here for several years saying the same things over & over again. "Tinfoil Hat", Blah Blah Blah. What the Hell is wrong with you? You don't believe in Conspiracy Theories. Man, we get that by now. You're not making any new or original points. You just keep saying the same thing over & over again. And for how many years? 

Why do you still come here? I'm just curious. You don't have anything new to add to the discussions. So what's the point of coming here every day? You guys may have serious mental illness. And i'm not saying that to insult you. Try taking a break from the Forum for a bit. It'll be healthy for you. Just a suggestion anyway. Give it a shot. Good luck.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 25, 2013)

paulitician said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


----------



## paulitician (Mar 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Come on Sock, you know you post on my threads every single day. You are a Sock stalker troll. And admitting that, will be the first step in your recovery. Seriously, how many days straight do you think you've stalked & trolled this Forum? It has to number in the Thousands by now. You don't think that's a little creepy? Can you go even one day without stalking my threads? Think about that a bit. If the answer is no, you know you have a mental illness and need some help. Try taking a few days off from the Forum. It'll do you some real good. I'm actually trying to help you. Accept the help. And good luck.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 25, 2013)

paulitician said:


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


what paulie and co. fail to understand is, a discussion of  conspiracy theories where everyone agrees that the said conspiracies are fact is not a discussion or a debate ,it's A. pseudo religious testimony meeting. B. a fan club C.  a circle jerk.
pick one only please.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 25, 2013)

paulitician said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


doesn't your delusion ever get tiresome?
the reality is I'm don't post here every day but from your, this is my party pov, even one dissenting opinion  is far more then your delicate metal condition can handle.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



Sock, come on, how many days straight do you think you've stalked and trolled this Forum? Could it number in the Thousands now? I mean, how may times do you need to spew a tired "Tinfoil Hat" insult at someone. That has to get old even for you, no? You might just have a mental illness. And i'm not joking or trying to insult you when i say that. 

Let's be realistic, can you go even one day without stalking and trollng this Forum? Or when's the last time you remember not coming here? Can you remember? What are you doing? You're not saying anything new or original at this point. You flamed out a long long time ago. You're completely out of insult material. Like i said, i'm actually helping you. Take a long break from the Forum. Accept my help. Good luck. I mean that.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 25, 2013)

paulitician said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


that's ironic coming from the queen of no concept of reality.
I was not here yesterday, most of last week all of last weekend...need any more help.
haven't used a tin foil hat line in months or more.
as to new and original, I could be dead and do a better job of keeping current then you have in your whole no life ,life.
speaking of out of material, your latest stalker troll /mental illness dodge has run it's course and has had the expected no effect ,effect...


----------



## paulitician (Mar 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You use several Socks. We all know that. It's so sad you can't even admit that. But that's just another sign you're a bit off. But seriously be honest, how many straight days do you think you've stalked and trolled this Forum? Be honest, not with me, but with yourself. What are you doing? You flamed out a long long time ago. You don't have any fresh material. So why have you come here every day for all these years? What's your point? Seriously, i'm curious.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 25, 2013)

Well, if none of us who believe your conspiracy theories were wrong ever came on here then you guys would have to argue among yourselves about which wacky theory was the right one.......


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 25, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



You've just described pretty much every single argument on USMB as trolling.  

To be clear : it's unlikely that anyone is going to change another person's mind on a message board.  It happens, but rarely.  That doesn't mean we aren't going to try.

I've now explained, multiple times, why I still 'hang around'.  I still get enjoyment from the discussions and arguments in here.  I still cling to the possibility I might change someone's mind at least a little, or even *gasp* have my own changed.

Why are you still hanging around?  You think 9/11 was an inside job, we all get it, why not move on?  It seems like you're just engaging in repetitive trolling!

In your case, I could easily argue, using evidence, that you are trolling based on your repeated use of inflammatory and insulting phrases (goose-stepper, government shill, etc.).  So perhaps you should consider not throwing stones in this particular glass house....

Most importantly, you do not own USMB or make the rules here.  Until it becomes against the board rules for me to post on a particular thread, I am not going to follow your desires about whether or not I post there.  I wouldn't expect you to do what I want you to in this respect, either.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 25, 2013)

paulitician said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


the sock delusion solved:Re: major bullshit 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote: Originally Posted by daws101 
recently in the conspiracy theory section one of the more unbalanced posters (paulitician ) has started a rumor (for lack of a better term) that at least 5 separate posters are one poster using different id's. (socks) is there a way to prove (as denial of this nonsense has had no effect) that these posters (including myself) are all separate individuals to shut this raving slapdick up? thank, daws101.
The fact that you and the other accounts are still here is reason enough to tell him there is zero evidence of his accusations. We check all new accounts and while people still manage to register other accounts through other means the fact still remains, there is no proof 

Ignore it, I was accused of being a sock for a long time too lol. True story. 

cereal killer..


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 25, 2013)

No socks? Oh No, what will they do now?


----------



## daws101 (Mar 25, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> No socks? Oh No, what will they do now?


deny it..


----------



## slackjawed (Mar 25, 2013)

There is a 57.34% chance that paulitician is 911nutsack's sock and a 48.23% chance drivebymedia is also his sock.


Hows that for grinding out rumors?

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk


----------



## paulitician (Mar 26, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Well, if none of us who believe your conspiracy theories were wrong ever came on here then you guys would have to argue among yourselves about which wacky theory was the right one.......



You guys never add anything new or original. It's all the same ole "You're Crazy/Tinfoil Hat" shite. I mean, what's your point in the end? You don't subscribe to Conspiracy Theories. We get that at this point. You guys got anything else to add? If not, maybe it's time to move on?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 26, 2013)

Why don't you tell us exactly what you believe happened on 911, and we can then once again show you that you are wrong.....

Or would you rather just call people names?


----------



## paulitician (Mar 26, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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



Trying to change minds? Why? And calling someone "Crazy" and spewing lame "Tinfoil Hat" insults isn't going to accomplish that anyway. You and a couple others here have repeatedly stated you don't subscribe to Conspiracy Theories. So what point are you trying to make now? You've already expressed your point Ad nauseum. Everyone who disagrees with you is a "Tinfoil Hat-wearing Nut." You don't have to continue making that point over & over. We really do get it. So unless you have anything new & original to offer, it's probably time for you guys you to move on. It is what it is.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 26, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



First, I don't believe I've ever described anyone in a post here as a tinfoil hat wearing nut.  You are either lumping everyone who disagrees with your CTs together, or are just hoping some strawmen will make your point for you.

Why would I try to change anyone's mind?  Why wouldn't I?  I think I'm right, I want to try and correct others in their mistaken belief, I just want to see if I can successfully argue a particular point, there are multiple reasons why.  Why do YOU want to change anyone's mind?  Or do you, perhaps, merely want to pat yourself and other CT subscribers on the back for your ingenious ability to ferret out the truth, without having to bother arguing your points?

When did you last offer anything new and original in this thread?

If having some posters who disagree with your CT posting in this thread bothers you so much, perhaps it is YOU who should be moving on.    The rest of us seem to have little problem continuing to post here, no matter who is posting or what they are saying.

And once again, I enjoy the irony of you trying to silence dissenting opinions, when you so often complain about government overreach, tyranny, big government controlling us, etc.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 26, 2013)

Montrovant said:


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



Not trying to silence anyone. A couple posters here have been coming here for years expressing the same point over & over Ad nauseum. They don't subscribe to Conspiracy Theories. I think we all get that by now. So it's no longer necessary for them to continue expressing that point. I mean, why come here every day to express the same ole stale "You're Crazy/Tinfoil Hat" shite? What's the point of that in the end? 

And as far as changing minds goes, you guys blew that opportunity long ago. You blew it the day you started attacking and ridiculing. So your changing minds agenda is dead. Not gonna happen now. So what's left? You guys got anything new & original to offer? I'm a fair person. I'll wait and observe.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 26, 2013)

Capstone said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > ...In case you still don't know it, this forum is good at weeding out socks and as you'll notice, none of those you list as socks are getting rolled by the Mods. ...
> ...


bhahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!


----------



## daws101 (Mar 26, 2013)

paulitician said:


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


----------



## paulitician (Mar 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


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



Still stalking, ay Sock? I guess you really couldn't go even a day without stalking and trolling this Forum. So sad. Hopefully, one day you'll get the help you need. I mean that.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 26, 2013)

paulitician said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


there you again lying and repeating yourself....


----------



## paulitician (Mar 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



All these years you've stalked and trolled this Forum, yet you've never said anything of consequence or substance. And that's just plain sad. Seriously, get the help you need. Good luck.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 26, 2013)

paulitician said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


another piece of dried up not of substance or consequence lashing out by paulie.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 26, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



What a whiny fuckin' sniveler. As you've admitted you believe nothing our gov't says and even less from our MS media, there clearly is no changing your thoroughly closed mind. It seems to me the norms are here to counter the CTBS you and your comrades try to pass off as facts, not change your minds. If you can't handle having your nose rubbed in your shit I suggest you try wasting your time elsewhere but in any case, please stop the incessant WHINING.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 26, 2013)

paulitician said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



I thought it was me you whined about, Princess, and I gave you a day to think about your silliness. What did you do with it? You whined about others. You are one whiny, snively bitch. No wonder everybody bitch-slaps you.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 26, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Who cares? You're just a cowardly Sock Puppet. So you don't believe in any Conspiracy Theories? Whatever? Why are you still here posting, ya weird little stalker troll?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 27, 2013)




----------



## SAYIT (Mar 27, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



I don't believe in _your_ CTs, Princess, and would you like some cheese with your whine? A little music perhaps?


----------



## Capstone (Mar 27, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> [...] Do you think [...] that anyone would go to the trouble and expense of using private proxies just to create socks for use on obscure message boards? [...]



Like so many others, "expense" is a relative term.

But there's nothing "obscure" about high traffic message boards ...like this one.

Do I believe the power-elites see the importance of winning hearts and minds by any means available, _including_ paying mindless stooges to spread propaganda and to battle anti-status quo sentiments on public message boards? Absolutely.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 27, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



You are anything BUT normal...Normal people do not ignore vast amounts of evidence that is contrary to their beliefs and try to suggest it isn't there simply because a government agency committed acts of willful and criminal negligence.
Normal people don't agree with other lunatics that aluminum car parts were "most" likely to have been underneath WTC wreckage piles DESPITE obvious evidence that includes your own "debunking" web sites figures and calculations.
Normal people don't continuously avoid facts like eye witnesses such as an original WTC ENGINEER.
I mean seriously you are the last fucking idiot that should be vilifying others who are acting normal and using their God given minds to see that the bullshit you try to peddle is anything but normal...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 27, 2013)

daws102 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...



Yeah you would probably know..The thing is sock or not, your rationale and arguments in a quest to defend criminals and anti American policies are a complete failure. You don't even know what the fuck you are talking about most of the time anyway


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 27, 2013)

I don't believe that anyone has said that you truthers don't have any evidence, just that what you try to project isn't true, or is irrelevant. You still have zero hard evidence that could be used in a court of law. You have a minority opinion and most of those don't even agree with each other....


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 27, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



Unlike you I'm not peddling anything, Princess, and I'll take that screed to mean you _still_ have no proof that any steel melted at the WTC on 9/11 and none that those buildings were rigged for demo. Thanks for playin'.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 27, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> daws102 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Evidently you haven't heard the one about those who live in glass houses...


----------



## paulitician (Mar 27, 2013)

And now, another pleasant musical interlude...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLUX0y4EptA]Flobots - Handlebars - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## paulitician (Mar 27, 2013)

"The War is over, so said the Speaker. With the Flight Suit on. But to him i'm just a Pawn"......

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBie-xdbLeM]Gorillaz-Dirty Harry - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Mar 27, 2013)

paulitician said:


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


paulie's still in denial  eve after his sock fantasy was proven to be just that ..a fantasy..

the sock delusion solved:Re: major bullshit 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote: Originally Posted by daws101 
recently in the conspiracy theory section one of the more unbalanced posters (paulitician ) has started a rumor (for lack of a better term) that at least 5 separate posters are one poster using different id's. (socks) is there a way to prove (as denial of this nonsense has had no effect) that these posters (including myself) are all separate individuals to shut this raving slapdick up? thank, daws101.
The fact that you and the other accounts are still here is reason enough to tell him there is zero evidence of his accusations. We check all new accounts and while people still manage to register other accounts through other means the fact still remains, there is no proof 

Ignore it, I was accused of being a sock for a long time too lol. True story. 

cereal killer.. 


POST#1926


----------



## slackjawed (Mar 27, 2013)

I do remember seeing cereal being accused of being a sock puppet.

Damn that was awhile ago wasn't it.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk


----------



## daws101 (Mar 28, 2013)

slackjawed said:


> I do remember seeing cereal being accused of being a sock puppet.
> 
> Damn that was awhile ago wasn't it.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk


so he says, must have been before I got here.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 28, 2013)

The facilitators and indeed the possible architects of the 9-11 false flag attack on America, can be found within positions of authority during the Bush presidency..and are still fomenting war with another of Israels enemies, Iran, and are willing to spill the blood of more unthinking American to do it...

9/11 Perps Still in the Saddle: Killers of 3,000 Americans Run Romney?s Campaign, US Courts and Media | Veterans Today


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 28, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> The facilitators and indeed the possible architects of the 9-11 false flag attack on America, can be found within positions of authority during the Bush presidency..and are still fomenting war with another of Israels enemies, Iran, and are willing to spill the blood of more unthinking American to do it...
> 
> 9/11 Perps Still in the Saddle: Killers of 3,000 Americans Run Romney?s Campaign, US Courts and Media | Veterans Today



So these "perps" are smart enough and powerful enough to pull off 9/11 flawlessly and keep everyone involved quiet for over 11 years, yet they couldn't manage to get Romney elected?


----------



## PredFan (Mar 28, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > The facilitators and indeed the possible architects of the 9-11 false flag attack on America, can be found within positions of authority during the Bush presidency..and are still fomenting war with another of Israels enemies, Iran, and are willing to spill the blood of more unthinking American to do it...
> ...



Awesome......just.....awesome!


----------



## paulitician (Mar 28, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > The facilitators and indeed the possible architects of the 9-11 false flag attack on America, can be found within positions of authority during the Bush presidency..and are still fomenting war with another of Israels enemies, Iran, and are willing to spill the blood of more unthinking American to do it...
> ...



Silly and absurd Apples & Oranges distraction. And 'They' got Obama elected instead anyway. So wake up dummy. Just stick to your lame photo-rips from Google images and tired 'Tinfoil Hat' insults. Cause that's all you're good for.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 28, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



If they got Obama elected, why were they working for Romney?

Oh wait, I know, that was just a false flag campaign.


----------



## paulitician (Mar 28, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


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



Stop being such a condescending little pissant. And WTF are you even talking about? Seriously, you're completely useless without your lame photo-rips from Google images and stale 'Tinfoil Hat' insults. You should just quit while you're still behind. You're embarrassing yourself now.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 28, 2013)

paulitician said:


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


you're repeating yourself constantly I can't think of any thing more embarrassing then that.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 28, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> The facilitators and indeed the possible architects of the 9-11 false flag attack on America, can be found within positions of authority during the Bush presidency..and are still fomenting war with another of Israels enemies, Iran, and are willing to spill the blood of more unthinking American to do it...
> 
> 9/11 Perps Still in the Saddle: Killers of 3,000 Americans Run Romney?s Campaign, US Courts and Media | Veterans Today



The author of that silliness is more than a little off the wall. 
A convert to Islam, Barrett has claimed that Muslims had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and that the 2005 London bombings and the 2004 Madrid bombing appear to have been committed by U.S. or western military intelligence and not Islamic terrorists.
Don't you ever quote normal peeps? Ever?

Kevin Barrett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 28, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



Indeed there are different factions of the powerful elite and they compete for the control of having their hands on the levers, Obama's band of criminals happened to win this one.
It also might have had alot to do with people having no other choice but to put this man back in office, as Robney wanted to out source American foreign policy to the Israeli's and his BFF Bibi and the Likudist psychopaths.

You will find may of the same players mentioned with 9-11 in the Neo Conservative circles, but then again one must have a vested interest and love for America to dedicate their time to actually learning about these things instead of dedicating so much of their time on ridiculing and attacking others who do..


HOW THE COVER UP WORKED

There are three fundamental fields that need to be controlled in a cover up like 9/11: the investigation, the interpretation, and the prosecution and related litigation.

The investigation involves the detective work supposedly done by the FBI and includes the collection and analysis of the evidence. Interpretation is how the events are explained to the public by the government and controlled media. Prosecution and litigation use the courts to assign blame for the crime and responsibility for the losses. In the 9/11 cover up we find high-level Zionist agents in the key positions of all three fields.

Zionist control over the political interpretation of 9/11 can be readily seen in how the Bush administration and the controlled media accepted without question the unproven explanation blaming Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida. This explanation was exactly what the architects of terror wanted the world to believe and was first articulated by Ehud Barak, the former Israeli commando leader and prime minister, on BBC World television minutes after the demolitions of the Twin Towers.
Making Sense of the 9/11 Cover Up


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 28, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



Are you still here, Princess? All you've posted for the past 4 weeks are personal attacks. Absolutely no attempt to add anything of value to the discourse. Can it be you're out of arrows and have joined 9/11 Hand Job on the sidelines?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 28, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > The facilitators and indeed the possible architects of the 9-11 false flag attack on America, can be found within positions of authority during the Bush presidency..and are still fomenting war with another of Israels enemies, Iran, and are willing to spill the blood of more unthinking American to do it...
> ...



STFU you anti American POS...You once again come to the defense of your Zionist criminal friends and are always on the look out for a chance to try to ridicule any messenger that is shedding light on the criminal scum that you align yourself with..

*Chertoff is an Israeli citizen; his cousin, Benjamin Chertoff, wrote the infamous article for Popular Mechanics that attempted to support the U. S. governments position on 9/11 and to defuse the sharp criticism of American physicists and scientists which definitively stated that the official story of how the Towers came down was a scientific absurdity and impossibility. Chertoffs mother, Livia Eisen, had been an agent for the Israeli Mossad. Chertoff also played a major role in the prosecution of the 1993 False Flag terror bombing of the World Trade Center eight years before.*
9/11 Certainly a False Flag Operation: Mark Dankof | Veterans Today

There is much more to the events of 9-11 then what you would like to admit or have normal thinking Americans become aware of. It is very evident of what you are and who you are loyal to first and foremost, it is no secret any longer...You never stand with Americans or their real concerns....


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 28, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



STFU you hypocrite...all you ever do is ridicule and others while never adding anything to the discussion your damn self....


*In the case of Michael Chertoff, he was later made the head of the Department of Homeland Security. He used the Sensitive Security Information program to confiscate evidence to forestall investigation into 9/11, including the confiscation of the three private video tapes of the attack on the Pentagon. These tapes have never been released.

Then there is Philip Zelikow, an Israeli citizen like Chertoff. He ends up as the writer of the official United States Government Report on 9/11.*
9/11 Certainly a False Flag Operation: Mark Dankof | Veterans Today


I bet you don't think the following article and picture should be in anyway offensive to America or especially so to the victims of the false flag attack on 9-11....do you?

Israeli site shows photo of kids dressed as burning Twin Towers for Purim, upsets everyone | The Ugly Truth


----------



## daws101 (Mar 28, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > The facilitators and indeed the possible architects of the 9-11 false flag attack on America, can be found within positions of authority during the Bush presidency..and are still fomenting war with another of Israels enemies, Iran, and are willing to spill the blood of more unthinking American to do it...
> ...


typical sister jones shit.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 28, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> The facilitators and indeed the possible architects of the 9-11 false flag attack on America, can be found within positions of authority during the Bush presidency..and are still fomenting war with another of Israels enemies, Iran, and are willing to spill the blood of more unthinking American to do it...
> 
> 9/11 Perps Still in the Saddle: Killers of 3,000 Americans Run Romney?s Campaign, US Courts and Media | Veterans Today



Oh please, the chairman of this site believes there were 4 small nukes used in each building.....FAIL


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 28, 2013)

RECOVERY
On the night of September
12, 2001
the Fresh Kills
Landfill on Staten Island
was designated a crime
scene and trucks began
arriving from Ground Zero
with steel and
crushed
debris that was
once
the World Trade Center.
Over the next ten months,
an operation to recover
human remains, personal
effects and the objects
of everyday life from 1.8
million tons of material was
undertaken by the New
York Police Department,
an FBI evidence recovery
team, twenty-five state
and federal agencies, and
fourteen private contractors.
The story of this operation
unfolds in many rare images
and compelling objects that
are now preserved for history.
Thousands of detectives,
agents, and forensic evidence
specialists worked around
the clock to recover rem-
nants of the lives lost
at the World Trade Center.
Over 1.7 million hours were
spent working at the landfill.
The exhibition photographs,
taken over several months,
document the immense
task....


I can post this forever and they will still deny deny deny....

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/exhibits/longterm/documents/recovery.pdf


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 28, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



As always you are reduced to quoting off-the-wall websites with the same less-than-honest POV as yourself:

*Veterans Today also reprints material from Iran's Mehr News Agency.[15] and its state-owned Press TV news agency*.[16] *Editor Gordon Duff is a military affairs analyst for Press TV*.[17] Jonathan Kay, author of "Among the Truthers", wrote on his blog that *Press TV exploits the "anti-Semitic Veterans Today web site to spread 9/11 conspiracy theories".[*18] Veterans Today later printed Kevin Barret's poor review of Kay's book which condemned "Kays worst, most libelous ad-hominem" his "attempt to link 9/11 truth to holocaust denial". Barrett called him a "holocaust apologist, a supporter of the mass murder of millions of innocent people in the 9/11 wars".
*In a July 2010 essay on VT, Duff asserted that the "five dancing Israelis" arrested on 9/11 were part of a "team of Israeli intelligence agents" who remotely guided the planes into the World Trade Center with the knowledge of "top members of America's military*."

Veterans Today - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## eots (Mar 28, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> RECOVERY
> On the night of September
> 12, 2001
> the Fresh Kills
> ...



deny what ?


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2013)

eots you even think the fucking russian meteor is a conspiracy.

sit the fuck down, your brain doesn't work correctly.


----------



## eots (Mar 28, 2013)

G.T. said:


> eots you even think the fucking russian meteor is a conspiracy.
> 
> sit the fuck down, your brain doesn't work correctly.



I do ?...I did not know that although I am open to consider it may have been intercepted by what is seen in the video ..but anyway dont you have some  generic outdated rap music you should be making ?


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2013)

eots said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > eots you even think the fucking russian meteor is a conspiracy.
> ...



bobby generic was a great cartoon character, and you're a douche if you think otherwise tbh


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 28, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > The facilitators and indeed the possible architects of the 9-11 false flag attack on America, can be found within positions of authority during the Bush presidency..and are still fomenting war with another of Israels enemies, Iran, and are willing to spill the blood of more unthinking American to do it...
> ...



But that is the only kind of support Jones can muster. 11+ years later that's all the CT Movement can muster.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 28, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> RECOVERY
> On the night of September
> 12, 2001
> the Fresh Kills
> ...



And most peeps know why.


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 28, 2013)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > RECOVERY
> ...



The truth, Princess, the truth.


----------



## eots (Mar 28, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



the truth about...???


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 29, 2013)

Trust me, eots is not *Playing* ignorant.....


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 29, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > The facilitators and indeed the possible architects of the 9-11 false flag attack on America, can be found within positions of authority during the Bush presidency..and are still fomenting war with another of Israels enemies, Iran, and are willing to spill the blood of more unthinking American to do it...
> ...



It doesn't matter what he thinks destroyed the WTC, the message and the point that the article is in reference to is correct. The site consists of ex military and patriots who can see what has occurred and are brave enough to inform Americans, who care about their nation, about these important things, unlike you, who does not even bat an eye even when there is so much you could do to help your fellow comrades in arms, and the citizens...Once again you try to discredit any message, by ridiculing the messenger because you don't have the balls to speak up about what has happened, and continues to happen, to this once great nation. You've become the enemy to it, instead of a protector.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 29, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



I expected nothing less then an attack on these brave men by the likes of you, and your Zionist brethren. It doesn't change the fact that what they say and report is true, regarding the Zionist Israeli infiltration of our nation and the 9-11 attacks, and the wars for Israel they used American blood and treasure to wage. It's soo obvious that you are and Israeli firster like the animals and psychopaths that are being mentioned in the article..


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 29, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



If the awakening by the American people and the rest of the world regarding 9-11 and the Zionists terrorists is so insignificant....then why do you desperately and constantly attack them? And BTW...the people who have posited that small nuclear devices may have been used, agree with YOU that thermite/thermate was unlikely used...I don't necessarily agree totally with them, but you don't see me bashing their work and information. The information some of them use to suggest that small mini nukes were used is found in the USGS list of substances that were found in the WTC dust samples, that contained components of nuclear fission....that should not have been found there..

Tell us...who do you think within the US government should have come out, either then or now, and indict the criminals suspected of facilitating the false flag attack on 9-11???
It should be obvious that those in positions to do such a crime are extremely powerful, and have managed to control the cover up, the media, and those capable of exposing and indicting the criminals...


----------



## paulitician (Mar 29, 2013)

The NWO/Global Elite can do anything at this point. And that's very sad & tragic.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLUX0y4EptA]Flobots - Handlebars - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 29, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



What they say and report is unmitigated BS, Princess, which clearly you swallow whole. Assuming you are a one of us, what kind of "patriotic" American believes and defends known anti-Semites who are linked at the hip to Iran's state-run media?  

Edit, 11/2012: Gordon Duff, "Senior Editor" at Veterans Today, admits that at least 40% of what he puts on the website is "purposely false."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...a=X&ei=C9RVUb3nLLK-4AOZp4HYBg&ved=0CHQQ1QIoAA


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 29, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



If "awakening ... the American people and the rest of the world regarding 9-11 and the Zionists terrorists" was their intent, I'd be as supportive as you are but it's not.
They even admit what they say and report is unmitigated BS, Princess. Assuming you are a one of us, what kind of "patriotic" American believes and defends known anti-Semites who are linked at the hip to Iran's state-run media?

Edit, 11/2012: Gordon Duff, "Senior Editor" at Veterans Today, admits that at least 40% of what he puts on the website is "purposely false."

veterans today debunked - Google Search


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 29, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



Now read that to yourself....It doesn't matter what he believes but his message is correct....Really? I'm sorry but the people on that site are Russians and Pakistanis and god knows who else and they don't give a rats ass for America......

And you just go on calling me and most of the veterans in America her enemy, it shows how fucking stupid you are.....


----------



## daws101 (Mar 29, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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


----------



## SAYIT (Mar 29, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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



Monumentally stupid, IMHO.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 3, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Another misrepresentation by sayit. Veterans Today is who actually debunked a fear that the veterans were being disarmed for the inauguration ceremony. Thinking Americans also know that the majority of the 'antisemitic" rhetoric against anyone who speaks out about the Zionists lies, is BS. It's a lie and they always use it when they are exposed.
 In fact, Israeli Zionists are the most antisemitic  bunch around, and many of them that lay claims to the "Holy Land' are not even of Semitic decent, blood, or origin!
It takes a person an honest effort to find the truth to see that what the Zionists have been saying for generations is all bullshit.
The crimes of the 9-11 attack against Americans point to the real enemy being the Zionists and their Sayanim within this nation, and the evidence is overwhelming. What is more overwhelming is that they have such control of America, its courts, politics, foreign policy and media to keep a lid on many facts about Israel and the Zionists agenda.

Sayit has not proven that the Veterans Today folks "report unmitigated BS" or that what they put on the website is "purposely false." Your links provide nothing to bolster your BS claims.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 3, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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



It doesn't matter whether the WTC was blown up by nukes or nano thermate, the message of who is more likely behind the 9-11 attacks is correct.


SFC Ollie said:


> I'm sorry but the people on that site are Russians and Pakistanis and god knows who else and they don't give a rats ass for America......


 This is blatantly false. As is you trying to insinuate that since I don't consider you worthy of any "Veteran" respect, and I consider you an enemy of America, that this means that automatically I am also calling  "most of the veterans in America her enemy ".

I know you are a stooge for the enemy that sent Americans off to die for wars built on lies.
I called you out on this. You trying to suggest that I feel the same way about "most" veterans is another false hood.
Most veterans know that what Veterans today reports on is the truth. Most veterans know they have been lied to just  like the rest of the American people.
You however are nothing but a shill who protects the lying murderers and their Zionist masters who have infiltrated "by way of deception" OUR nation.
You never ever have stood with the veterans that know what was done to them and their country and have the guts to speak out about it. You have no guts and have no shame in protecting the enemies of America and her REAL Patriotic Veterans.
You are a phoney and a fraud.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 3, 2013)

Editorial Board-Staff

EDITORIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The Board is responsible for all content on VT and participates in all major decisions regarding content, columnists, and editorial direction for VT

    Gordon Duff - Chairman, U.S. Marines, Vietnam, Managing Director, Adamus Defense Group,  Switzerland
    Lt. General Hamid Gul &#8211; Director General ISI (*Former Chief of Intelligence Services, Pakistan)*
    Col. Eugene Khrushchev -* Former Soviet/Russian Airborne, Intelligence, PsyOps, First Secretary, Soviet and Russian Embassies, Kabul, Afghanistan, Director of Strategic Planning, Adamus Defense Group, Switzerland*





And these are reliable unbiased reporting people whom we all should trust to tell us the truth about 9-11........... Right.......


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 3, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



How many veterans do you know on a first name basis? I work with them nearly on a daily basis. Or have you forgotten that i am the Commander of my local American Legion. that I have turned down officer positions in county American legion, And I am a member of the greater area United Veterans Council, which i have also turned down officer positions in...
We know who the fraud and phoney is, You see it when you look into a mirror....

But please keep on trying, After all 911shitforbrains needs something to claim as his own.......


----------



## paulitician (Apr 3, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



You're wasting your time debating anything with that one. Him and his Sock Puppet Troll buddies are all-in with Big Brother. And nothing you say is gonna change that. Ollie was broken and trained like a dog while serving in the Military. He obeys his Master. He eagerly laps up anything his Master feeds him. It's all he knows. So leave Trolls like him behind, and try to enjoy the Forum.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 3, 2013)

BTW, I haven't met one veteran yet who believes there was any Controlled Demo....

The only person I have met who believes your BS is a laborer for a landscaping business.....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 3, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



How many times do I have to explain better to you? I think I'll just have to start treating you like 911shitforbrains....totally worthless..........


----------



## paulitician (Apr 3, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


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



Oh look, a stick. Go fetch little doggy.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 3, 2013)

Oh look, an idiot...... You have lost any and all credibility. Do have a nice day......


----------



## paulitician (Apr 3, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Oh look, an idiot...... You have lost any and all credibility. Do have a nice day......



Fetch that stick little doggy. Don't wanna make Master angry.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 3, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



What a surprise! Jones's veneer scratched, out pops a Nazi in full SS regalia!
That is your purpose in all this 9/11 CT nonsense ... you need to pin it on the Joooos. 
Thanks for playing, Princess. You are dismissed.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 3, 2013)

SFC Ollie said:


> Oh look, an idiot...... You have lost any and all credibility. Do have a nice day......



I've been here for months and have seen nothing of value from Pauli. Was it really once credibility or just a lot of posters being nice to the severely mentally challenged?


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 3, 2013)

Mr. Jones said:


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



Evidently you only believe Gordon Duff, senior editor of Veterans Today, when he is trashing Joooos. What a surprise!
"... about 30% of what's on Veterans Today is patently false." - Gordon Duff
"...about 40% of what I write is at least purposely partially false..." - Gordon Duff


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 3, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



   
Uh-huh. 
Only you fellow CT "patriots" know the truth and everyone who finds your opinions to be based on admittedly "false" info from sites like Veterans Today is a tool of Big Bro. 
If that is how you justify your CT silliness you are far sillier than I believed to be possible. 
You are completely lost in space, Princess.   

"... about 30% of what's on Veterans Today is patently false." - Gordon Duff, senior editor at Veterans Today
"...about 40% of what I write is at least purposely partially false..." - Gordon Duff


----------



## Capstone (Apr 4, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> "... about 30% of what's on Veterans Today is patently false." - Gordon Duff, senior editor at Veterans Today
> "...about 40% of what I write is at least purposely partially false..." - Gordon Duff



It's called _towing the line_ for the greater good of expressing certain truths that could never be stated otherwise in the company of shills and the brainwashed. The question is this: who's to say what's constituted of bullshit -- the body of openly anti-status quo sentiments; or the government approved line of false patriotism? Some are willing to overlook the easily recognizable propaganda in order to see the truth beyond the horizon.


----------



## paulitician (Apr 4, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Oh look, an idiot...... You have lost any and all credibility. Do have a nice day......
> ...



This, coming from a deranged Sockpuppet like you? Absolutely priceless.


----------



## paulitician (Apr 4, 2013)

Capstone said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > "... about 30% of what's on Veterans Today is patently false." - Gordon Duff, senior editor at Veterans Today
> ...



Some will never get it. Most are all-in with Big Brother. It's Goose Stepper Bliss. Their willfull ignorance is comforting for them. They cannot face reality. Big Brother is not always good. In fact, sometimes he's downright evil. But like i said, you'll never get through to most. They're warm & comfy in their Goose Stepper Bliss. It is what it is.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 4, 2013)

Capstone said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > "... about 30% of what's on Veterans Today is patently false." - Gordon Duff, senior editor at Veterans Today
> ...



What a crock of self-serving BS. The crap on VT (and worse) is found at 100 websites. Duff admits that 30% of what he publishes and 40% of what he himself writes is "partially" or even "patently _false_" and the pinheads try to make excuses for him. Perhaps he's only exposing the tip of the Veterans Today website mendacity. Even if it's more like 60% or 80% "patently false" it still wouldn't matter to the CT loons. You just can't admit that your gods lie to you and don't care because you just aren't interested in the truth.


----------



## paulitician (Apr 4, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



"You just can't admit that your gods lie to you and don't care because you just aren't interested in the truth."

Nice projection. You just described you and your fellow Goose Steppers perfectly. Well done.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 4, 2013)

paulitician said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Speaking of goose steppers, you may have noticed that Mr. Jones slipped into his SS uniform and did a bit of prancing just a few posts back. Are you concerned that your CT Movement has been infected with SS goose steppers:
"Thinking Americans also know that the majority of the 'antisemitic" rhetoric against anyone who speaks out about the Zionists lies, is BS. It's a lie and they always use it when they are exposed.
*In fact, Israeli Zionists are the most antisemitic bunch around*, and many of them that lay claims to the "Holy Land' are not even of Semitic decent, blood, or origin!
It takes a person an honest effort to find the truth to see that what the Zionists have been saying for generations is all bullshit.
*The crimes of the 9-11 attack against Americans point to the real enemy being the Zionists and their Sayanim within this nation*, and the evidence is overwhelming. What is more overwhelming is that *they have such control of America, its courts, politics, foreign policy and media to keep a lid on many facts about Israel and the Zionists agenda*." - Herr Jones


----------



## paulitician (Apr 4, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...



Take it up with him.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 4, 2013)

paulitician said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...



Lame deflection. It must hurt to know that a website your CT Movement depends upon for ammo, one as "patriotic" as Veterans Today, admits to publishing patent falsehoods. What does Duff have to do to awaken peeps like you to the fact that they are full of shit and have an agenda that is not concerned with truth or facts? Can it be that you and your Movement are just not concerned with truth or facts?


----------



## paulitician (Apr 4, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



You actually finally expressed something coherent and accurate. You should project more often.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 4, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



Is there any reason you won't comment on his goose stepping?
Can it be that you, who _constantly_ whines about goose steppers, have no problem with Herr Jones's?


----------



## paulitician (Apr 4, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



Like i said, take it up with him.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 4, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



Another of your lame deflections. 
Duff admits the pap he feeds you CT loons is _substantially BS_ and rather than face that fact, you guys throw _yourselves_ and your CT Movement under the bus. For all your posturing and preening, the truth clearly is of no value to you. 
What a bunch of fuckin' Bozos.


----------



## paulitician (Apr 4, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



 Wow, you're on a projection roll.

"For all your posturing and preening, the truth clearly is of no value to you."

Again, you nailed you and your fellow Goose Steppers spot-on. Keep up the good work.


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 4, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



I'm not asking you to explain or justify his goose stepping. 
I'm asking one who constantly whines about it to comment on Herr Jones's obvious goose stepping. Can it be you have no problem with your CT Movement being infested with peeps like Herr Jones?


----------



## SAYIT (Apr 4, 2013)

paulitician said:


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



And yet when faced with an obvious goose stepper in Herr Jones you defer. Evidently the truth is of no more importance to you than it is to Gordon Duff.

"... about 30% of what's on Veterans Today is patently false." - Gordon Duff
"...about 40% of what I write is at least purposely partially false..." - Gordon Duff
veterans today debunked - Google Search


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 4, 2013)

Once again the Vt staff.....top three listed.......

Editorial Board-Staff

EDITORIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The Board is responsible for all content on VT and participates in all major decisions regarding content, columnists, and editorial direction for VT

Gordon Duff - Chairman, U.S. Marines, Vietnam, Managing Director, Adamus Defense Group, Switzerland *(Believes that 4 small nukes were used on each tower)*
Lt. General Hamid Gul  Director General ISI *(Former Chief of Intelligence Services, Pakistan)*
Col. Eugene Khrushchev - *Former Soviet/Russian Airborne, Intelligence, PsyOps, *First Secretary, Soviet and Russian Embassies, Kabul, Afghanistan, Director of Strategic Planning, Adamus Defense Group, Switzerland


----------



## eots (Apr 4, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



truth movement and truthers is your label..


----------



## eots (Apr 4, 2013)

SAYIT said:


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



why is this relevant ??


----------



## daws101 (Apr 4, 2013)

eots said:


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


what's yours? metal defectives for pseudoscience?  (MDFP)
illiterates fo justist  (IFJ)
anti analytical reasoning league (AARL)


----------

