# Why I hate 9-11 Truthers



## rightwinger (Sep 12, 2012)

Well, another 9-11 has come and gone and our Truthers have done their typical cut and paste of nonsensical truther videos. Conspiracy theorists are mostly harmless and it is fun watching them spin their yarns.
The problem with truthers is that their antics go beyond typical "Evil Gubment" rhetoric. If they stopped at the government knew about it and let it happen they would be relatively harmless. But when they get into Flight 93 didn't really crash in Shanksville and it was a missile that hit the Pentagon they are pissing on the graves of brave Americans.
To imply that these planes didn't really crash and the passengers are being secretly held by the government is outright cruel to the victims families
These families may have received some fragment of their loved one to bury and honor. It is all the closure they got. For truthers to tell them it is not their loved one they buried, that the government is playing a trick on them, that their loved one may still be alive is outright cruelty.

That is why truthers are scum

I now turn this thread over to truthers. Not to contest what I posted, but to swamp it with truther videos


----------



## emptystep (Sep 12, 2012)

Well good morning to you too. 

Here's a challenge. Post a single video of a building falling down from structural damage that even slightly resembles how any one of the towers fell.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Sep 12, 2012)

Isn't it just as disrespectful to dismiss the concerns of the families who's loved ones died that don't believe the government is telling them the truth? not like the government has good record.


----------



## emptystep (Sep 12, 2012)

When I first heard theories that the planes did not bring down the towers I called the truthers crazy. Then I actually looked at what they said. 

If you nothing about nothing and you saw a video of one of the towers falling and I told you that it was because of structural damage you would say that I was being ridicules. 

I don't have any idea about the who, what, when, where, and why of it but the facts are the facts. Two five year olds do a better job of role playing when one points a finger at the other and says, "bang" and the other falls down.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Sep 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Well, another 9-11 has come and gone and our Truthers have done their typical cut and paste of nonsensical truther videos. Conspiracy theorists are mostly harmless and it is fun watching them spin their yarns.
> The problem with truthers is that their antics go beyond typical "Evil Gubment" rhetoric. If they stopped at the government knew about it and let it happen they would be relatively harmless. But when they get into Flight 93 didn't really crash in Shanksville and it was a missile that hit the Pentagon they are pissing on the graves of brave Americans.
> To imply that these planes didn't really crash and the passengers are being secretly held by the government is outright cruel to the victims families
> These families may have received some fragment of their loved one to bury and honor. It is all the closure they got. For truthers to tell them it is not their loved one they buried, that the government is playing a trick on them, that their loved one may still be alive is outright cruelty.
> ...


C'mon man. We invade Iraq but most of the Terrorists were Saudi's? Wake up. I don't believe every single "truther" story out there but ya' know what? I don't believe the Gov'ts story either.

The evidence keeps mounting that the official gov't narrative is incorrect. And what makes it worse is that we see the story about the raid on Osama bin Laden change numerous times.

"We saw the raid live. Here's a picture of everyone watching it live"
"Well, the video was turned off during the raid so no, we didn't see the raid live. That was a staged photo".
"He was armed. Well, no he wasn't armed"
"He used one of his wives as a shield. Well, not really".
And the best one; "We buried him at sea in accordance with Muslim practice". Uh what? 

They don't release photos because they say we can't handle it but they released pics of Saddam Husseins' two sons all chopped up remember?

You have the biggest terrorist leader in the world killed in a daring raid by our brave Military and you don't release ANY photo evidence of his death?

I call bullshit. And you KNOW *you do too*. That's what's eating you. That's what's eating most people. All the lies, errors and glaring omissions. The gov't is lying to you about every damn thing they can think of from 9/11 to the cooked Unemployment and GDP Numbers. And as far as I can tell they've been doing it since *at least* the JFK assassination.

This thread is *proof* that you're starting to come around.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 12, 2012)

emptystep said:


> Well good morning to you too.
> 
> Here's a challenge. Post a single video of a building falling down from structural damage that even slightly resembles how any one of the towers fell.



Simple question to you

Did a plane hit the Pentagon?
Did flight 93 crash in Shanksville?

Lets stay on topic


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 12, 2012)

Thanks for sharing your opinion, Corky.


----------



## hjmick (Sep 12, 2012)

Truthers.

Oy vey...


----------



## martybegan (Sep 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > Well good morning to you too.
> ...



and a counter question, how many other buildings out there use the unique method of external columns for structural support like the twin towers?  The towers fell the way they did due to this configuration, as compared to other methods of support, such as distributed columns.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 12, 2012)

The thing that bothers me about truthers is that without empirical evidence, they still try to draw conclusions. While those of us interested in the science aspect of the event are still trying to determine WTF actually happened. Because the NIST report and just about eveery other theory out there falls incredibly short in explaining some of the most critical anomalies.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 12, 2012)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > emptystep said:
> ...




I don't care about buildings, I care about people


Did a plane hit the Pentagon?
Did flight 93 crash in Shanksville?


----------



## emptystep (Sep 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > Well good morning to you too.
> ...



When you said you now turn this thread over to truthers I thought I could post whatever the hell I choose to being as how I am a truther. I have not really looked into what happened at the Pentagon or in Shanksville. I looked at the towers fall and that was a controlled demolition. If this thread is purely about what happened at the Pentagon and Shanksville that day then I wouldn't want to troll and will let you go ahead and make your point.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Sorry was replying to the other person's question, not yours. clicked wrong post. 

And yes, a plane hit the pentagon, and flight 93 crashed in Shanksville due to the two hijackers deliberately crashing the plane to prevent the passengers from retaking control of it.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 12, 2012)

emptystep said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > emptystep said:
> ...



It was not controlled demolition in the conventional sense IF at all. There are way too many additional anomalies and most of all, rigging those buildings to come down in conventional controlled demolition would have required months, if not years of special planning. It still kills me that people believe that even the best experts in the field would be able to pull that off.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 12, 2012)

emptystep said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > emptystep said:
> ...



The reason you may think it was a controlled demolition is because controlled demolitions are usually the only collapses that are recorded, mostly because they are the only collapses that are scheduled, hence making recording of them alot easier. 

A good example of a collapse that was recorded, and was not controlled was the collapse of that bridge in Minneapolis. Look at how fast the thing fell, it gives you an idea of how fast a a failure can propegate into a collapse. (at work cant access video links)
The only reason you think it was a controlled demolition is e


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 12, 2012)

Two 110 story skyscrapers compared to a bridge? That's a pretty ridiculous comparison.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 12, 2012)

If truthers want to play conspiracy games with controlled demos and WTC 7, I don't really care

They are harmless games that conspiracy theorists play

I care about the people who died on 9-11 and what conspiracy theories do to their memory. If you want to claim the buildings were wired to explode in a controlled demo....Who pulled the trigger?

Which American  pushed a button that sent thousands to their death? 

If it was a controlled demo that brought down the towers, why did dozens of people jump to their deaths in the minutes before the collapse?  Did they know a controlled demo was coming or were the conditions in WTC so horrific in the minutes before the collapse that they prefered jumping?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 12, 2012)

How does a theory change the memory of someone who died on 9/11?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 12, 2012)

It doesn't, actually. And several of those who lost loved ones in the event are truthers. I suppose they should STFU too, right?

Take a walk, Corky.


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 12, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Conspiracy theories are interesting and fun, but at the end of the day, they are just theories.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 12, 2012)

The way i see it they are simply theories. It is those who go to the length of drawing concluions without empirical evidence and make claims like the Bush Administration did it, that become conspiracy.

In my world, we have theories regarding the unexplained anomalies of the event. The fact that the commissions hired to determine what happened completely over look or omit these are suspect. But after 12 years we are not ever going to know anyway so fuck it.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 12, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> How does a theory change the memory of someone who died on 9/11?



If you want to claim that a missile hit the Pentagon, you have to account for a missing airplane with hundreds of people on board. The families of those people recieved fragments of body parts identified by DNA as belonging to their loved ones. The families buried and memorialized those fragments as all they had left 

If you want to claim a missile hit the Pentagon, then you are also claiming that those people on the airplane are still alive somewhere.

It is cruel to the families


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 12, 2012)

Cruel? It seems anyone with a reasonable amount of sanity would not be bothered by the opinions expressed by others.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 12, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Two 110 story skyscrapers compared to a bridge? That's a pretty ridiculous comparison.



The method of holding up any structure is different, but the principles are the same. watch a video from youtube on it to see how quick it fails, and with how little warining. 

There are very few videos of buildings failing, other than controlled demos, and the WTC collapses. The reason being building collapses dont happen often, and 99% of the time the non controlled ones are not videotaped.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 12, 2012)

As an engineer by trade, I will not find much use for comparing a bridge to skyscraper in global collapse,or even partial collapse. For one, a bridge will fall fast because it will not suffer any resistance. Potential energy is completely different in these two structures.


----------



## emptystep (Sep 12, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> As an engineer by trade, I will not find much use for comparing a bridge to skyscraper in global collapse,or even partial collapse. For one, a bridge will fall fast because it will not suffer any resistance. Potential energy is completely different in these two structures.



Here's a question, Mr. Engineer guy: Won't even a controlled demolition leave bigger chunks of building? The amount and closeness to each other of the charges would have to have been incredible to get the pile of stuff rather than a heap of pieces.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 12, 2012)

I'm not a demolitions expert. But from simply deductive reasoning, I can rest pretty sure that conventional controlled demolition did not take part in the "collapse" of either TWC 1 or 2.


----------



## emptystep (Sep 12, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> I'm not a demolitions expert. But from simply deductive reasoning, I can rest pretty sure that conventional controlled demolition did not take part in the "collapse" of either TWC 1 or 2.



stranger and stranger


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 12, 2012)

Stranger?

Here is strange for you:






This is a photo taken by FEMA some days following the event while assessing damage. This photo was taken (as indicated) on the 15th floor of the Bankers Trust building located across Liberty St. from WTC 2. This building was hit by falling debris. Yet, and a common theme, there is a steel I-beam left to center of this photo that has undergone an incredible amount of heat and pressure based on the "shrivel" and "pinch crimp" it displays. Unless conventional controlled demolition can manage this from across the street, or falling debris can manage this, there is no explanation for this steel I-beams molecular behavior. It is an anoomaly of the sort that leaves far more questions than answers.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 12, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> As an engineer by trade, I will not find much use for comparing a bridge to skyscraper in global collapse,or even partial collapse. For one, a bridge will fall fast because it will not suffer any resistance. Potential energy is completely different in these two structures.



As an Engineer myself, I look at it as more of an example of a real life non controlled collapse. There is not sufficent data on non planned building collapses, particularly one such as the WTC with its unique structural design, to say "it looked like a controlled demolition", because all we have ever really seen are controlled demolitions.


----------



## emptystep (Sep 12, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Stranger?
> 
> Here is strange for you:
> 
> ...



Yeah, I found that site and am reading one of the pages. Where can I get cool toys like that!


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 12, 2012)

I don't think TWC 1 + 2 resemble either controlled, or "natural" collapse at all. In fact, even calling what took place a collapse in these instances doesn't seem to capture it either.


----------



## emptystep (Sep 12, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> I don't think TWC 1 + 2 resemble either controlled, or "natural" collapse at all. In fact, even calling what took place a collapse in these instances doesn't seem to capture it either.



I see what you mean.


----------



## eots (Sep 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > Well good morning to you too.
> ...



there are in fact eye witnesses that say the plane flew over the pentagon and ..there is also a question of the impossible flight manoeuvres and if the plane was controlled remotely..also the question of why cctv footage is still classified and shanksville there is evidence to suggest a shoot down occurred..there are in fact no less than two former US crash investigation board presidents that say the official investigation is a cover up

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


----------



## slackjawed (Sep 12, 2012)

Last I knew about 6.5-6.75% of the us population were believed to be "truthers". Worldwide the population at large has a incidence of serious mental illness of about 7-7.2% .
coinicidence?


----------



## tjvh (Sep 12, 2012)

emptystep said:


> When I first heard theories that the planes did not bring down the towers I called the truthers crazy. Then I actually looked at what they said.
> 
> If you nothing about nothing and you saw a video of one of the towers falling and I told you that it was because of structural damage you would say that I was being ridicules.
> 
> I don't have any idea about the who, what, when, where, and why of it but the facts are the facts. Two five year olds do a better job of role playing when one points a finger at the other and says, "bang" and the other falls down.



So those two planes that tens of thousands of people witnessed crashing into the WTC towers were just a *figment of their imagination*, and I suppose United, and American Airlines were more than happy to remove any proof of those planes having ever existed so the conspiracy would go off without a hitch. The premise would be funny, if it weren't so friggin' sad.


----------



## eots (Sep 12, 2012)

tjvh said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > When I first heard theories that the planes did not bring down the towers I called the truthers crazy. Then I actually looked at what they said.
> ...



who said planes did not hit the towers ???


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 12, 2012)

And we're off......


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 12, 2012)

eots said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > emptystep said:
> ...



So, you are telling the victims families that their loved ones are still alive and that the graves that they visit do not contain their loved ones


----------



## eots (Sep 12, 2012)

slackjawed said:


> Last I knew about 6.5-6.75% of the us population were believed to be "truthers". Worldwide the population at large has a incidence of serious mental illness of about 7-7.2% .
> coinicidence?



your numbers are way off....
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JPm6EyzmRI]AMERICANS WANT A NEW INVESTIGATION INTO 9/11 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Sep 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



what in gods name are you rambling about ??


----------



## Polk (Sep 12, 2012)

emptystep said:


> Well good morning to you too.
> 
> Here's a challenge. Post a single video of a building falling down from structural damage that even slightly resembles how any one of the towers fell.



1. Most buildings that fall don't have a camera fixed on them (sample size problem).
2. Most buildings aren't constructed to fall inward.


----------



## eots (Sep 12, 2012)

Polk said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > Well good morning to you too.
> ...



you are just making this crazy babble up as you go...infact all major skyscrper fires have been filmed..its the type of thing that draws attention...and there is no dispute..NIST freely admits..wtc 7 is the first know instance of a steel framed building collapsing primarily from fire...and no building was "designed to fall inward"...the towers where however designed to take multiple hits from commercial  aircraft


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 12, 2012)

eots said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Did you, or did you not, just say that the plane overflew the Pentagon and that the flight maneuvers were impossible?

If so, what happened to the plane with hundreds of passengers?  Are you telling the families that their loved ones are alive?


----------



## Zoom (Sep 12, 2012)

So.  They rigged the buildings to blow and they happened to know exactly where the planes would hit.  I remember reading one dumb asa truther say no planes actually hot the towers.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 12, 2012)

Zoom said:


> So.  They rigged the buildings to blow and they happened to know exactly where the planes would hit.  I remember reading one dumb asa truther say no planes actually hot the towers.



Every floor would have to be rigged with explosives since they had no idea where or if the planes would hit

If one of the planes did not make it to the towers you would have a perfectly intact building that was wired to explode....very risky and someone would have some splain'n to do


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Zoom said:
> 
> 
> > So.  They rigged the buildings to blow and they happened to know exactly where the planes would hit.  I remember reading one dumb asa truther say no planes actually hot the towers.
> ...



I'll bet Bill Clinton would have made an excellent "splainer.


----------



## emptystep (Sep 12, 2012)

If I simply came up to you on the street and showed you this picture and said, "This is what a 1452 ft building looks like after it got hit by a plane." What would you say? "Oh, of course it is."?


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 12, 2012)

emptystep said:


> If I simply came up to you on the street and showed you this picture and said, "This is what a 1452 ft building looks like after it got hit by a plane." What would you say? "Oh, of course it is."?



Two planes hit two buildings with the same results

Looks like a repeatable experiment


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 12, 2012)

First, I would ask where the building went.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 12, 2012)

Did they clean it up already?


----------



## emptystep (Sep 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > If I simply came up to you on the street and showed you this picture and said, "This is what a 1452 ft building looks like after it got hit by a plane." What would you say? "Oh, of course it is."?
> ...



So are you saying that looks like what a 1452 ft building looks like after it gets hit with a plane and falls down?


----------



## martybegan (Sep 12, 2012)

emptystep said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > emptystep said:
> ...



When was the last time ANY plane hit a building in general?

You also have to remember that the towers were renowned for their internal spacing, a benefit of the use of exterior columns and the center core as the method of supporting the building. Also the foundation of the building is below grade, thus most of the debris were in the "pit."

That being said, going by the scale of the people in the picutre, its still a big pile of debris


----------



## emptystep (Sep 12, 2012)

martybegan said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



So are you saying that looks like what a 1452 ft building looks like after it gets hit with a plane and falls down?


----------



## PredFan (Sep 12, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> The thing that bothers me about truthers is that without empirical evidence, they still try to draw conclusions. While those of us interested in the science aspect of the event are still trying to determine WTF actually happened. Because the NIST report and just about eveery other theory out there falls incredibly short in explaining some of the most critical anomalies.



This is why I know that the truthers are full of shit. If the official explanation didn't have holes in it, if it covered all the bases, then I'd know it was planned. The fact that the government is trying to piece together something that caught them as much by surprise as anyone, is the reason their explanation leaves much to be desired. Since it was only planned by the terrorists, no one can fully know what actually happened.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 12, 2012)

emptystep said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > emptystep said:
> ...



Evidently thats what it looks like.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Yes and yes.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 12, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Can you imagine the explosive technicians, disguising themselves as Marketing Directors, secretaries, Stock Market Analists and lawyers, all the while rolling out miles of wire and saying things like "Pay no attention to this big barrel of stuff marked "Danger, High Explosives", and "I'm a lawyer just putting this innocent relay switch here on this wall, nothing to see here!"

Truthers are entertaining, the points in the OP not withstanding.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 12, 2012)

PredFan said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > The thing that bothers me about truthers is that without empirical evidence, they still try to draw conclusions. While those of us interested in the science aspect of the event are still trying to determine WTF actually happened. Because the NIST report and just about eveery other theory out there falls incredibly short in explaining some of the most critical anomalies.
> ...



Regardless of who planned it, the job of the commission was to determine what happened and how it happened. They fell way short. The "truthers" have a point. We don't know what happened and the official account doesn't add up at all (if you've read it, and done the homework that is). Unfortunately, instead of sticking strickly to the evidence and continuing to prod for answers, many of the movement took it upon themselves to draw a conclusion they can not empirically back up. Which is why they shot themselves in the foot with both the public, by making claims without supporting evidence, and government officials, by essentially implicating them in some sort of crime.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 12, 2012)

PredFan said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > emptystep said:
> ...



Well, i would have to agree there. The idea that somehow conventional controlled demolition was rolled out secretively and executed flawlessly is by and large quite outlandish.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 12, 2012)

emptystep said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > emptystep said:
> ...



Yes.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 12, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



One would think that if the government had planned it, they'd have a story to cover themselves, at least one better than the one they gave us.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 12, 2012)

PredFan said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > emptystep said:
> ...



Not only that

But trusting terrorists to hold up their end of the bargain


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Well, another 9-11 has come and gone and our Truthers have done their typical cut and paste of nonsensical truther videos. Conspiracy theorists are mostly harmless and it is fun watching them spin their yarns.
> The problem with truthers is that their antics go beyond typical "Evil Gubment" rhetoric. If they stopped at the government knew about it and let it happen they would be relatively harmless. But when they get into Flight 93 didn't really crash in Shanksville and it was a missile that hit the Pentagon they are pissing on the graves of brave Americans.
> To imply that these planes didn't really crash and the passengers are being secretly held by the government is outright cruel to the victims families
> These families may have received some fragment of their loved one to bury and honor. It is all the closure they got. For truthers to tell them it is not their loved one they buried, that the government is playing a trick on them, that their loved one may still be alive is outright cruelty.
> ...


the real reason you hate 9/11 truthers is because you are a government disinformation agent who hates it that the truth is getting out and you cant stop it as we both know.same with slackass.Predfan is just a brainwashed Bush dupe in denial and afraid of the truth about government conspiracys which is why he runs off with his tail between his legs and never trys to counter evidence.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 12, 2012)

emptystep said:


> Well good morning to you too.
> 
> Here's a challenge. Post a single video of a building falling down from structural damage that even slightly resembles how any one of the towers fell.



what troll Idiotwinger cant get around is the fact that there were other buildings in the area much closer to the towers than bld 7 that had far more extensive damage done to them and had far more serious fires as well and yet none of those buildings collapsed.Bld 7 is the crux of the 9/111 coverup commission that trolls like agent Rightwinger cant get around.

They have the most hysterical logic that it was just a mere coincidence that all three towers were owned by Silverstein and they were the ONLY buildings that collapsed.you just got to love the logic of the coincidence theorists. 

Agent Rightwinger like all troll cant counter these facts either or answer these questions,they always run off when challenged to. they want this thread below to die but I wont let it.

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

agent Rightwinger and brainwashed Bush dupes like Predfan afraid of the truth about government conspiracys ,always run off like cowards when asked to take this short 5 minute challenge.

they of course cant answer any of these questions either.

http://www.rmbowman.com/ssn/Secrecy.htm

agent rightwingers handlers sure pay him a lot of money the way he comes back for his constant ass beatings all the time.lol.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 12, 2012)

Mad Scientist said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Well, another 9-11 has come and gone and our Truthers have done their typical cut and paste of nonsensical truther videos. Conspiracy theorists are mostly harmless and it is fun watching them spin their yarns.
> ...



Speaking of the kennedy assassination agent rightwinger lost his credibility ages ago.He actually still endorces that other fairy tale of the governments that oswald killed kennedy. Now that is hysterical because I have met people who while they wont look at the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job and are in denial on that,they at LEAST can accept the truth that the CIA killed JFK.


----------



## Desperado (Sep 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> . But when they get into Flight 93 didn't really crash in Shanksville and it was a missile that hit the Pentagon they are pissing on the graves of brave Americans.
> To imply that these planes didn't really crash and the passengers are being secretly held by the government is outright cruel to the victims families




I have to agree with that comment.....
However, I also agree with this article by paul craig roberts on 9/11.

You only have to know two things.

One is that according to the official story, *a handful of Arabs, mainly Saudi Arabians, operating independently of any government and competent intelligence service, men without James Bond and V for Vendetta capabilities, outwitted not only the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency, but all 16 US intelligence agencies, along with all security agencies of Americas NATO allies and Israels Mossad. Not only did the entire intelligence forces of the Western world fail, but on the morning of the attack the entire apparatus of the National Security State simultaneously failed. Airport security failed four times in one hour. NORAD failed. Air Traffic Control failed. The US Air Force failed. The National Security Council failed. Dick Cheney failed. Absolutely nothing worked.* The worlds only superpower was helpless at the humiliating mercy of a few undistinguished Arabs.

It is hard to image a more far-fetched storyexcept for the second thing you need to know: *The humiliating failure of US National Security did not result in immediate demands from the President of the United States, from Congress, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and from the media for an investigation of how such improbable total failure could have occurred. No one was held accountable for the greatest failure of national security in world history.* Instead, the White House dragged its feet for a year resisting any investigation until the persistent demands from 9/11 families for accountability forced President George W. Bush to appoint a political commission, devoid of any experts, to hold a pretend investigation.

The 11th Anniversary of 9/11 ~ Paul Craig Roberts - PaulCraigRoberts.org


----------



## Politico (Sep 12, 2012)

emptystep said:


> Here's a challenge. Post a single video of a building falling down from structural damage that even slightly resembles how any one of the towers fell.



Sure will. As soon as I find one with the same whacky design.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 12, 2012)

Desperado said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > . But when they get into Flight 93 didn't really crash in Shanksville and it was a missile that hit the Pentagon they are pissing on the graves of brave Americans.
> ...



It isn't difficult at all to imagine the first scenario.

No one but those at the very highest level of Al-Queda and the terrorists themselves knew about it. They got their instructions one time, and then weren't communicated with again. Therefor no messages to intercept. There was virtually no security at the airports at the time and none of the hijackers carried guns to spot or detect.

In addition, if Bush was in on it, he'd have a plan in place where he'd look like the competant leader who got to the bottom of the disaster. the fact that he didn't is reasonable proof that he was just as surprised as the rest of us were.

But hey, don't let me deter your truther vision. It's entertaining.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 12, 2012)

Desperado said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > . But when they get into Flight 93 didn't really crash in Shanksville and it was a missile that hit the Pentagon they are pissing on the graves of brave Americans.
> ...



your wasting your time with agent troll rightwinger.He cant get around those facts I just posted. Nobody ever has been able to get around that. What agent Rightwinger also ignores is the similarities in the jfk assassination and 9/11. 

9/11 is the same as in the JFK assassination in that if it was alleged incompetence by the government which is their explanation,then there should have been multiple firings and court martials of many people in NORAD.There were none. This troll STILL thiks oswald killed kennedy.

 Well actually he doesnt think that,he knows just as well as I do that CIA did it and that 9/11 was an inside job as well.He is just doing what his handlers pay him to do,try and derail government corruption threads.He ignores facts that if the secret service were just incompetent that day and were careless in destroying the evidence,why nobody was fired from the agency like they should have been.same with 9/11.You have heard the old saying before.just like with the JFK assassination,rightwinger troll ignores the laws of physics scientists have gone by for thousands of years.the old saying is-


----------



## martybegan (Sep 12, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Well, another 9-11 has come and gone and our Truthers have done their typical cut and paste of nonsensical truther videos. Conspiracy theorists are mostly harmless and it is fun watching them spin their yarns.
> ...



Wow, you are a paranoid dolt.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 12, 2012)

martybegan said:


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



I have 9-11 inside job on ignore, he thinks I run because he has some kind of actual points to make. He's a tin foil hat wearing moron.


----------



## Toro (Sep 12, 2012)

I don't hate twoofers.  I just laugh at them.

I used to debunk they're silly theories but now I'm just bored.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Sep 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Well, another 9-11 has come and gone and our Truthers have done their typical cut and paste of nonsensical truther videos. Conspiracy theorists are mostly harmless and it is fun watching them spin their yarns.
> The problem with truthers is that their antics go beyond typical "Evil Gubment" rhetoric. If they stopped at the government knew about it and let it happen they would be relatively harmless. But when they get into Flight 93 didn't really crash in Shanksville and it was a missile that hit the Pentagon they are pissing on the graves of brave Americans.
> To imply that these planes didn't really crash and the passengers are being secretly held by the government is outright cruel to the victims families
> These families may have received some fragment of their loved one to bury and honor. It is all the closure they got. For truthers to tell them it is not their loved one they buried, that the government is playing a trick on them, that their loved one may still be alive is outright cruelty.
> ...



I'd agree with you but than we would both be wrong.  

QUOTE:  _To imply that these planes didn't really crash_.  That in itself is an ignorant statement.     Did you enjoy drinking Bush's Kool-aid?  
For example: there is no supporting evidence of a Boeing 767 to have struck the Pentagon.

QUOTE: _ I now turn this thread over to truthers. Not to contest what I posted,_   That's because you would not be able to back-up the bull-shit lies that the US Government, more so the Bush Administration have spun to get the American people to believe like yourself.

Keep drinking that Kool-Aid.


----------



## ERGO (Sep 12, 2012)

Toro said:


> I don't hate twoofers.  I just laugh at them.
> 
> I used to debunk they're silly theories but now I'm just bored.



You haven't debunked jack squat. You're a legend in your own silly low IQ mind.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 12, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Stranger?
> 
> Here is strange for you:
> 
> ...





Toro said:


> I don't hate twoofers.  I just laugh at them.
> 
> I used to debunk they're silly theories but now I'm just bored.



Silly theories are for amateurs at this game. You want to do some "debunking"?

Debunk my quoted post from above. Use science though. I don't want to have some lame duck discussion. 

The point I'm trying to make is that the jury isn't out on what happened and therefore, we don't fucking KNOW shit. We're all int he dark on this.


----------



## ERGO (Sep 12, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Hey 9/11 inside job, don't waste too much time with these indoctrinated  low IQ monkeys living in denial. They don't have the capacity to see that the governments "official" version is the conspiracy theory. They're intellectually lazy jerks.
Kevin Ryan, formerly of Underwriters Laboratory, thoroughly debunked the NIST report. Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth debunks the buildings falling down due to the planes crashes and ensuing fires.
It's the forensic study of the aftermath that debunks...refutes the NIST, popular mechanics and National Geographic BS version.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYC7P0dz9pI]NIST WTC Report Refuted by Kevin Ryan - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWSDggi4BPQ]BluePrint for Truth - Richard Gage (Full) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Toro (Sep 12, 2012)

ERGO said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > I don't hate twoofers.  I just laugh at them.
> ...



Twoofers bring crazy to a whole other level.

[youtube]Q_OIXfkXEj0[/youtube]


----------



## ERGO (Sep 12, 2012)

*The WTC Demolition finally explained - How did they rig the towers? *

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3EQV223Y-M]The WTC Demolition finally explained - How did they rig the towers? - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## martybegan (Sep 12, 2012)

ERGO said:


> *The WTC Demolition finally explained - How did they rig the towers? *
> 
> The WTC Demolition finally explained - How did they rig the towers? - YouTube



Cant even make your own arguments, you go with the typical post the videos, and the pictures without context. 

For people that claim to be able to think for themselves, you tend to let other people do alot of your thinking for you.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 12, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Oswald read in tne paper that the presidents motorcade would be driving by his place of work. So he took his gun to work and blew the presidents brains out

What is your theory?


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 12, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Well, another 9-11 has come and gone and our Truthers have done their typical cut and paste of nonsensical truther videos. Conspiracy theorists are mostly harmless and it is fun watching them spin their yarns.
> ...



Did a plane crash into the Pentagon?
Did flight 93 crash in Shanksville?


----------



## ERGO (Sep 12, 2012)

Toro said:


> ERGO said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



You still haven't debunked jack squat. You silly fool You're not able to refute the forensic evidence that proves the WTC didn't fall due to fires.
What was the reason for the WTC collapsing?What caused WTC 7 to collapse?
Go ahead Genius... I want to hear you're explanation as to what caused the WTC buildings to collapse


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 12, 2012)

ERGO said:


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



And here we go...

The obligatory posting of Internet videos


----------



## ERGO (Sep 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


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



Why didn't they find the two 6 ton each Pratt & Whitney engines from the Boeing 757 at the Pentagon? why didn't they find the landing gear? What happen to the seats, the luggage, the Tail section ?

Why didn't they find any identifiable plane parts at Shankville. It was pretty devoid of plane parts. Just a whole in the ground. No evidence of blood either. I'd say it was shot down and the plane parts scattered.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 12, 2012)

ERGO said:


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



They did find the engines as well as the landing gear and American Airline fuselage. They also found body parts of the passengers

Why are you such a scumbag as to tell surviving family that it is not their loved ones?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 12, 2012)

You you thermite fans do realize that beams were cut in the removal of debris, right? Those were obviously lobbed off for remove and yet within your very images you spout, you miss the smoking "we dont fucking know shit" gun discharge.


----------



## Politico (Sep 12, 2012)

Wow more cut and pasting of the same old stuff.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> ERGO said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Dont worry, they will ignore the pictures as some government disinformation.


----------



## ERGO (Sep 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


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



So what's your problem with it? Have you ever watched any of the videos to try and learn why 9/11 didn't happen the way that the "official" government/controlled media version has led many people to believe.

Aren't you curious as to why 9/11 truthers believe what they believe?

I am going to keep posting videos from time to time, if some people have a problem with that TOO BAD!

I think some people are just afraid they'll be proven wrong if they watch them.


----------



## Politico (Sep 12, 2012)

They have the same problem everyone else does. No one on here has done any of their own research or has brought any proof to the table. All they do is post the same videos over and over in 1000 threads hoping repetition will make it true.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 12, 2012)

ERGO said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > ERGO said:
> ...



9/11 truthers believe what they believe due to either stupidity, or a need to feel smarter than everyone else. I'll thow in paranoid delusion as well.


----------



## ERGO (Sep 12, 2012)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > ERGO said:
> ...



*That is not a part from a Pratt & Whitney engine. *

In the video I'm providing forward to the 17:00 minute mark.[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCuPnepWD6Q]Hidden Secrets about 911 World Trade Centre Attack 2001 (complete) - YouTube[/ame] This proves you are wrong and you have bad info


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 12, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Stranger?
> ...



I didn't think so.


----------



## whitehall (Sep 12, 2012)

We saw the planes hit the Towers and investigation indicates overwhelming evidence of the motivation by the jihad. It is so heartbreaking to see a video of a person dressed in a business suit flying through the air to his death because he had to choose between burning to death and suicide before his second cup of coffee on a pretty morning in September 2001. Does any rational person who was born and raised in the greatest Country in the world think that there is some phantom American network that intentionally caused this abomination? It's crazy to try to find a conspiracy theory to justify blaming America for 9-11.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 12, 2012)

Until the emotional play subsides and investigation can proceed, fuck it. No one will touch what I can show because it draws on cognition failure. See you all this time next year, maybe.

Peace.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 12, 2012)

As usual, truthers turn the thread into a bunch of videos and debunked links on buildings, free fall and controlled demos

9-11 was about people. People who suffered, people who heroically fought off terrorists and people who ultimately died

So tell us truthers..

1. If a missile hit the Pentagon, who were the bodies of flight 93 recovered?  What happened to the real people on the plane?

2. If the towers were rigged for a demo, why did people jump to their deaths?

3. If a plane did not crash in Shanksville, what happened to the brave passengers of flight 93


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 12, 2012)




----------



## ERGO (Sep 12, 2012)

Politico said:


> They have the same problem everyone else does. No one on here has done any of their own research or has brought any proof to the table. All they do is post the same videos over and over in 1000 threads hoping repetition will make it true.



I've done plenty of research over 4 years worth. The videos aid in providing information. There has been many questions about 9/11 that 9/11 truthers have raised that some won't answer or try to refute by arguing on the merits of the argument... instead they engage in childish labeling and ad hominem.

It's quite apparent you haven't done any research or you'd know the "official" version to 9/11 is a lie...forensic evidence shows this!


----------



## Toro (Sep 12, 2012)

ERGO said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > ERGO said:
> ...



No, you don't get it. I did that for years.  I don't argue with crazy any more.  You're an idiot.  I just make fun of you now.


----------



## Toro (Sep 12, 2012)

ERGO said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > They have the same problem everyone else does. No one on here has done any of their own research or has brought any proof to the table. All they do is post the same videos over and over in 1000 threads hoping repetition will make it true.
> ...



You should get a life.


----------



## Toro (Sep 12, 2012)

Since twoofers like to post youtube videos and such as "proof," here is a good book to read.









> A wide variety of extremist groups -- Islamic fundamentalists, neo-Nazis -- share the oddly similar belief that a tiny shadowy elite rule the world from a secret room. In Them, journalist Jon Ronson has joined the extremists to track down the fabled secret room.
> 
> As a journalist and a Jew, Ronson was often considered one of "Them" but he had no idea if their meetings actually took place. Was he just not invited? Them takes us across three continents and into the secret room. Along the way he meets Omar Bakri Mohammed, considered one of the most dangerous men in Great Britain, PR-savvy Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard Thom Robb, and the survivors of Ruby Ridge. He is chased by men in dark glasses and unmasked as a Jew in the middle of a Jihad training camp. In the forests of northern California he even witnesses CEOs and leading politicians -- like Dick Cheney and George Bush -- undertake a bizarre owl ritual.
> 
> Ronson's investigations, by turns creepy and comical, reveal some alarming things about the looking-glass world of "us" and "them." Them is a deep and fascinating look at the lives and minds of extremists. Are the extremists onto something? Or is Jon Ronson becoming one of them?



[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Them-Adventures-Extremists-Jon-Ronson/dp/0743233212]Amazon.com: Them: Adventures with Extremists (9780743233217): Jon Ronson: Books[/ame]


It's a good read on the mind of the nutter fringe like twoofers.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 12, 2012)

Won't touch the white hot light, toro?

That's so not new.


----------



## ERGO (Sep 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> As usual, truthers turn the thread into a bunch of videos and debunked links on buildings, free fall and controlled demos
> 
> 9-11 was about people. People who suffered, people who heroically fought off terrorists and people who ultimately died
> 
> ...



*To show you don't know what the hell you're talking*
To answer #1 It wasn't flight 93 that was alleged to have crashed into the Pentagon it was flight # 77 that was alleged to have crashed into the Pentagon...."who were the bodies of flight 93 recovered?" doesn't make any sense.

#2 some people jumped because of the fires. Your question makes no sense. Why would people stay in building if they knew it was rigged for demo, why bother showing up for work.

#3 Yes, what did happen to them? They never found any body parts at the crash site in Shankville...so what's your point?


----------



## Toro (Sep 12, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Won't touch the white hot light, toro?
> 
> That's so not new.



Who is crazier, the crazies - i.e., twoofers - or the people who argue with crazy people?  It's best just to mock them.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 12, 2012)

Yeah, nice avoid.


----------



## ERGO (Sep 12, 2012)

Toro said:


> ERGO said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...



*You have no room to talk!*


----------



## Toro (Sep 12, 2012)

ERGO said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > ERGO said:
> ...



Dude, let's get this straight.  I'm smarter than you, have more money, a cool job, and am probably better looking.  

But I have to to thank guys like you.  Your mindset is what allows me to make a good living.  So muchas gracias.


----------



## ERGO (Sep 12, 2012)

Toro said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Won't touch the white hot light, toro?
> ...



It's most amusing to observe arrogant low IQ monkeys, such as yourself, thinking they've got such a lock on truth and knowledge that they can mock others without showing themselves to be the asses that they are.


----------



## ERGO (Sep 12, 2012)

Toro said:


> ERGO said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


HAHAHA you're so full of shit!
You're smarter than me? You sound pretty stupid to me. What are you a paid internet troll?


----------



## Toro (Sep 12, 2012)

ERGO said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > ERGO said:
> ...



Nope.

Hey nutter, bet you believe half of these!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...racies-compilation-thread-13.html#post3403456


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 12, 2012)

This board is troll central.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 12, 2012)

ERGO said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > As usual, truthers turn the thread into a bunch of videos and debunked links on buildings, free fall and controlled demos
> ...



Who were the bodies recovered at the Pentagon?  Who did the families bury?  Are you telling the families that they did not bury their loved ones?  
What happened to Flight 77 if it didn't hit the pentagon?
Are you telling families they are still alive?

Why did people choose to jump right before the towers collapsed?  Were they afraid of a controlled demo?  Or were conditions so horrific right before the towers collapsed that they preferred jumping?

Yes they did find body parts in Shanksville as well as wreckage


----------



## martybegan (Sep 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> ERGO said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Keep at it, you have more stamina than I do, you leftwing progressive flunky.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 12, 2012)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > ERGO said:
> ...



No answers?

I didn't expect you would


----------



## martybegan (Sep 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I actually agree with you on this, despite our disagreeements on other topics, sorry to confuse you. 

Dont stay in the conspiracy section long, it will give you a headache.


----------



## American Horse (Sep 12, 2012)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > emptystep said:
> ...



This is THE SEMINAL QUESTION about the structure and what would be expected in a collapse.  Understanding the stacked form of the structure; I can't conceive of a collapse occurring in any other way.  Those who don't build structures must imagine it would lean until simply fell sideways onto the ground, and having seen so many many buildings fall from controlled demolitions, they can't imagine that type collapse happening any other way but with explosives.  

Listen to the comments of one of the survivors who got out just before the collapse; he said he heard steel groaning and grinding from stress.  He said nothing about the sound of any explosion, and he and the person who got out with him were inside one moment and outside the next, and seamlessly.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 12, 2012)

American Horse said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Expect to be attacked for this reasonable position. Good luck in here.


----------



## emptystep (Sep 12, 2012)

PBS anyone?
Video: 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out | Watch Colorado Public Television Presents Online | Colorado Public Television / KBDI 12 Video


----------



## American Horse (Sep 12, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You are right about the time needed to prepare the building for collapse coordinated along with the explosive material; many supporting columns are cut to maximize the effects of gravity working with the explosives.  And timing of the explosives needs to be near perfect.  When all the complexities are considered, a simple pancake series of impacts is by far the simplest and most believable situation.


----------



## emptystep (Sep 12, 2012)

American Horse said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > emptystep said:
> ...



Except the 'official' explanation is not longer the pancake theory. Keep up! 

Night all.


----------



## eots (Sep 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> ERGO said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



no body parts only the claim of DNA which they refer to as...remains


----------



## eots (Sep 12, 2012)

emptystep said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



LOL...INDEED

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

FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 12, 2012)

eots said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > ERGO said:
> ...



So, based on no evidence to the contrary, you are willing to tell the families of 9-11 victims that the graves they visit are a sham

Like I said in my OP.....this is a reason I hate 9-11 Truthers


----------



## Noomi (Sep 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Well, another 9-11 has come and gone and our Truthers have done their typical cut and paste of nonsensical truther videos. Conspiracy theorists are mostly harmless and it is fun watching them spin their yarns.
> The problem with truthers is that their antics go beyond typical "Evil Gubment" rhetoric. If they stopped at the government knew about it and let it happen they would be relatively harmless. But when they get into Flight 93 didn't really crash in Shanksville and it was a missile that hit the Pentagon they are pissing on the graves of brave Americans.
> To imply that these planes didn't really crash and the passengers are being secretly held by the government is outright cruel to the victims families
> These families may have received some fragment of their loved one to bury and honor. It is all the closure they got. For truthers to tell them it is not their loved one they buried, that the government is playing a trick on them, that their loved one may still be alive is outright cruelty.
> ...



I am one of those 'Truthers' and I wasn't going to mention my views yesterday, what with the 11 year anniversary and all.

I do have some respect. Sheesh.

However, today its game on.


----------



## eots (Sep 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



so basically you hate truthers because they speak unspeakable truths...there where no body parts..and it is hard to believe that cross contamination would allow for positive identifications of all the passengers as claimed ..graves are symbolic and what they represents is not a sham but the fact is they do not contain body parts and any dna identification is highly questionable and there is evidence to suggest a shoot down occured


----------



## eots (Sep 12, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpIao6680jg]Dick Cheney Gave the Shoot Down Order on 9 11 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Famine (Sep 12, 2012)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > emptystep said:
> ...



Exactly a tower of cans would fall in a different way than a house of straws would..completely different structures.


----------



## eots (Sep 12, 2012)

Famine said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



YOU PEOPLE ARE HOPELESS...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-wE2yppTDI]Twin Tower Fires Not Hot Enough to Melt or Weaken Steel! Fire Could Not Have Brought Down Towers! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Sep 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



No I said pentagon employees reported the fly over and the flight manoeuvres suggest the planes may have been flown with guidance systems

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGxKU2B0ZjY]Pilot who flew 2 of the planes used on 9/11 doesn&#39;t believe official story - YouTube[/ame]

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


----------



## eots (Sep 12, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXC1aTZhxhM]Pentagon Employee Says Plane Did Not Crash into Building - 911 Inside Job - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Politico (Sep 13, 2012)

ERGO said:


> I've done plenty of research over 4 years worth. The videos aid in providing information. There has been many questions about 9/11 that 9/11 truthers have raised that some won't answer or try to refute by arguing on the merits of the argument... instead they engage in childish labeling and ad hominem.
> 
> It's quite apparent you haven't done any research or you'd know the "official" version to 9/11 is a lie...forensic evidence shows this!



Perfect example of deflection. You come up with a theory and then say anyone who doesn't believe it is uninformed. You made the claim, YOU need to provide irrefutable proof not anyone else. I repeat. Copying and pasting other people's stuff is not doing your own research. Even if you have been doing it for four years. Let's see the interviews YOU have conducted. Let's see the metallurgical studies YOU have done. Let's see the pictures or documentation YOU have that prove there was a bomb planted in those buildings. That goes for anyone. I am not a debunker. If someone has SOMETHING I want to know.


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2012)

Politico said:


> ERGO said:
> 
> 
> > I've done plenty of research over 4 years worth. The videos aid in providing information. There has been many questions about 9/11 that 9/11 truthers have raised that some won't answer or try to refute by arguing on the merits of the argument... instead they engage in childish labeling and ad hominem.
> ...


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2012)

more NIST lies...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX1TjiZawc8&feature=relmfu]John Gross NIST 911 Lead Investigator Molten Metal PEOPLE PLEASE PLEASE WATCH THIS.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

why do they try and cover the facts ?


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaONw60DcoE&feature=relmfu]FireFighter Erik Lawyer Slams NIST And The 911 Investigation.wmv - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 13, 2012)

eots said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Thanks for presenting the true underbelly of truther scum

While you talk free fall, controlled demo, thermite...it all seems harmless

But, with no evidence, when you have the audacity to tell grieving families that the graves they honor are mere shams and that they are fools for trusting the evil government

You reveal what truly despicable people you are


----------



## PredFan (Sep 13, 2012)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > ERGO said:
> ...



Truthers are not a left/right debate. Truther insanity knows no party affiliation.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 13, 2012)

With apologies to Rightwinger, who brings up a very good point in to OP, Truthers are entertaining. Fascinating to watch the cognitive dissonance, selective reasoning, and faulty logic weaved together like a spider on acid. Every fact, every video, every official report bent and spun to serve. I'm ready for another full day!


----------



## Toro (Sep 13, 2012)

PredFan said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Twoofers generally fall into one of three categories

1. Libertarian. They have a pathological hatred of government and thus are more likely to believe government commits unspeakable evil against its citizens.  They consider themselves patriots and defenders of the constitution. 

2. Anti-American/Anti-capitalist. They view America and/or capitalism as inherently evil and exploitive. They believe that companies capture the government to commit crimes against humanity for profit, ie oil companies were behind the invasion of Iraq.  

3.  They believe many if not most other conspiracy theories, and that the world is controlled by a handful of people and shadowy groups who commit these conspiracies. 

They also tend to believe their theories religiously and adopt symbols representative of their theories, ie naming themselves "9/11 inside job" and having 1984 as an avatar. 

You can put pretty much all twoofers into these categories.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Sep 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Zoom said:
> 
> 
> > So.  They rigged the buildings to blow and they happened to know exactly where the planes would hit.  I remember reading one dumb asa truther say no planes actually hot the towers.
> ...


 Like WTC 7?

_Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building  since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the buildings imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option._

Shame On Jesse Ventura! | Fox News


----------



## PredFan (Sep 13, 2012)

Toro said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Agreed.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 13, 2012)

Toro said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Personally, I don't think they give a shit

Here is what they believe

Our Government wired three buildings to explode and arranged for terrorists to hijack four planes and fly them into buildings. After the planes hit and people in the towers struggled for their lives, someone from the government pushed a button and sent them to their deaths. Twenty minutes later, they did the same thing with another terrorized group of people in the other tower

To actually believe that and be content to anonymously post truther videos on the internet shows no passion. How can you truthfully believe this theory and not be outraged? Not be marching in the streets?

Truthers are phony. All they want you to do is watch their videos. They do not give a shit otherwise


----------



## PredFan (Sep 13, 2012)

Mr. Jones said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom said:
> ...



That's logical. they didn't expect the towers to fall so they were talking about how to bring down buildings that were, in all likely hood, to damged to safely reuse. I don't know if I get your point here.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Sep 13, 2012)

RightWinger hates "truthers" because they undermine the God he worships: Government (Taxes Be Upon Him).

I hope he isn't thinking of hijacking planes and flying them into Truther Rallies.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 13, 2012)

Mad Scientist said:


> RightWinger hates "truthers" because they undermine the God he worships: Government (Taxes Be Upon Him).
> 
> *I hope he isn't thinking of hijacking planes and flying them into Truther Rallies*.



Can you fit a plane in someones basement?


----------



## tjvh (Sep 13, 2012)

emptystep said:


> If I simply came up to you on the street and showed you this picture and said, "This is what a 1452 ft building looks like after it got hit by a plane." What would you say? "Oh, of course it is."?



What do you expect? A 1452 foot building is not a *solid* structure, we are only talking a few feet max of material for every floor... The rest is hollow, you know... So people can *actually* fit inside it. Jeeezus.


----------



## tjvh (Sep 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > RightWinger hates "truthers" because they undermine the God he worships: Government (Taxes Be Upon Him).
> ...



If you chop it up enough, easily.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 13, 2012)

The funniest part of these debates is watching people think they actually know anything about what happened. Whether you believe the official story or one of several other theories (conspiracy one included) that have been around for the last number of years.

The fact remains that no one knows what happened and if here are people out there who  do, they aren't talking.


----------



## Toro (Sep 13, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> The funniest part of these debates is watching people think they actually know anything about what happened. Whether you believe the official story or one of several other theories (conspiracy one included) that have been around for the last number of years.
> 
> The fact remains that no one knows what happened and if here are people out there who  do, they aren't talking.



We know what happened.  19 al Qaeda terrorists flew planes into buildings.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 13, 2012)

yeah, that is a possibiility. Yet it does not even begin to explain what actually happened that day. I already asked you to explain one anomaly in this thread. It's the only one I'm going to bother with. If you can explain it, in conjunction with 19 Al Qaeda flew planes into buildings, then we can have more discussion. Until then, you don't know fucking head from ass on this subject.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > RightWinger hates "truthers" because they undermine the God he worships: Government (Taxes Be Upon Him).
> ...



Someone's mother's basement.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 13, 2012)

ERGO said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > I don't hate twoofers.  I just laugh at them.
> ...


the previous is a classic twooferism....funny how the mentally ill say the same thing when their delusions are pointed out.


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Why do you pretend to speak for victims families.. asshole
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzC3QI8JenU]Vote for Answers - YouTube[/ame]

They can speak for themselves...


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2012)

tjvh said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > If I simply came up to you on the street and showed you this picture and said, "This is what a 1452 ft building looks like after it got hit by a plane." What would you say? "Oh, of course it is."?
> ...



how stupid can you get....pathetic


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 13, 2012)

eots said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Yea...

Tell victims families that their loved one did not die in the crash. Call them suckers

All truthers are scum


----------



## daws101 (Sep 13, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Stranger?
> ...


 does the pic have a date?
can you prove that no demo work had been done prior to that pic being taken?
also that pinched looked  could have been caused by impact from the debris..can you present data that shows that pinched beam's original position?  

 then you make an unsupportable statement :"Unless conventional controlled demolition can manage this from across the street, or falling debris can manage this, there is no explanation for this steel I-beams molecular behavior." TA S B...
1. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A CD CONVENTIONAL OR UN CONVENTIONAL, that makes it a specious assumption. 
the last part of your statement is argument by anomaly....and it's a fiction.
a factual answer would be,  at the time the pic was taken there was no explanation for the pinch.
 then you give it a pseudoscience twist by inferring that some forces other then heat, weight speed, impact, did the damage.

if you had'nt already noticed TASB is a twoofer...


----------



## daws101 (Sep 13, 2012)

eots said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > emptystep said:
> ...


 so you think that the wtc buildings were solid?

the only stupidity shown here is your answer


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



but family members have been the a huge part of 911 truth  and the majority do not believe the official story...but you hate the victims families...just like glen

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf33g9ep4YU]Glenn Beck: "I hate 9/11 victims families for asking questions" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Sep 13, 2012)

eots said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


you're right "
family members have been the a huge part of 911 truth...eots 
but a tiny fraction of the 911 victims families ......


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2012)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > tjvh said:
> ...



no, I think they were steel framed buildings and as NIST concedes.. no steel framed building ever collapsed from fire before 911 and has not and never will since


----------



## daws101 (Sep 13, 2012)

eots said:


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


and as always you'd be wrong....unless you're psychic...we all know how well they did in predicting 911


----------



## daws101 (Sep 13, 2012)

eots said:


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


 why is it you constantly leave out the other main causes of the wtc collapses , like passenger jets with heavy fuel loads slamming in to the towers at max speed damaging core and other support columns?
even in your pinhole pov that has to be different then just fire....


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 13, 2012)

eots said:


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



Who cares?

Obviously you don't. You can't even get off your ass to protest what you claim to be the worst government abuse of its people in history

But you are content to post internet videos on an anonymous message board


----------



## Politico (Sep 13, 2012)

And another three pages of copy and paste. Carry on loons.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 13, 2012)

daws101 said:


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



Yes, there is a date to the photo. You can find that out from FEMA. Without running a search, I believe it wasa taken in mid/late September 2001.  
Demolition work does not occur until damage assessment is complete. If there was demolition that took place before the photo was taken, what type of demolition equipment could have been used to produce the state at which the steel I-beam is in from the photo?

I never said there was evidence to support conventional demolition. The point is that neither controlled demolition or falling debris can account for this steel beams condition. I make no assertion what could have caused this to happen. That's the entire point. You're, as you've done in the past, attempting to pin a conclusion on a question.

If you're suggesting that this steel I-beam was installed with a shrivel wilt and was also flattened and pinched off at the end, that would be against code, the beam would have been declared compromised and scrapped from construction. For more reasons than one.


----------



## Toro (Sep 13, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> yeah, that is a possibiility. Yet it does not even begin to explain what actually happened that day. I already asked you to explain one anomaly in this thread. It's the only one I'm going to bother with. If you can explain it, in conjunction with 19 Al Qaeda flew planes into buildings, then we can have more discussion. Until then, you don't know fucking head from ass on this subject.



I did not read it. I don't care. I can't imagine it's any different than what I've read before from twoofers. Been there, done that. It's boring.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 13, 2012)

And, no, that beam can not attain that condition from falling debris. The assertion is completely prepostrous beyond all measure.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 13, 2012)

Toro said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > yeah, that is a possibiility. Yet it does not even begin to explain what actually happened that day. I already asked you to explain one anomaly in this thread. It's the only one I'm going to bother with. If you can explain it, in conjunction with 19 Al Qaeda flew planes into buildings, then we can have more discussion. Until then, you don't know fucking head from ass on this subject.
> ...



Yeah, I'm bored too. Bored of running turds over on this subject. I don't know, you don't know and not single other soul in here opening their mouth regarding this subject KNOW what happened that day. End of story.


----------



## Toro (Sep 13, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Yeah, that's right. Aliens from space might have fired a beam at the towers. Could be, could be. 

If you want to get into a first year college philosophy discussion - How do we know we all exist? - about what *exactly* happened that day, be my guest. 19 guys with box cutters hijacked four planes and crashed them into buildings, but because we can't account for every fucking acorn that fell to the ground that day, well, Bush was behind 9/11!  

Nobody gives a shit anymore. Everyone thinks you guys are loons. You're not worth the time. 

(Except maybe for eots. He's OK.)


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 13, 2012)

Right. Not worth the time so you come here to spend time n it. 

"Everyone thinks you guys are loons." 

I never claimed conclusions. But im pretty certain that if someone did plan this event from within our own government, the last person to know about it would be the smirking chimp. He's about as useful as a sack of dog shit.

Aliens from space? 

You guys are funny. It's like watching a bunch of retards trying to hump a door knob.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 13, 2012)

Toro said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



I don't know what happened, but I do know what DIDN'T happen; our government did not have a hand in the attacks.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 13, 2012)

If by government you mean the entire never ending, giant of administrators and do gooders, you'd have a pretty sound assertion, but otherwise we dont know. Frankly, as Toro said, it doesn't amtter anymore anyway.


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 13, 2012)

eots said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Roll a joint and chill out, rightwinger is a good guy.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 13, 2012)

martybegan said:


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



excellent rebuttal. thanks for proving it for me that you trolls in denial can only fling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls you are,run away when asked to counter evidence and facts.awesome.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 13, 2012)

PredFan said:


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



Actually brainwashed Bush dupe Pred fan has me on ignore  because he knows he cant counter any of my evidence and facts presented to him.Like the chickenshit coward he is,he always ran off anytime I proved his ramblings wrong in the past and just flung insults when I proved him wrong.

 Like all Bush dupes afraid of the truth,he wont try and counter the facts presented in that five minute video.He knows he cant.  agent Rightwinger loves trolls like Predfan because he knows he can brainwash him with his lies since he knows Predfan is afraid of the truth about government conspiracys such as 9/11 and the Jfk assassination.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 13, 2012)

Wildcard said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Well, another 9-11 has come and gone and our Truthers have done their typical cut and paste of nonsensical truther videos. Conspiracy theorists are mostly harmless and it is fun watching them spin their yarns.
> ...






Roll a joint and chill out, rightwinger is a good guy.


You haven't debunked jack squat. You're a legend in your own silly low IQ mind. 

Yeah Toto has debunked many things thats why he always runs off with his tail between his legs EVERYTIME and never takes you up on your challenges to counter evidence and facts in videos or links,never even trys.Yet he has the logic he debunks us.comedy gold.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 13, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


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



yes, posting edited videos on the internet are "facts"

Again, paranoid dolt.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 13, 2012)

ERGO said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > ERGO said:
> ...



You hit the nail right on the head.Trolls afraid of the truth like Predfan and Toto they wont watch any videos you present them because they are so much in denial.Like you said,they are afraid they will see something in there that will prove them wrong and they cant counter so they'll never take you up on your challenge to try and debunk the information in that video.

whats really funny about those pics they posted claiming its the engine is the airliner itself said those parts are not parts from an airliner.

they also ignore the facts that  the debris was not the typical debris of an airliner,that an airliner would have scorched the grass which wasnt scored at all as the photos prove or that expert pilots have said they could never have pulled off those amazing feats of flying those airliners like the government said they did and yet this was done by some alleged muslins who couldnt even fly a cessna. 

agent Rightwinger just debunked himself with that Photo.That airliner also has said that alleged debris on the grass is not from that kind of airliner the government says it was either.lol.I love it.

Oh and it also doesnt matter to them that high ranking military officers have said  there is no way the official version could be true.You post some video of a high ranking military office saying he doesnt accept the official version and they'll just say that guy isnt real.That he isnt a military officer.thats how they dismiss high ranking credible people.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 13, 2012)

martybegan said:


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



ah as usuaul,the chickenshit coward runs off and refuses to try and counter them cause like the coward he is,he is afraid.Thanks for proving me right thats how frady cat Bush dupes always operate.

oh and since you dont want to use the internet,fine with me.read the book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING,AN ANSWER TO POPULAR MECAHNICS AND OTHER DEFENDERS OF THE OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY and refute the facts in them,you cant,you'll do the cowardly thing that Toto always does,run off and wont take the challenge as we both know since your in denial and afraid.


We saw the planes hit the Towers and investigation indicates overwhelming evidence of the motivation by the jihad. It is so heartbreaking to see a video of a person dressed in a business suit flying through the air to his death because he had to choose between burning to death and suicide before his second cup of coffee on a pretty morning in September 2001. Does any rational person who was born and raised in the greatest Country in the world think that there is some phantom American network that intentionally caused this abomination? It's crazy to try to find a conspiracy theory to justify blaming America for 9-11. 


Like the conspiracy theory of the governments that you have been brainwashed to believe in that 19 muslins were behind it?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> As usual, truthers turn the thread into a bunch of videos and debunked links on buildings, free fall and controlled demos
> 
> 9-11 was about people. People who suffered, people who heroically fought off terrorists and people who ultimately died
> 
> ...



as usual the frady cat Bush dupes ran off from the facts and evidence in the videos like the cowards they are since they know they cant counter them.


To show you don't know what the hell you're talking
To answer #1 It wasn't flight 93 that was alleged to have crashed into the Pentagon it was flight # 77 that was alleged to have crashed into the Pentagon...."who were the bodies of flight 93 recovered?" doesn't make any sense.

#2 some people jumped because of the fires. Your question makes no sense. Why would people stay in building if they knew it was rigged for demo, why bother showing up for work.

#3 Yes, what did happen to them? They never found any body parts at the crash site in Shankville...so what's your point? 
__________________
He has no point.Like always,agent Rightwinger gets his ass handed to him on a platter.He shot down his own arguments himself with his own questions as you just proved.see why this guy is such a joke?.

He ignores how there were never any seats or luggage or tail section found and how the FBI illegally confiscated cameras from a gas station across the street.whats really funny though is he is such an idiot he cant figure out that with over a hundred cameras in the pentagon,that it would have recorded more than just five flimsy pics of an alleged airliner hitting the pentagon and those photos dont prove an airliner hit the pentagon either.

You have no room to talk! 
whats funny about hypocrite Toto telling YOU that you need to get a life,is that in HIS life,he ignores reality.


HAHAHA you're so full of shit!
You're smarter than me? You sound pretty stupid to me. What are you a paid internet troll? 

You have seen the light on Toto.

PBS anyone?
Video: 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out | Watch Colorado Public Television Presents Online | Colorado Public Television / KBDI 12 Video 
 thats an excellent video but dont expect these trolls to watch it.


so basically you hate truthers because they speak unspeakable truths...there where no body parts..and it is hard to believe that cross contamination would allow for positive identifications of all the passengers as claimed ..graves are symbolic and what they represents is not a sham but the fact is they do not contain body parts and any dna identification is highly questionable and there is evidence to suggest a shoot down occured 



Like WTC 7?

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building  since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the buildings imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option.

Shame On Jesse Ventura! | Fox News 

Bld 7 is what they always dodge all the time.they ignore the facts that all three buildings that collapsed that day were all owned by larry silverstein and none of the others that did not collapse were.you got to love the logic of the frady cat Bush dupes.comedy gold.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 13, 2012)

Toro said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > The funniest part of these debates is watching people think they actually know anything about what happened. Whether you believe the official story or one of several other theories (conspiracy one included) that have been around for the last number of years.
> ...



Only idiots like you who ignore evidence and facts believe that fairy tale.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 13, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Keep blathering, you are still an idiot.  I just like watching dolts like you foam and repeat the same bullshit over and over.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 13, 2012)

martybegan said:


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



Like clockwork,the cowardly coward runs off when asked to refute evidence and facts. Like clockwork,the coward like all Bush dupe cowards, runs away from that challenge,No surprise,happens EVERYTIME with you frady cat deniars.you guys are the ones that are amusing the way you run off from challenges and wont even try to counter the facts or evidence we give you and ignore reality. 

you guys would be laughed out of a debating hall in SECONDS if you debated the same way there that you do here.you know it,i know it.

Have fun talking to yourself troll.Im done with you.I dont debate with frady cats who are too afraid to even try and counter the facts and can just fling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls you are. never fails.run marty run.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 13, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


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



its not a debate when you make shit up and ignore evidence that is not part of your fairy tale opinion of how the world works. 

Fuck off and Die.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 13, 2012)

martybegan said:


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



ah I hurt the trolls feelings.poor baby.The truth hurts the troll so he attacks the messenger instead of trying to counter the facts.How convenient for the troll. 

I really struck a nerve with  the troll today and really hurt his feelings now that he is throwing a tantrem.Looks like the truth  hurts.ah poor baby.Ive hurt and humilated the troll enough today.dont want to hurt his feelings anymore than i already have so I'll stop. for today anyways. 

same pattern of the trolls.attack the messenger and dont try and counter the facts presented.Typical of the Bush dupes afraid of the truth.too easy for them to do.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 13, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


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



Acutally its because every time you respond to one of my posts, it prevents you, for a few seconds, for spreading your drivel around to less intelligent people, who might fall for your bullshit.


----------



## Toro (Sep 13, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



FTR, 9/11 inside nutjob thought this was a real video.

[youtube]Q_OIXfkXEj0[/youtube]


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 13, 2012)

HAHAHA you're so full of shit!
You're smarter than me? You sound pretty stupid to me. What are you a paid internet troll? 

I see that you have seen Toto for the true troll he is.

Pretty easy to see as you just found out.


----------



## Toro (Sep 13, 2012)

Another awesome 9/11 inside nutjob moment was when he said "Americans should worry about the murderers Cheney and Bush roaming free instead of little things *like their children.*"



Damn, I wish I'd bookmarked that one.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 13, 2012)

9/11 inside job said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Yea...how STOOPID

Everyone knows it was da JEWS


----------



## PredFan (Sep 13, 2012)

martybegan said:


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



After a while it got so annoying I had to put him on ignore.


----------



## emptystep (Sep 13, 2012)

Toro, rightwinger, martybegan, predfan, or any other truth hater, do you believe the U.S. government has ever lied to the American public?


----------



## Toro (Sep 13, 2012)

emptystep said:


> Toro, rightwinger, martybegan, predfan, or any other truth hater, do you believe the U.S. government has ever lied to the American public?



Yes.

And I expect they will in the future.

The problem with the twoofers, and most conspiracy theorists in general, is that they take this simple fact, then make enormous logical leaps to arrive at their conclusion.  "The US government lied to us in the past so they are lying now" is and will always be a false premise.  Just because they've lied in the past does not mean they always lied and will always lie in the future.  Conspiracy theorists are willing to suspend disbelief towards the most improbable scenarios under this false premise.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 13, 2012)

emptystep said:


> Toro, rightwinger, martybegan, predfan, or any other truth hater, do you believe the U.S. government has ever lied to the American public?



Which leads us to the logical conclusion that our government pushed a button and sent thousands of citizens to their deaths


----------



## martybegan (Sep 13, 2012)

emptystep said:


> Toro, rightwinger, martybegan, predfan, or any other truth hater, do you believe the U.S. government has ever lied to the American public?



Of course they have, they lie every day when they tell us Social Security has a trust fund, they lie when they say Taxing the rich is the way to balance the budget, they lie when they say they are banning 32 oz soft drinks will help fat people lose wieght. They lie when they pander to thier base by professing religion they probably dont really have. 

There is a large jump between lying to placate people and keep your job, and being able to pull off what would be the greatest flim flam ever done in the history of mankind (assuming you troofer nuts are actually right on one of your 3000 different versions of what happened.)


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2012)

martybegan said:


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



my guess you are another one that does not even know the details of the official reports and is in no position to debate anything


----------



## martybegan (Sep 13, 2012)

eots said:


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



Unlike you i dont have the freaking time to delve into every crack and nano-scale inconsistency.  What I do see from my "5,000" foot view is that no truther has ever given, in thier own words, in type on this board, a chain of events that both debunks 100% what actually happened, and proves beyond a reasonable doubt thier single timeline version of what happened. 

I have zero respect for the "spaghetti on the wall" approach where someone says it could have been drones, or it was missiles, or it was actual planes but there were controlled demolitions and doesnt pick just a single explanation they then try to defend without the youtube hemmorage we usually get.


----------



## Wroberson (Sep 13, 2012)

Well,

After the 1993 bombing, the building(s) were deemed unsafe and had to come down.  Then after the 1999-2000 Iraqi oil map was drawn up by Saddam Hussein allowing everyone but the US to drill and explore, the map needed to be changed.

the problem with the average truther is that they fail to have a motive.


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2012)

martybegan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



So to you reading and understanding the official reports is .._.every crack and nano-scale . _


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2012)

Wroberson said:


> Well,
> 
> After the 1993 bombing, the building(s) were deemed unsafe and had to come down.  Then after the 1999-2000 Iraqi oil map was drawn up by Saddam Hussein allowing everyone but the US to drill and explore, the map needed to be changed.
> 
> the problem with the average truther is that they fail to have a motive.



physics does not require motive...


----------



## martybegan (Sep 13, 2012)

eots said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



i read them two or three times a while ago. You also ignored the second part of my post. Where is your detailed timeline and explanation of how YOU think everything went down.


----------



## eots (Sep 13, 2012)

martybegan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



how I think everything came down ??...that would be pure speculation...what is not speculation is NIST lied about reported explosions..molten metal..and free fall...the investigation was a cover up ...their dishonesty is obvious..their explanation is highly impassible, their methods highly questionable


----------



## eots (Sep 14, 2012)

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

Dr. Quintiere said he originally &#8220;had high hopes&#8221; that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. &#8220;They&#8217;re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what* I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], *which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And *I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information.* What prevented all of this? I think it&#8217;s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, *those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.&#8221;*

&#8220;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.*


----------



## martybegan (Sep 14, 2012)

eots said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



STILL have not answered my question. Give me an alternative method, just as detailed as the official reports that can explain what happened. 

All this reported explosions, molten metal, and free fall crap results from nit-picking one set of data points to the exlcusion of all others.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 14, 2012)

eots said:


> OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
> 
> Dr. Quintiere said he originally had high hopes that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. Theyre the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what* I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], *which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And *I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information.* What prevented all of this? I think its the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, *those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.*
> 
> 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.*



So basically they didnt get the answer you were looking for, so they are wrong. 

STILL no alternative explanation that is linear, exclusive, and plausible.


----------



## eots (Sep 14, 2012)

martybegan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



your question was answered..and reported explosions.. molten metal and free fall is not .._nit picking data points_.. and to say so is ludicrous
if you want some expert speculation on the use of explosives I would refer you to this 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg]Tom Sullivan - Explosives Technician - Loader - AE911Truth.org - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw1Lh7lYMNo]WTC 7 COLLAPSE REVIEWED BY DEMOLITION EXPERT 1 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## martybegan (Sep 14, 2012)

eots said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Unless you answer my question, I will not continue with this. Take what you got in the videos and give me a compelling explanation of how you think it actually happened. 

But you cant, cause people like you can only critisize, not come up with your own thoughtsn on it.


----------



## eots (Sep 14, 2012)

martybegan said:


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



I am simple reporting the concerns of the former NIST lead fire investigator


----------



## eots (Sep 14, 2012)

martybegan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



you are just rambling..i think nist failed and is involved in an intentional cover up of this controlled event


----------



## tjvh (Sep 14, 2012)

Wroberson said:


> Well,
> 
> After the 1993 bombing, the building(s) were deemed unsafe and had to come down.  Then after the 1999-2000 Iraqi oil map was drawn up by Saddam Hussein allowing everyone but the US to drill and explore, the map needed to be changed.
> 
> the problem with the average truther is that they fail to have a motive.



And please don't forget that France (for one) made a *cushy* deal with Saddam for Oil (for food) all the while NATO *steadfastly denied* Iraq was breaking any sanctions... Have you read UN1441? *No... I didn't think so*... It *clearly* states that a WMD was defined (for one) as a missile having a range greater than *150Km* which was *not* a weapon Saddam was *ALLOWED to have* after the first Gulf War.... Some of us (who weren't asleep at the switch) knew that the *Al Samoud 2 Missile was in clear violation of UNSCOM 1441*. Google it numbskulls. For whatever reason George Bush said Iraq "did not have WMD's" in a press conference, even though History has shown that statement to be entirely *FALSE*. Why he said that... *I'll never know.* If it proves ONE thing -it's that I am not a party line Republican, by any means. That was the day my respect for GW Bush went off kilter. The lunacy that claims that the second time America (and a coalition of *more* Nations than Liberated Kuwait) invaded Iraq was about Oil is grossly incompetent... Were it about Oil we should be seeing 99 cent/ gallon at the pump... Sadly those days are gone. Something people fail to grasp is that China in the last decade has forsaken the bicycle in lieu of gasoline burning automobiles... This should come as no surprise. The lunacy I have found *is* in Americans who put party before country. The idea that 9/11 was *something more* than a bunch of Terrorists who exploited a weakness in our defenses is *astounding*. I had a friend who died in the Pentagon that day, and I assure you... It was no conspiracy. My cousins husband thankfully *escaped harm* in NYC that day as well. Airplanes hit buildings with FULL tanks of fuel which ignited fires which compromised bolts, beams, and welds... *GRAVITY* did the rest. The bottom line (*sorry for the necessary rant*) is the moment the Saudi's allowed *us infidels* on their soil way back in 1991, America was doomed to join the *ever expanding list of counties Islamic zealots feel as their enemies*, simply because Saudi Arabia had forsaken the Q'uran by allowing *infidels* to wage war upon their soil, and the moment one "innocent" perished it lent credence to those who commit abominable acts... *This:* the Q'uran views the killing civilians as unacceptable and unjustifiable. Once America climbed down into the Rabbit hole... There was no turning back. Sadly... All the diplomacy in the world can not reason with an unreasonable Religion... We slept with dogs, now we have fleas... Unfortunately *we cannot eradicate this by time and feel good monetary gifts*, and the coddling of those who view *US* as their enemy. Sadly... This business of the WOT is going to be passed on to future Generations who know nothing of this now... Forget the Truthers, the Birthers, and the Romney Tax Returners...Although it might be nice to see Obama's College transcripts... Who is to blame... Maybe ALL of us... One thing both Democrats, and Republicans should be aware of by now, is that you cannot reason with Religions ... And that is absolutely fucking that.


----------



## Synthaholic (Sep 14, 2012)

emptystep said:


> Well good morning to you too.
> 
> Here's a challenge. Post a single video of a building falling down from structural damage that even slightly resembles how any one of the towers fell.


How many buildings have a tube-within-tube design?




> The impact severs some columns on the north side of the North Tower.  Each tower is designed as a tube-in-tube structure and the steel  columns which support its weight are arranged around the perimeter and  in the core. The plane, which weighs 283,600 lb and is traveling at an  estimated speed of around 430 mph (see October 2002-October 2005),  severs 35 of the buildings 236 perimeter columns and damages another  two. The damage to the South Towers perimeter will be similar (see 9:03 a.m. September 11, 2001). [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 5-9, 20, 22
> 
> ]  The perimeter columns bear about half of the towers weight, so this  damage reduces its ability to bear gravity loads by about 7.5 percent. [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 6
> 
> ...



Complete 911 Timeline: Bush's Actions on 9/11


----------



## goshinj (Sep 14, 2012)

If you are just now realizing that you can't reason with religion(s) then you may have some slight learning issues, possibly.  Listen to this, the attacks happened, that  is a fact, there are no conspiracy theories or bullshit stories that you guys can come up with that can make people change their minds. Please respect this day and remember the lives lost and courage given by so many. Get out of your granny's basement room and do something productive Have a wonderful day.......................


----------



## Politico (Sep 14, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a challenge. Post a single video of a building falling down from structural damage that even slightly resembles how any one of the towers fell.
> ...



I said the same thing. Don't hold your breath. There's no point in bothering. You'll just get a dozen more pages of the same old pasted videos.


----------



## eots (Sep 14, 2012)

goshinj said:


> if you are just now realizing that you can't reason with religion(s) then you may have some slight learning issues, possibly.  Listen to this, the attacks happened, that  is a fact, there are no conspiracy theories or bullshit stories that you guys can come up with that can make people change their minds. Please respect this day and remember the lives lost and courage given by so many. Get out of your granny's basement room and do something productive have a wonderful day.......................



guaranteed another one that has  little  or no idea what the official conclusions are and how they where determined
...guaranteed


----------



## eots (Sep 14, 2012)

Politico said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > emptystep said:
> ...



WTC 7 did not have a _tube-within-tube design_ and the towers where designed to take multiple strikes from commercial aircraft

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fQlC2AIWrY]WTC Towers Designed to Withstand Impact of Loaded Boeing 707 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 14, 2012)

Politico said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > emptystep said:
> ...



which you cowardly trolls always run off from everytime we give you the challlenge to debunk them and explain whats wrong with the information contained. 


my guess you are another one that does not even know the details of the official reports and is in no position to debate anything 


well thats pretty obvious.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 14, 2012)

eots said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You'll hurt his feelings since he cant counter the information in those videos and he'll have just throw a temper tantrem and  cuss you out since the truth hurts knowing  he cant counter anything and of course pretend like you never answered his question. 

Refer him to read Griffins book which answers pretty much all questions and shreads to pieces the official version and the coward troll will just come back and have a temper tantrem and cuss you out since the truth scares him and wont take you up on the challenge to debunk it.It never fails with all these Bush dupe trolls.They do that EVERYTIME.

Just once I would like to see one of these loyal  Bush dupes on the computer who isnt afraid of the truth and will take you up on the challenge to read the book and at least TRY and  debunk it.Has never once happened in the over hundred or so of them that i have asked to do that in 11 years. never will.

oh and dont expect marty troll to watch the 2 videos since they dont go  along with his version of events and remember,they have no interest in hearing what a demolition expert has to say.cant have that.

these Bush dupes should start a comedy club.their logic kills me how they think NIST can do no wrong even though they were caught red handed lying saying there was no molten steel found  when several credible people reported seeing it all over. You got to love their warped logic they embrace.

NIST did not lie and is honest but demolition experts like Tom Sullivan and Danny Jowenko dont know what they are talking about.makes me roll on the floor laughing everytime. I dont think these people even bother to read what they post and say.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 14, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Right. Not worth the time so you come here to spend time n it.
> 
> "Everyone thinks you guys are loons."
> 
> ...


you never claimed conclusions? ...then whats this?:" But im pretty certain that if someone did plan this event from within our own government, the last person to know about it would be the smirking chimp. He's about as useful as a sack of dog shit."- TASB
In that statement alone you've made two conclusions , you have no credible evidence to corroborate them.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 14, 2012)

You're not very bright, I see. That's alright. YOu'll still be in here not being so bright this time next year when I'm willing to entertain this topic.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 14, 2012)

eots said:


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


damn funny coming from you...as you constantly leave out or intentionally mis interpret details of those same documents..
or you are just stupid...


----------



## eots (Sep 14, 2012)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



really...name one


----------



## daws101 (Sep 14, 2012)

eots said:


> Wroberson said:
> 
> 
> > Well,
> ...


bahahahahahahahahahaha!
the most asinine statement  by a twoofer ever!


----------



## eots (Sep 14, 2012)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Wroberson said:
> ...



care to elaborate...or is just another of your meaningless vague statements
are you trying to imply physics does require a motive ?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 14, 2012)

eots said:


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


Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion?
The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

need more?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 14, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> You're not very bright, I see. That's alright. YOu'll still be in here not being so bright this time next year when I'm willing to entertain this topic.


your answer just screams dodge......


----------



## eots (Sep 14, 2012)

daws101 said:


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



need more ? all you did was cut and paste a NIST FAQ sheet


----------



## daws101 (Sep 14, 2012)

eots said:


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


I'm not implying shit ....
your quip is meaningless...physics has fuck all to do with WHY 911 happened and everything to do with WHAT happened. 
I sometimes forget that you have comprehension issues..

but to answer your nearly as asinine second statement  YES.
For the laws of physics to change or be broken as you're always whining about, some sort of opposing force (motivation) must be applied = "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"
so as always your imagined cleverness is not.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 14, 2012)

eots said:


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


that's all I needed to do.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 14, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > Well good morning to you too.
> ...



Its funny this propaganda piece was  even been posted because the credibility of the NIST report has been shot to hell since like i just got done saying, they were caught red handed lying saying there were no pools of molten metal found when several firefighters reported seeing molten metal everywhere. so posting this garbage is all pretty pointless.

I could post those videos where the lead investigater of NIST said that and eyewitnesses reporting they saw molten metal as well by why bother since it will just go ignored.

I love their lies they came up with as well saying just a few columns being knocked out caused it to collapse.
 they also conveintly forgot to mention that after the 93 bombing the fireproofing was reinforced even much more so not to come off because of fires.

These three videos that Eots posted earlier debunk the lies and propaganda of NIST as well.




This last one below REALLY shreads to pieces the lies and propaganda of the NIST report.The 9/11 apologist trolls like clockwork, wont watch it of course since they are too afraid to look at the facts.


I love how all the news reporters said bld 7 was struturally unsafe so thats why it was going to collapse.what they forget to point out that I have said thousands of times before and always go ignored though is that there were other buildings much closer to to the towers that had damage that was far more extensive than bld 7 hit by debris so they had far more structral damage done to them yet they did not collapse.

The trolls here of course embrace the theory that it was just a mere coincidence that all three towers that collapsed were all owned by Larry Silverstein and all the other buildings that did not collapse were not.Just a major coincidence according to all the trolls here that worship the 9/11 coverup commission.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 14, 2012)

eots said:


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



Like clockwork,as usual,Dawgshit gets his ass handed to him on a platter.But what else is new?

They sure pay him well for the constant humiliation and ass beatings he gets here everyday.No way would he keep coming back for this punishment everyday for free.


----------



## eots (Sep 14, 2012)

daws101 said:


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



No it is not...but you are lazy and not to bright and do the minimum required to get your pay check...dont lie


----------



## daws101 (Sep 14, 2012)

eots said:


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


 the only liar here is you...
and that post proves it.
you also lie when you posted thiese little gems "  post #158..  post#160
post#38   from http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-documentary-among-most-watched-on-pbs-3.html


----------



## Synthaholic (Sep 14, 2012)

eots said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...




When the towers were designed, did they account for fuel?

What was the fuel capacity in early 1970 planes?

Has airline fuel changed since the early 1970s?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 14, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...




as usual,you 9/11 apologists dont watch the videos anytime we show them to you.all your questions are irrelevent because if you had bothered to watch the video you would have heard how he said it was designed to take hits from MULTIPLE airliners.

the proof is in the pudding from the films as well that the majority of the explosion took place OUTSIDE the towers when they hit the towers.the fires were not intense at all.They werent hot enough to melt a marshmellow let along weaken the steel. we know that because the photos show a women leaning on the steel frames waving the towel out thw window for help.If they were serious at all,she wouldnt have been able to do that.

Oh and just a couple of columns of steel being knocked out  cant cause a steel tower to collapse at free fall speed.

oh and finally.yes they anticipcated it as well of AIRLINERS slamming into the towers and jet fuel fires happening.the lead designer said there would be a great loss of lives but the struture itself would remain standing. 

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. 3   


9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters

again posting that propaganda NIST report is pointless since NIST has no credibility in the fact they LIED about there being no pools of molten metal amongst other things as well.

anymore pointless and irrelevent questions?


----------



## eots (Sep 14, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...



fuel is a none issue...NIST coincides the fuel was burned off in the initial fire ball and from that point in was a office contents on fire..firemen made in to the impact area and reported no fires they could not control


----------



## eots (Sep 14, 2012)

daws101 said:


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



you are pathetic agent... incapable of responding to anything specific..you should be ashamed to collect a check for the substandard work you do


----------



## martybegan (Sep 14, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...



One thing I always love about truthers, it takes two people who usually fight tooth an nail against each other on other topics, and brings us together. 

They wont answer the question, just post videos of other people doing the "thinking" for them.


----------



## Synthaholic (Sep 14, 2012)

eots said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


Thanks - I was just asking the questions, not "apologizing" for anything.


----------



## Synthaholic (Sep 14, 2012)

Just for the record: I'm not a truther, nor do I buy everything we were told by the Bushies.

I still have a lot of unanswered questions.  For instance:

It's a fact that all the security cameras in the area of the Pentagon had their video confiscated by authorities, whether it was a nearby gas station, bank, etc.

Why?  And why haven't we seen any of that footage?

Shit like that makes me very suspicious.


----------



## emptystep (Sep 14, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> You're not very bright, I see. That's alright. YOu'll still be in here not being so bright this time next year when I'm willing to entertain this topic.



Are you thinking that thermite was not used? From the way I see it thermite was definitely used, or something similar. Of course something was used in addition to that.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 14, 2012)

Thermite is a cutter charge. I is possible that a variety of thermite was used during the clean up of what didn't turn to dust to cut beams. Do I THINK that thermite was used to demo the buildings? No.


----------



## emptystep (Sep 14, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Thermite is a cutter charge. I is possible that a variety of thermite was used during the clean up of what didn't turn to dust to cut beams. Do I THINK that thermite was used to demo the buildings? No.



What about the sounds coming from the building as they were going down. Granted it does not explain the lack of material but it looks like there was redundancy in the demolition.


----------



## Wroberson (Sep 14, 2012)

eots said:


> Wroberson said:
> 
> 
> > Well,
> ...



But a conspiracy does.

Who says, physics doesn;t have a motive?

Let's look at the photon and how it changes from a wave to a particle when it is observed.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 14, 2012)

emptystep said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Thermite is a cutter charge. I is possible that a variety of thermite was used during the clean up of what didn't turn to dust to cut beams. Do I THINK that thermite was used to demo the buildings? No.
> ...



There was no seismic activity that would indicate that the building was demo'ed. Hell, there isn't even enough seismic activity to account for the "collapse"! Must be the seismic readers took that day off like the military, the FAA, physics, thermodynamics and common sense! Chalk it up to another coincidence!


----------



## emptystep (Sep 14, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Yeah, I saw that. Did you see the photos with the sparks falling down the side of the building? Any thoughts on that? One place said molten metal was found another said not.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 14, 2012)

I've seen 10+ years of every piece of evidence on this available in the digital world as well as having analyzed (with a good buddy who is way more into metallurgy than I ) steel from the complex presumably belonging to building 2.

I can not explain the sparks. All I can tell you is that in order to really see what's happening, sometimes you have to abandon your perceived paradigm of belief.


----------



## eots (Sep 14, 2012)

Wroberson said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Wroberson said:
> ...



we are talking Engineering  / Mechanical Physics not theoretical quantum physics Einstein


----------



## emptystep (Sep 14, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> I've seen 10+ years of every piece of evidence on this available in the digital world as well as having analyzed (with a good buddy who is way more into metallurgy than I ) steel from the complex presumably belonging to building 2.
> 
> I can not explain the sparks. All I can tell you is that in order to really see what's happening, sometimes you have to abandon your perceived paradigm of belief.



I think I see and believe what you are referring to. The location of the image you posted was the site that I read about the missing material. It's the most logical explanation from what I know. It just seems that in addition to that thermite was used.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 14, 2012)

emptystep said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > emptystep said:
> ...



Really, though. If you're looking for answers to the events of 9/11 because things don't make sense. Just rest assured knowing that you're not alone in realizing that shit does not add up. But you'll never find that easter egg, brother. Because if is tossed deep into a mountain of toxic waste and buried somewhere beyond grasp.

There are many things I can not explain regarding 9/11. And the fact of the matter is, I probably never will be able to explain them. Life has moved on in this direction and we're not going to go back and change it now. Or even stop it by knowing the truth of the events.


----------



## eots (Sep 14, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



A public awareness of the facts of 9/11 ,the ensuing cover-up and propaganda techniques utilized could be important to deter to  future events of this nature


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 14, 2012)

How can you possibly deter that which you can not explain? Furthermore, there are very few who see that shit isn't right on this event. Cover-ups, propaganda, etc...been happening since the dawn of man. We'll never learn, dude. We'll always get blind sided.

Awareness requires understanding. And we don't have shit but theory.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Sep 17, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Well we do know the official accounting is a cover up, and that the anomalies of the demise of the WTC buildings do not make sense when subjected to laws of physics, and that the US intelligence prior to the 9-11 attacks concluded that Israel has/had the capability to conduct attacks and make it look like it was done by " Arab sources".
Israel is the only nation who benefited from these murderous acts, and their leaders have gone on record saying as much, and there were also plenty of Israeli firsters on the Bush staff, who held sensitive and authoritative positions that could have more easily facilitated such a false flag.
Now they want to grab the US by the leash, and attack yet another country based on BS assumptions and more fear mongering.
This should be enough for rational people to not trust what they are told regarding these things by their own governments "sources". 
So just because no one has come out and admitted to these atrocities, or the public is over run by apathy regarding it, doesn't mean we should shrug our shoulders and blow this off. Americans should learn from it, and apply the lessons from this event to other possibly similar future events, and not blindly follow lunatic "leaders" suggestions of sending our people off to die for fucking lies ever again.
We've all been had, this much should be obvious.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Sep 17, 2012)

> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > How can you possibly deter that which you can not explain?
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Sep 17, 2012)

TakeAStepBack said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



There are reports that circulated around concerning seismic activity. How much this is helpful in anyway is up for debate, but even the Pop Mech. disinformation hit piece had a go at 'debunking" it so...seismic activity logs must indeed exist.

_The collapse of the WTC towers generated large seismic waves observed in five states and up to 428 km away. _

https://www.google.com/search?q=sei...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


----------



## candycorn (Sep 18, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Well, another 9-11 has come and gone and our Truthers have done their typical cut and paste of nonsensical truther videos. Conspiracy theorists are mostly harmless and it is fun watching them spin their yarns.
> The problem with truthers is that their antics go beyond typical "Evil Gubment" rhetoric. If they stopped at the government knew about it and let it happen they would be relatively harmless. But when they get into Flight 93 didn't really crash in Shanksville and it was a missile that hit the Pentagon they are pissing on the graves of brave Americans.
> To imply that these planes didn't really crash and the passengers are being secretly held by the government is outright cruel to the victims families
> These families may have received some fragment of their loved one to bury and honor. It is all the closure they got. For truthers to tell them it is not their loved one they buried, that the government is playing a trick on them, that their loved one may still be alive is outright cruelty.
> ...



Very, very well put.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 18, 2012)

emptystep said:


> When I first heard theories that the planes did not bring down the towers I called the truthers crazy. Then I actually looked at what they said.
> 
> If you nothing about nothing and you saw a video of one of the towers falling and I told you that it was because of structural damage you would say that I was being ridicules.
> 
> I don't have any idea about the who, what, when, where, and why of it but the facts are the facts. Two five year olds do a better job of role playing when one points a finger at the other and says, "bang" and the other falls down.





> *I don't have any idea about the who, what, when, where, and why of it but the facts are the facts.*


Basically you've summed up why the twoofer movement has gone nowhere in 11 years.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 18, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> If truthers want to play conspiracy games with controlled demos and WTC 7, I don't really care
> 
> They are harmless games that conspiracy theorists play
> 
> ...






> I don't have any idea about the who, what, when, where, and why of it but the facts are the facts.



Beyond the who, what, when, where (although I think where is pretty self-explanatory) and why...the facts are on his side.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Sep 18, 2012)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > emptystep said:
> ...



So what dropped Building 7?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 18, 2012)

eots said:


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


if those post aren't  specific enough...then you must have nothing specific to say.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 18, 2012)

eots said:


> Wroberson said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


no, you are talking out your ass 
...
In physics, classical mechanics is one of the two major sub-fields of mechanics, which is concerned with the set of physical laws describing the motion of bodies under the action of a system of forces. The study of the motion of bodies is an ancient one, making classical mechanics one of the oldest and largest subjects in science, engineering and technology.

Classical mechanics describes the motion of macroscopic objects, from projectiles to parts of machinery, as well as astronomical objects, such as spacecraft, planets, stars, and galaxies. Besides this, many specializations within the subject deal with gases, liquids, solids, and other specific sub-topics. Classical mechanics provides extremely accurate results as long as the domain of study is restricted to large objects and the speeds involved do not approach the speed of light. When the objects being dealt with become sufficiently small, it becomes necessary to introduce the other major sub-field of mechanics, quantum mechanics, which reconciles the macroscopic laws of physics with the atomic nature of matter and handles the waveparticle duality of atoms and molecules. In the case of high velocity objects approaching the speed of light, classical mechanics is enhanced by special relativity. General relativity unifies special relativity with Newton's law of universal gravitation, allowing physicists to handle gravitation at a deeper level.


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2012)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Wroberson said:
> ...



you plageriarised  this....


----------



## daws101 (Sep 19, 2012)

eots said:


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


wrong as always ...just forgot....Classical mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
unlike yourself who still has not credited this:  
 " The AIA should be concerned that a modern, 47 floor, steel framed building, meeting all the applicable building codes in 1985 collapsed at free-fall acceleration for eight stories, uniform and symmetric across its length and breadth. This, the official story says, was due to a minor fire (by historical standards). 

In response, NIST developed 47 building and fire code recommendations and shepherded them through the standards process. Virtually all were related to firefighting like intercoms in the stairwells.

All of those that were related to structures were either not accepted by the appropriate committees or simply codified best practices already in-place throughout the industry. The closest NIST got to a structural code change was "the definition of the primary structural frame to be broadened to include bracing members essential to vertical whether or not they carry gravity loads." None  not one  were relevant to competent structural design and construction designed to prevent a catastrophic, accelerating, progressive collapse of a high-rise steel framed skyscraper. 

AIA members should be alarmed that no significant structural building codes emanated from this free-fall building collapse. Either unsafe, easily collapsed buildings are acceptable to AIA members ... or AIA members support the underlying fraudulent and misleading NIST reports ... or AIA members havent looked."- plagiarized  by EOTS.


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2012)

daws101 said:


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



lol...I posted it with the link you plagiarist moron


----------



## daws101 (Sep 19, 2012)

eots said:


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


now your just lying, this link Architects Shy From Trutherism - Architecture - Architect Magazine Page 1 of 3
 is the same one I originally posted and  you copied.
neither links to the the uncredited crap you posted .
as always you're  too much of a coward to own up!


----------



## daws101 (Sep 19, 2012)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-documentary-among-most-watched-on-pbs-3.html

post #34


----------



## eots (Sep 19, 2012)

daws101 said:


> http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-documentary-among-most-watched-on-pbs-3.html
> 
> post #34



thats the link you pathetic loser you simply do not know how to scroll down...lol...what a moron


----------



## daws101 (Sep 22, 2012)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-documentary-among-most-watched-on-pbs-3.html
> ...


right!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 22, 2012)

somone farted in here.Happened two times in a row before Eots last post as well.


----------



## eots (Sep 22, 2012)

daws101 said:


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



yes that is exactly right if you click the link scroll down you will see the the above piece...you see.. you post a portion of something then you post a link as to where it came from, you should try it some time..its not my fault you cant scroll down..really its not


----------



## Wyld Kard (Sep 24, 2012)

quote=rightwinger;5975664]





ERGO said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Did a plane crash into the Pentagon?
> ...



They did find the engines as well as the landing gear and American Airline fuselage. They also found body parts of the passengers

Why are you such a scumbag as to tell surviving family that it is not their loved ones?












[/QUOTE]






You are the FIRST dumb-ass to say that both engines were found.  

One engine was found and it is too small to have come from a Boeing 757.  Same deal for the landing gear, it is too small to have come from Boeing 757, and I bet you didn't know that a wheel hub was found as well, and guess what - it's too small as well.

They also found body parts?  100% BULLSHIT

There is NO PROOF of a plane ever hitting the Pentagon.  The engine found most likely came from a Global Hawk Airforce Drone.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 24, 2012)

Wildcard said:


> quote=rightwinger;5975664]
> 
> 
> 
> ...








You are the FIRST dumb-ass to say that both engines were found.  

One engine was found and it is too small to have come from a Boeing 757.  Same deal for the landing gear, it is too small to have come from Boeing 757, and I bet you didn't know that a wheel hub was found as well, and guess what - it's too small as well.

They also found body parts?  100% BULLSHIT

There is NO PROOF of a plane ever hitting the Pentagon.  The engine found most likely came from a Global Hawk Airforce Drone.[/QUOTE]





You have proof from Boeing or just Truther websites?

Of course all the pieces were from a Boeing 757 and the serial numbers match to the specific plane and the DNA matches to the passengers as well as luggage and personal effects

But you are too much scum to tell family members that the remains they buried do not belong to their loved ones

You sir, are despicable


----------



## Wyld Kard (Sep 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > quote=rightwinger;5975664]
> ...







You have proof from Boeing or just Truther websites?

Of course all the pieces were from a Boeing 757 and the serial numbers match to the specific plane and the DNA matches to the passengers as well as luggage and personal effects

But you are too much scum to tell family members that the remains they buried do not belong to their loved ones

You sir, are despicable[/QUOTE]







Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you abuse the priviledge.

Let's see if your small & feeble mind can answer these questions:

Why, after all these years, haven't we seen any clear photos of the "plane" that struck the Pentagon?

Why are there NO HOLES in the Pentagon where the plane's enormous engines would have impacted?

Why are there NO BROKEN WINDOWS one either side of the hole or damage to the outer wall from the wings?

Where is the tail section, vertical stabilizer and fuselage?

Why is the Pentagon lawn all torn up, a significant sign of an airplane crash?

A Boeing 757 is 60 tons and IF a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon, it would leave 60 tons of scrap, NOT A FEW PIECES.

There is NO PROOF AT ALL that a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon on 9/11.  You Rightwinger ARE WRONG, HAVE BEEN WRONG, AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE WRONG!  Deal with it.

Good thing that you indicated that you work in a sewer, after all you are FULL OF SHIT!!


----------



## eots (Sep 25, 2012)

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

Essay:

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

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. &#8230; 

With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. &#8230; 

As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more,* a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history."* Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 25, 2012)

Wildcard said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...









Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you abuse the priviledge.

Let's see if your small & feeble mind can answer these questions:

Why, after all these years, haven't we seen any clear photos of the "plane" that struck the Pentagon?

Why are there NO HOLES in the Pentagon where the plane's enormous engines would have impacted?

Why are there NO BROKEN WINDOWS one either side of the hole or damage to the outer wall from the wings?

Where is the tail section, vertical stabilizer and fuselage?

Why is the Pentagon lawn all torn up, a significant sign of an airplane crash?

A Boeing 757 is 60 tons and IF a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon, it would leave 60 tons of scrap, NOT A FEW PIECES.

There is NO PROOF AT ALL that a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon on 9/11.  You Rightwinger ARE WRONG, HAVE BEEN WRONG, AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE WRONG!  Deal with it.

Good thing that you indicated that you work in a sewer, after all you are FULL OF SHIT!![/QUOTE]

There were holes, there were broken windows, there was tons of traceable wreckage, there were dead passengers

Truther denial does not equate to fact


----------



## daws101 (Sep 25, 2012)

eots said:


> *Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret)  Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority.  Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College.  34-year Air Force career.
> Licensed commercial pilot.  Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic.*
> 
> Essay:
> ...


invalid source!


----------



## daws101 (Sep 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



There were holes, there were broken windows, there was tons of traceable wreckage, there were dead passengers

Truther denial does not equate to fact[/QUOTE]bump


----------



## eots (Sep 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





> There were holes,



TALK ABOUT DENIAL...there was one hole


> there were broken windows,



no broken windows...



> there was tons of traceable wreckage,



not one serial number on any recovered peice



> there were dead passengers



no body parts of any kind..the bodies recovered are pentagon employees


> Truther denial does not equate to fact



I am unsure what happened at the pentagon but at least stick to the facts


----------



## daws101 (Sep 25, 2012)

Wildcard said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...









Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you abuse the priviledge.

Let's see if your small & feeble mind can answer these questions:

Why, after all these years, haven't we seen any clear photos of the "plane" that struck the Pentagon?

Why are there NO HOLES in the Pentagon where the plane's enormous engines would have impacted?

Why are there NO BROKEN WINDOWS one either side of the hole or damage to the outer wall from the wings?

Where is the tail section, vertical stabilizer and fuselage?

Why is the Pentagon lawn all torn up, a significant sign of an airplane crash?

A Boeing 757 is 60 tons and IF a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon, it would leave 60 tons of scrap, NOT A FEW PIECES.

There is NO PROOF AT ALL that a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon on 9/11.  You Rightwinger ARE WRONG, HAVE BEEN WRONG, AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE WRONG!  Deal with it.

Good thing that you indicated that you work in a sewer, after all you are FULL OF SHIT!![/QUOTE]


----------



## eots (Sep 25, 2012)

Account of *Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski*,* Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11.*  "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ... 



*It is as a scientist* that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics.  T*he collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ... *


I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact -* no airplane metal or cargo debris *was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident. 

The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had *a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet* in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.  
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## daws101 (Sep 25, 2012)

eots said:


> Account of *Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski*,* Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11.*  "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## eots (Sep 25, 2012)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Account of *Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski*,* Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11.*  "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ...
> ...



so you have a conspiracy theory this pentagon employee is in some twoofer conspiracy ??...any proof ?


----------



## eots (Sep 25, 2012)

she must be in all cia duh with this agent...right duhs101 ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXUo0Ody-aQ]9/11 Pentagon Employee Says Plane Did Not Crash into Building - YouTube[/ame]

its a pentagon employee  twoofer conspiracy !!!...screams duhs101


----------



## daws101 (Sep 25, 2012)

eots said:


> she must be in all cia duh with this agent...right duhs101 ?
> 
> 9/11 Pentagon Employee Says Plane Did Not Crash into Building - YouTube
> 
> its a pentagon employee  twoofer conspiracy !!!...screams duhs101


OLOLOLOLOLOL!
 if she were correct, going by your theory she should be dead! 
she's not so you're wrong.
and she is mistaken


----------



## eots (Sep 25, 2012)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > she must be in all cia duh with this agent...right duhs101 ?
> ...



OLOL ??...she would be dead shes not, so you are wrong ?..whats that duhs logic 101 ???


----------



## eots (Sep 25, 2012)

If you follow to duh101 logic if they killed her we would know it was true...so if it was true they would not want to kill her... And she is alive...so it must be ...true


----------



## daws101 (Sep 25, 2012)

eots said:


> If you follow to duh101 logic if they killed her we would know it was true...so if it was true they would not want to kill her... And she is alive...so it must be ...true


she's alive because your fantasy is wrong...if your fantasy was fact she would have never done that clip!


----------



## eots (Sep 25, 2012)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > if you follow to duh101 logic if they killed her we would know it was true...so if it was true they would not want to kill her... And she is alive...so it must be ...true
> ...



my fantasy ??..I am just considering the words of pentagon employees and the evidence on a whole...and whats the duhs logic to if it where true she never would have done the clip care to explain this belife


----------



## daws101 (Sep 25, 2012)

eots said:


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


non gibberish please .


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 25, 2012)

eots said:


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



as always,Dawgshit living in his fantasy,gets his ass handed to him on a platter.


----------



## eots (Sep 25, 2012)

daws101 said:


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



The gibberish is all yours...how pathetic you do this for money...must suck to be you


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > quote=rightwinger;5975664]
> ...







You have proof from Boeing or just Truther websites?

Of course all the pieces were from a Boeing 757 and the serial numbers match to the specific plane and the DNA matches to the passengers as well as luggage and personal effects

But you are too much scum to tell family members that the remains they buried do not belong to their loved ones

You sir, are despicable[/QUOTE]

You troll are the dumbass and the one who is despicable.You ignore how that was all planted evidence and show you have done no research into the case in the fact that private investigaters have been told by that airliner that the debris in that field there is not from there airliner.

 as always,you get your ass handed to you on a platter,you dont care that you humiliate yourself constantly though.Like dawgshit,your handlers pay you well for your ass beatings you get here everyday.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 25, 2012)

Wildcard said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...









Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you abuse the priviledge.

Let's see if your small & feeble mind can answer these questions:

Why, after all these years, haven't we seen any clear photos of the "plane" that struck the Pentagon?

Why are there NO HOLES in the Pentagon where the plane's enormous engines would have impacted?

Why are there NO BROKEN WINDOWS one either side of the hole or damage to the outer wall from the wings?

Where is the tail section, vertical stabilizer and fuselage?

Why is the Pentagon lawn all torn up, a significant sign of an airplane crash?

A Boeing 757 is 60 tons and IF a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon, it would leave 60 tons of scrap, NOT A FEW PIECES.

There is NO PROOF AT ALL that a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon on 9/11.  You Rightwinger ARE WRONG, HAVE BEEN WRONG, AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE WRONG!  Deal with it.

Good thing that you indicated that you work in a sewer, after all you are FULL OF SHIT!![/QUOTE]



as always,Rightwinger troll gets his ass handed to him on a platter.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 25, 2012)

eots said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



again,amazing how agent rightwinger troll never gets tired of embarrassing himself and getting his ass handed to him on a platter.


----------



## guyfawkestruepirate (Jun 14, 2015)




----------



## eots (Jun 14, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Well, another 9-11 has come and gone and our Truthers have done their typical cut and paste of nonsensical truther videos. Conspiracy theorists are mostly harmless and it is fun watching them spin their yarns.
> The problem with truthers is that their antics go beyond typical "Evil Gubment" rhetoric. If they stopped at the government knew about it and let it happen they would be relatively harmless. But when they get into Flight 93 didn't really crash in Shanksville and it was a missile that hit the Pentagon they are pissing on the graves of brave Americans.
> To imply that these planes didn't really crash and the passengers are being secretly held by the government is outright cruel to the victims families
> These families may have received some fragment of their loved one to bury and honor. It is all the closure they got. For truthers to tell them it is not their loved one they buried, that the government is playing a trick on them, that their loved one may still be alive is outright cruelty.
> ...


SO BUILDING 7 COLLAPSED AT FREE FALL WHY ?


----------



## Rozman (Jun 14, 2015)

eots said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Well, another 9-11 has come and gone and our Truthers have done their typical cut and paste of nonsensical truther videos. Conspiracy theorists are mostly harmless and it is fun watching them spin their yarns.
> ...





This works for me....

7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jun 14, 2015)

I hate 9/11 'truthers' because they use junk and pseudo-science to make their case. But might be right nonetheless.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 14, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> I hate 9/11 'truthers' because they use junk and pseudo-science to make their case. ...



Hey, you can't blame _us_ for citing government-sponsored pseudoscience. It's not our fault that the NIST report inadvertently makes such a compelling case for controlled demolition!


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jun 14, 2015)

I've seen no evidence for 9/11 having been a false-flag incident. But can see many motives for it having been.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 14, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> I've seen no evidence for 9/11 having been a false-flag incident. ...



There's an abundance of evidence that fatally contradicts the officially authorized conspiracy theory. Whether it can rightly be viewed, on the whole, as "evidence for 9/11 having been a false flag incident" or not, it is certainly evidence of a concerted effort by some (both inside and outside of government) to cover up the real story.

It's interesting that you acknowledge potential motives beyond those purported to have driven OBL and his merry band of 19 coke-snorting, stripper-scrogging, Islamic fundamentalists, though.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jun 14, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen no evidence for 9/11 having been a false-flag incident. ...
> ...



Easier cheaper ways to go about a false-flag attack wihtout bringing down skyscrapers in Manhatten.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 14, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Easier cheaper ways to go about a false-flag attack wihtout bringing down skyscrapers in Manhatten.



Maybe so, but would cheaping out have served the purpose of rallying such a high percentage of the flock behind the planners' common cause (whatever that may have been)? 

They cheaped out back in '93, and where did it get 'em? Nowhere.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jun 14, 2015)

The claim that there's all these false-flag attacks is like the overarching theme in "Ancient Aliens" that every kinda remarkable human achievement was only possible with alien help. 

As Freud said, 'Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.'


----------



## Capstone (Jun 14, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> The claim that there's all these false-flag attacks is like the overarching theme in "Ancient Aliens" that every kinda remarkable human achievement was only possible with alien help.
> 
> As Freud said, 'Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.'



Meanwhile, blind acceptance of official narratives in the post-_Northwoods_ era...is stupidity personified in the form of willful dupes.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 14, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Easier cheaper ways to go about a false-flag attack wihtout bringing down skyscrapers in Manhatten.
> ...


Why didn't they activate the "controlled demo" in 93?


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Jun 14, 2015)

emptystep said:


> Well good morning to you too.
> 
> Here's a challenge. Post a single video of a building falling down from structural damage that even slightly resembles how any one of the towers fell.



Why?

Assuming none exist ( many such videos do exist ) why would it change the facts that they fell the way they did?

it would change nothing or prove nothing.


----------



## MarathonMike (Jun 14, 2015)

Just use some common sense. How could rigging WTC buildings with explosives been kept a secret during the construction phase? That is completely preposterous.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 14, 2015)

to answer eots lame ass misrepresentation the whole of  wtc7 never fell in complete  free fall  as eots so blatantly and falsely proclaims.
it was in"free fall" for 2.5 sec too short to be significant.
but when you are grasping at straws you'll say anything.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 14, 2015)

someone farted in here^


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 14, 2015)

the OP of this thread and other paid shills on this forum such as dawgshit,soupnazi and many others who defend the lies of the government hate 9/11 truthers because they hate having to consult with their handlers everyday on what kind of new lies for them to come up and post all the time.

they hate having to ask them for more money for the ass beatings they suffer here everyday.


they can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 14, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> the OP of this thread and other paid shills on this forum such as dawgshit,soupnazi and many others who defend the lies of the government hate 9/11 truthers because they hate having to consult with their handlers everyday on what kind of new lies for them to come up and post all the time.
> 
> they hate having to ask them for more money for the ass beatings they suffer here everyday.
> 
> ...


more proof of handjob's total disconnection from reality. the ass beating and shit flinging are yours.
the agency pays us triple over time for entertaining ourselves bitch slapping you assholes.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 14, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Why didn't they activate the "controlled demo" in 93?



Most likely because the buildings couldn't be _covertly _rigged with explosives at the time, due primarily to the fact that the public security and elevator maintenance employee pools hadn't yet been sufficiently compromised.

The '93 bombing _did_, however, provide part of the rationale behind Governor Pataki's 'privatization' campaign, during which a large number of previously 'public sector' jobs were lost at the WTC when contracts were put up for private bid for the first time in the complex's history. All amid *fully founded allegations of cronyism*, BTW.

Furthermore, we know, from local media reports and an extensive write up in _Elevator World_ magazine, that major "modernization projects" for the main elevator systems in Towers 1 and 2 had been underway for several months prior to 9/11/01. These massive projects would have provided the perfect cover for rigging the buildings in advance, and pretty much in plain sight.



MarathonMike said:


> Just use some common sense. How could rigging WTC buildings with explosives been kept a secret during the construction phase? That is completely preposterous.



The notion that the buildings were rigged for controlled demolition at the time of their construction is a pristine example of a likely _intentionally foisted_ piece of disinformation. Nobody for whom I personally hold a modicum of respect believes that nonsense.


----------



## MarathonMike (Jun 14, 2015)

So it is far more plausible somehow that a "major modernization project" was the cover for post construction rigging for demolition? All of the workers, inspectors, planners probably hundreds of individuals were all in on the sabotage project and no one said a word?


----------



## Capstone (Jun 14, 2015)

MarathonMike said:


> So it is far more plausible somehow that a "major modernization project" was the cover for post construction rigging for demolition? All of the workers, inspectors, planners probably hundreds of individuals were all in on the sabotage project and no one said a word?



The group (or company) that carried out "the modernization project" was obviously a front; and all _witting_ participants in the operation would have most likely been 'true believers' in the planners' cause(s). Yes, I believe we're talking about hardcore idealists, if not outright religious zealots, here.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 14, 2015)

...as for any bureaucratic hurdles ("inspections", ETC.) to the covert rigging of the buildings, if you think for a second that the planners _couldn't_ have had their people in all the right places (to grease whatever skids needed greasing), then you're either naive or willfully ignorant as to the ways of the world.


----------



## eots (Jun 14, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> The claim that there's all these false-flag attacks is like the overarching theme in "Ancient Aliens" that every kinda remarkable human achievement was only possible with alien help.
> 
> As Freud said, 'Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.'


Physics cares not about freud..freud can not explain the free-fall collapse of a steel framed hi-rise from office fires and either can you


----------



## Capstone (Jun 14, 2015)

eots said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > The claim that there's all these false-flag attacks is like the overarching theme in "Ancient Aliens" that every kinda remarkable human achievement was only possible with alien help.
> ...



Paraphrasing Dwas the Debwunker, _"Yeah, bwut it only bwoke the waws of physics for 2.5 seconds!"_

Nevermind that the bearing walls descended symmetrically for 105+ ft. (or about 8 stories!) against zero physical resistance in that _"too short to be significant" _amount of time.


----------



## toastman (Jun 15, 2015)

eots said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > The claim that there's all these false-flag attacks is like the overarching theme in "Ancient Aliens" that every kinda remarkable human achievement was only possible with alien help.
> ...



Office fires? You mean fires that were fuelled by thousands of litres of jet fuel ?


----------



## toastman (Jun 15, 2015)

daws101 said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > the OP of this thread and other paid shills on this forum such as dawgshit,soupnazi and many others who defend the lies of the government hate 9/11 truthers because they hate having to consult with their handlers everyday on what kind of new lies for them to come up and post all the time.
> ...



Isn't it funny that whoever doesn't agree with his demented ideology is a 'paid shill'. Well at least he's entertaining.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 15, 2015)

Capstone said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Why didn't they activate the "controlled demo" in 93?
> ...


Must be a very long list of people who need therapy.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 15, 2015)

eots said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > The claim that there's all these false-flag attacks is like the overarching theme in "Ancient Aliens" that every kinda remarkable human achievement was only possible with alien help.
> ...


Partial short duration free fall.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 15, 2015)

Capstone said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


The butthurt is strong with this one.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 15, 2015)

It has long been admitted by the government's lackeys (SEI/ASCE, FEMA, and NIST) that the vast majority of the jet fuel burned off in the initial fireballs and that any remainder would have burned away very quickly thereafter. Other than playing the role of lighter fluid to get the office fires going, it could have played no extended part in heating/"weakening" the trusses and columns to point of global failure.

Apart from that, there was no jet fuel or fuel-oil of any kind involved in the fires in Building 7 (this, too, was admitted by NIST).

With that in mind, for those who are ignorant/gullible enough to believe that the 2.5 sec. period of freefall admitted by NIST was no big deal - say because the gravitational acceleration wasn't sustained throughout the entire "collapse" and might somehow be explainable by the process as a whole (although the NIST guys failed to do so themselves), the fact is that even 2.5 seconds of freefall isn't consistent with any fire-induced weakening, bending, crushing, ETC., because those are all modes of physical interaction that would have slowed the fall (at least according to the third law of motion). Therefore, the observable evidence clearly suggests that approximately 8 floors of building materials were *completely removed* from the path of descent; and in light of the symmetry of the 105 ft. freefall drop, the only plausible explanation is controlled demolition.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 15, 2015)

Capstone said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Why didn't they activate the "controlled demo" in 93?
> ...


So sometime after 93 they were able to open up all the walls to expose the support structure, rig charges, wire them all together....all without anyone noticing


----------



## Capstone (Jun 15, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> So sometime after 93 they were able to open up all the walls to expose the support structure, rig charges, wire them all together....all without anyone noticing



I'm not suggesting that nobody noticed the extended closures of the main elevator systems and/or any of the workmen coming and going during the "modernization project"; I'm suggesting that those who did notice such things would have probably thought nothing of them.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 15, 2015)

Capstone said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So sometime after 93 they were able to open up all the walls to expose the support structure, rig charges, wire them all together....all without anyone noticing
> ...



You are ignoring the structure of the WTC with 20 columns and 100 floors to be wired ....all with nobody noticing


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 15, 2015)

the paid shill here^ can only sling shit in defeat like the money troll he is.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 15, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> You are ignoring the structure of the WTC with 20 columns and 100 floors to be wired ....all with nobody noticing



Well, I think _you're_ ignoring the scale of the "project" that provided unfettered access to the interior support columns on all of the necessary floors (top to bottom).

*Here's* the cached _Elevator World_ article from March, 2001 (warning: it's a PDF).

I haven't _ignored_ the logistical challenges to covertly rigging the buildings, RW; to the contrary, I've pointed to the perfect cover, both in terms of necessary access _and_ as a seemingly non-suspicious reason for the presence of workmen, elevator closures and restrictions, and any apparently ongoing construction areas over a period of several months.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 15, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> I hate 9/11 'truthers' because they use junk and pseudo-science to make their case. But might be right nonetheless.



of course truthers are right.truthers dont ignore facts such as witness testimonys of hearing explosions many being very credible firefighters experienced in explosives.

oh and its only Bush dupes who use JUNK to make their case.not truthers.

these high credible experts in their fields who say it was impossible for the events of 9/11 to happen the way the government says it did HARDLY use junk and pseudo science to make their case.

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

and since you mentioned science,only someone who ditched junior high science classes would believe the official version of 9/11 since the laws of physics were violated that day. 

any junior high school kid can figure out the laws of physics scientists have gone by for thousands of years were violated so enough of this garbage that its pseudo science.Not our fault your afraid of the truth.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 15, 2015)

Capstone said:


> It has long been admitted by the government's lackeys (SEI/ASCE, FEMA, and NIST) that the vast majority of the jet fuel burned off in the initial fireballs and that any remainder would have burned away very quickly thereafter. Other than playing the role of lighter fluid to get the office fires going, it could have played no extended part in heating/"weakening" the trusses and columns to point of global failure.
> 
> Apart from that, there was no jet fuel or fuel-oil of any kind involved in the fires in Building 7 (this, too, was admitted by NIST).
> 
> With that in mind, for those who are ignorant/gullible enough to believe that the 2.5 sec. period of freefall admitted by NIST was no big deal - say because the gravitational acceleration wasn't sustained throughout the entire "collapse" and might somehow be explainable by the process as a whole (although the NIST guys failed to do so themselves), the fact is that even 2.5 seconds of freefall isn't consistent with any fire-induced weakening, bending, crushing, ETC., because those are all modes of physical interaction that would have slowed the fall (at least according to the third law of motion). Therefore, the observable evidence clearly suggests that approximately 8 floors of building materials were *completely removed* from the path of descent; and in light of the symmetry of the 105 ft. freefall drop, the only plausible explanation is controlled demolition.


the nist guys did not fail do do so.
the 2.5 sec was inconsequential it was effect not cause.  
and did not affect their findings,
it's another one of the countless grasping at straws arguments you ass hats try to play off as fact.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 15, 2015)

Capstone said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So sometime after 93 they were able to open up all the walls to expose the support structure, rig charges, wire them all together....all without anyone noticing
> ...


false it's the job of the in house *Maintenance crews to do just that to say nothing of the safety inspectors.
it's crystal that not one of you guys has any experience in construction.   *


----------



## daws101 (Jun 15, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> the paid shill here^ can only sling shit in defeat like the money troll he is.


time for your meds handjob.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 15, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > I hate 9/11 'truthers' because they use junk and pseudo-science to make their case. But might be right nonetheless.
> ...


handjob yammers nonsense and quotes a non credible source


----------



## daws101 (Jun 15, 2015)

"In fact, you’re right that there’s a consensus among a miniscule number of architects and engineers. They are not doing what scientists and engineers do when they think they’ve discovered something. What you do is write articles in scientific journals, give talks at the professional societies, go to the civil engineering department at MIT or Florida or wherever you are, and present your results, then proceed to try to convince the national academies, the professional society of physicists and civil engineers, the departments of the major universities, that you’ve discovered something. There happen to be a lot of people around who spend an hour on the internet and think they know a lot physics, but it doesn’t work like that."
*Noam Chomsky*


----------



## daws101 (Jun 15, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > I hate 9/11 'truthers' because they use junk and pseudo-science to make their case. But might be right nonetheless.
> ...


"I don't claim to know what really happened on 9/11.  I cannot examine the facts of the matter first hand.  And I don't have the experience to know what's possible and what is unlikely regarding terrorist activities or military operations."
the unnamed owner /editor of patriots question 911,


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 15, 2015)

someone farted in here.^


----------



## Capstone (Jun 15, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Following Pataki's unprecedented "privatization" purges in the mid to late 90's, the 9/11 planners were able to put their people in all the right places, both inside and outside of the buildings. Look at the list of donors to Pataki's gubernatorial campaign at the end of _The Village Voice_ article I linked to in one of my previous posts, and notice that _A.C.E. Elevator Co._ was among a number of major contributors that were awarded WTC contracts.

What's crystal clear to me, Dwas, is that people like you will never approach this topic from a position of intellectual honesty. You're liars by nature.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jun 15, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> someone farted in here.^


^^^^troll bitch ALERT!!^^^^


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 15, 2015)

someone farted in here^


----------



## daws101 (Jun 15, 2015)

Capstone said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...


right ...lmao


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 15, 2015)

someone farted in here.^


----------



## Liffy (Jun 15, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Well, another 9-11 has come and gone and our Truthers have done their typical cut and paste of nonsensical truther videos. Conspiracy theorists are mostly harmless and it is fun watching them spin their yarns.
> The problem with truthers is that their antics go beyond typical "Evil Gubment" rhetoric. If they stopped at the government knew about it and let it happen they would be relatively harmless. But when they get into Flight 93 didn't really crash in Shanksville and it was a missile that hit the Pentagon they are pissing on the graves of brave Americans.
> To imply that these planes didn't really crash and the passengers are being secretly held by the government is outright cruel to the victims families
> These families may have received some fragment of their loved one to bury and honor. It is all the closure they got. For truthers to tell them it is not their loved one they buried, that the government is playing a trick on them, that their loved one may still be alive is outright cruelty.
> ...


I don't believe in 911 stuff. But why you get all pissed off just cuz someone believes people died in a way that's contrary to your own belief?


----------



## prison/con.net (Jun 15, 2015)

we KNOW that the feds have lied every chance they got, and murder people, too. They REALLY deserve all the jaundice that gets aimed at them.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 16, 2015)

Liffy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Well, another 9-11 has come and gone and our Truthers have done their typical cut and paste of nonsensical truther videos. Conspiracy theorists are mostly harmless and it is fun watching them spin their yarns.
> ...



if you believe in the governments version of events you believe in 9/11 stuff.only someone on crack would believe THIS version of events.

plus you need to get  your facts straight,look at  the replys throughout this thread from the Bush dupes here.

THEY are the only ones that get upset at us  not falling for the governments lies.they are the ones that get into name calling when they cant counter facts.

the OP of this thread is a paid shill as there are many that have been sent here by their handlers to troll this section.they reveal that by not only blatantly ignoring facts but making up outright LIES as well when they troll here everyday.

thats how you can distinguish a paid shill like them,from someone who is a Bush dupe such as yourself because someone like you,just makes a reasonable post like this one.

and dont take the Bush dupe comment as an insult because "I" at one time was a Bush dupe as well.only differnce between the two of us is my eyes have been opened and I am aware of the facts that make it impossible for the governments version of events to be true as that link so much proves their version of events is pure BS and a fairy tale.

the OP of this thread is USMB's resident paid troll.


----------



## Liffy (Jun 16, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> Liffy said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Get my facts straight? What 'facts' of mine are you talking about here? You just making your kind look like shit.


----------



## Dot Com (Jun 16, 2015)

Truthseeker420 said:


> Isn't it just as disrespectful to dismiss the concerns of the families who's loved ones died that don't believe the government is telling them the truth? not like the government has good record.


yeah OP. Did it ever occur to you that not everyone shares your opinion even the bereaved families? Add to that 100+ architects and others professionals

Accepting the "official gubmint story" is not a heroic deed.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 16, 2015)

Liffy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Well, another 9-11 has come and gone and our Truthers have done their typical cut and paste of nonsensical truther videos. Conspiracy theorists are mostly harmless and it is fun watching them spin their yarns.
> ...


ever here of reality?


----------



## Liffy (Jun 16, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Liffy said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


I here about it a lot over hear


----------



## daws101 (Jun 16, 2015)

prison/con.net said:


> we KNOW that the feds have lied every chance they got, and murder people, too. They REALLY deserve all the
> that gets aimed at them.


did you mean justice?
*Jaundice*
Jaundice is a yellowish pigmentation of the skin, the conjunctival membranes over the sclerae, and other mucous membranes caused by high blood bilirubin levels. This hyperbilirubinemia subsequently causes increased levels of bilirubin in the extracellular fluid. Concentration of bilirubin in blood plasma is normally below 1.2 mg/dL. A concentration higher than approx. 3 mg/dL leads to jaundice. The term jaundice comes from the French word jaune, meaning yellow.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 16, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> Liffy said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


hand job you have no idea when some one is not disagreeing with you! lol!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 16, 2015)

Liffy said:


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


hey new guy ....handjob is psychotic. Fyi.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 16, 2015)

Liffy said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Liffy said:
> ...


about what? over where?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 16, 2015)

Liffy said:


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




facts that you are obviously not aware of that make the governments version of events impossible.lol.

plus you are obviously new to this because the FACTS are its only the Bush dupes that worship the governments version of events that get upset with truthers for not falling for the lies of the government.THOSE are the facts I am talking about.

THEY are the ones that get into name calling all the time when they cant counter facts that it was a controlled demolition that brought down the towers.THEY are the ones that get upset and throw temper tantrems not us.

THOSE are the facts I am talking about just to clear that up for you.anytime a truther comes on here and proves these shills here are liars such as that poster dawgshit,they go into name calling cause they get frustrated they cant counter the facts.

that poster dawgshit,the ONLY reply that he is worthy of is my fart jokes because him and the OP of this thread are USMB's resident trolls.

over a 100 people at this site have caught USMB'S resident troll here rightwinger making up outright lies when he is cornered and blatantly ignores facts that prove him wrong.

hope that clears that up for ya.

Ive never met a Bush dupe in my life who didnt get into name calling when cornered by facts they could not get around or in the case of the OP here,blatantly ignored them and made up outright lies.

that again is because they are paid shills of the government sent here by their handlers to troll threads like this to try and derail truth discussions.


any objective open minded person who uses logic and common sense can see after reading this link below,that the government is so full of shit in their explanations and is outright lying.

Idaho Observer The looniest of all 9 11 conspiracy theories

since they are lying,then its only logical to ask the question WHY and why so many people like dawgshit and the OP come here and invent LIES to defend the governments version of events.

again,hope that clears that up for ya.lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 16, 2015)

prison/con.net said:


> we KNOW that the feds have lied every chance they got, and murder people, too. They REALLY deserve all the jaundice that gets aimed at them.


you nailed it.


----------



## Liffy (Jun 16, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


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


What if I said I don't give a fuck what happened? What you gotta say about that? So really I don't give a fuck what the facts are cuz imo from what I've seen no one can prove shit about shit. Even if bush had something to do with 911 even as little as him knowing about it and not preventing it I say God bless him.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 16, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


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


really?  how is it a lie when I point out that you are psychotic and a couple of posts later you prove it,?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 16, 2015)

someone farted in here.^

thats who i am talking about,the poster above DAWGSHIT,him and rightwinger are USMB's resident paid shills sent here by their handlers to troll threads like this to try and derail any truth discussion so my fart jokes are the ONLY replys those two idiot fucks are worthy of.

as i said before,over a 100 people have called out the OP of this thread over the years for his outright lies he makes up when he trolls threads here,same with dawgshit.

so on the contrary,its just the OPPOSITE with me,i dont get upset,i have FUN here with them.

dont know where you came up with that nutty idea i get upset,could not be further from the truth.


----------



## Liffy (Jun 16, 2015)

All your guys are wasting your time. It's over. Bush is 100 years old he'll be dead by the time we learn the 'truth' if we ever will. The only people who care about the truth are 'truth ers' the only ones who care about the 'facts' are people who don't believe in 'truth ers'. No one gives a fucj about what you gotta say on this topic except your own kind. /thread


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 16, 2015)

Liffy said:


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



so you bless a guy who murdered over 3000 people.that just says it all about you.

guess you love murderers then.seems like USMB sure attracts the trolls here.too bad you werent in the building when Bush AND clinton murdered them off since you love murderers so much.

another troll to add to ignore.


----------



## Liffy (Jun 16, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


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


 I'm supposed to bless my enemies what can I say? Anyway you don't know why he did it. Maybe it was a worthy sacrifice to save our country? You never know. I don't know... And I don't give a fuck.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 16, 2015)

Liffy said:


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


guess what new guy you are now a member of the not on ignore but handjob will say you are club.
congratulations !
you are so right, It's been over for a long time.
it's futile to  argue with our resident conspiracy nut jobs as reason logic and facts  are meaningless to them


----------



## Liffy (Jun 16, 2015)

daws101 said:


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


I don't know what you just said but from what I can make out I'm being ignored. And I don't give a fuck about that either


----------



## Penelope (Jun 16, 2015)

TakeAStepBack said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



and yet muslims did. On huh.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 16, 2015)

Liffy said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Liffy said:
> ...


another paid shill sock puppet trolling this board.probably one of dawgshits socks.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 16, 2015)

Liffy said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Liffy said:
> ...


no!  you are being fake ignored by hand job ,that means you are in the same club as I and any other poster who pisses handjob off.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 16, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> Liffy said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


I have no socks. that's just your delusional way to deal with getting your ass handed to you all the time .


----------



## Liffy (Jun 16, 2015)

daws101 said:


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


i think he was talking about me


----------



## daws101 (Jun 16, 2015)

Liffy said:


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


ah no, new guy that was one of handjob's to nobody special comment.


----------



## eots (Jun 16, 2015)

Liffy said:


> All your guys are wasting your time. It's over. Bush is 100 years old he'll be dead by the time we learn the 'truth' if we ever will. The only people who care about the truth are 'truth ers' the only ones who care about the 'facts' are people who don't believe in 'truth ers'. No one gives a fucj about what you gotta say on this topic except your own kind. /thread


 then why are you here ?


----------



## eots (Jun 16, 2015)

daws101 said:


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


yet you do it religiously...


----------



## Liffy (Jun 16, 2015)

eots said:


> Liffy said:
> 
> 
> > All your guys are wasting your time. It's over. Bush is 100 years old he'll be dead by the time we learn the 'truth' if we ever will. The only people who care about the truth are 'truth ers' the only ones who care about the 'facts' are people who don't believe in 'truth ers'. No one gives a fucj about what you gotta say on this topic except your own kind. /thread
> ...


What does it matter?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 16, 2015)

this troll above ^ is a sock puppet Eots . probably another one of Dawgshits the fact he ignores what a  troll Dawgshit  is.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jun 16, 2015)

^^^troll bitch ALERT!!^^^^


----------



## Dot Com (Jun 16, 2015)

^ ironic post is ironic


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 16, 2015)

Capstone said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > You are ignoring the structure of the WTC with 20 columns and 100 floors to be wired ....all with nobody noticing
> ...


Damn...you fucked me again
Even though I knew better, I actually read your link

Elevators are NOT support structures. They do not provide access to SUPPORT COLLUMNS which bear the load

Accessing those columns involves tearing down walls on every floor without anyone taking note


----------



## Capstone (Jun 16, 2015)

The main elevator systems, utility shafts, restrooms, and three stairwells each, were all housed in the core columns of Buildings 1 and 2.

In the words of Tom Sullivan, a former explosives technician with CDI (Controlled Demolitions Inc.):

"_Looking at the buildings, it wouldn't be a problem once you've gained access to the elevator shafts. Then a team of loading experts would have access to all of the core columns and beams. The rest could be accomplished, at that point, with the right kind of explosives for the job at hand - the choices are many out there._"

That guy was an actual loader on several large projects during his time at CDI. He knows what he's talking about, which is apparently more than can be said about _you, _RW.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 16, 2015)

Obama had those buildings blown up, just to make Bush look bad. Unfortunately, it backfired, and people started supporting Bush's wars. Obama then had some meteorologists create Katrina, again, to make Bush look bad. This worked, to a certain extent, but only in the Africa-American community, who already had no respect for Bush. Obama then realized that Bush was so fucked up anyway, that it was best  just to let him alone, and let him screw up on his own. Then, Obama was elected, which pissed off Hillary, because Obama managed to get ACA passed, when her efforts to reform health care ended up with everyone telling her to just go to the beauty shop and change her hair style every week. She did that, but, her beauty shop guy was actually Elvis incognito, who was still pissed about Michael Jackson marrying his daughter, so together they plotted to bring about Obama's downfall. However, Elvis is getting kind of long in the tooth, so the best they could come up with was to put Biden on the payroll, and have him do a major "foot in mouth" flub every couple of weeks. Hillary changed hairdressers one more time, and decided that, most American voters being what they are, there is really no point in trying to use subtlety to manipulate them, so she just threw her bonnet in the ring and is running for president.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 16, 2015)

2,977 deaths on 9/11/01. 1.3 million (and counting) in the ensuing/ongoing _War on Terror_. Har-har hardy har-har.


----------



## eots (Jun 16, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


physics cares not about your imaginings of how difficult a task may be


----------



## eots (Jun 16, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> Obama had those buildings blown up, just to make Bush look bad. Unfortunately, it backfired, and people started supporting Bush's wars. Obama then had some meteorologists create Katrina, again, to make Bush look bad. This worked, to a certain extent, but only in the Africa-American community, who already had no respect for Bush. Obama then realized that Bush was so fucked up anyway, that it was best  just to let him alone, and let him screw up on his own. Then, Obama was elected, which pissed off Hillary, because Obama managed to get ACA passed, when her efforts to reform health care ended up with everyone telling her to just go to the beauty shop and change her hair style every week. She did that, but, her beauty shop guy was actually Elvis incognito, who was still pissed about Michael Jackson marrying his daughter, so together they plotted to bring about Obama's downfall. However, Elvis is getting kind of long in the tooth, so the best they could come up with was to put Biden on the payroll, and have him do a major "foot in mouth" flub every couple of weeks. Hillary changed hairdressers one more time, and decided that, most American voters being what they are, there is really no point in trying to use subtlety to manipulate them, so she just threw her bonnet in the ring and is running for president.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 16, 2015)

eots said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...


Physics doesn't support your silly conspiracy theories.


----------



## eots (Jun 16, 2015)

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


really.. care to back that assertion with some details ?...No, of course you dont


----------



## Papageorgio (Jun 16, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> ^ ironic post is ironic



Coming from a left wing nutter, it's a compliment.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 16, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Physics doesn't support your silly conspiracy theories.



Talk about the pot calling the milk jug black!


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 16, 2015)

eots said:


> View attachment 42641 View attachment 42641
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> ...



And just where were_ you_ on Nov. 22nd, 1963?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 16, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Well, another 9-11 has come and gone and our Truthers have done their typical cut and paste of nonsensical truther videos. Conspiracy theorists are mostly harmless and it is fun watching them spin their yarns.
> The problem with truthers is that their antics go beyond typical "Evil Gubment" rhetoric. If they stopped at the government knew about it and let it happen they would be relatively harmless. But when they get into Flight 93 didn't really crash in Shanksville and it was a missile that hit the Pentagon they are pissing on the graves of brave Americans.
> To imply that these planes didn't really crash and the passengers are being secretly held by the government is outright cruel to the victims families
> These families may have received some fragment of their loved one to bury and honor. It is all the closure they got. For truthers to tell them it is not their loved one they buried, that the government is playing a trick on them, that their loved one may still be alive is outright cruelty.
> ...


Back to the OP...

Truthers are indeed scum as they piss on the graves of 9-11 victims in pursuit of their silly theories


----------



## Hollie (Jun 16, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Physics doesn't support your silly conspiracy theories.
> ...


Talk about pointless. It's just a fact that aside from conspiracy theories, you twoofers have nothing.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 16, 2015)

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


I don't spend time refuting silly conspiracy theories you cut and paste from even sillier YouTube videos. 

Shouldn't you be out somewhere looking to get probed by space aliens.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 16, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Can you imagine a Truther sinking to the level of telling a 9-11 family that the grave of their loved ones does not actually contain his remains?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 16, 2015)

I don't get upset with these guys, RW. I live in a retirement community, where there is a much higher percent of dementia than normal. You learn to just let it roll of your back like water off a duck.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jun 16, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...



I don't get them at all, the people that would have to know about the conspiracy for it to be pulled off, and then no one, no one comes forward to tell leak the story.


----------



## eots (Jun 16, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Well, another 9-11 has come and gone and our Truthers have done their typical cut and paste of nonsensical truther videos. Conspiracy theorists are mostly harmless and it is fun watching them spin their yarns.
> ...


----------



## Capstone (Jun 16, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Back to the OP...



Textbook. 



			
				rightwinger said:
			
		

> Can you imagine a Truther sinking to the level of telling a 9-11 family that the grave of their loved ones does not actually contain his remains?



First of all, I haven't seen anyone argue that the nearly 3,000 victims didn't actually die on that day.

Secondly, you might wanna consider the feelings of the families of the victims whose remains were never recovered (not even in the form of DNA).


----------



## eots (Jun 16, 2015)

Papageorgio said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


physics cares not about your fallacy that secrets can not be kept


----------



## eots (Jun 16, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...


----------



## Dot Com (Jun 16, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Well, another 9-11 has come and gone and our Truthers have done their typical cut and paste of nonsensical truther videos. Conspiracy theorists are mostly harmless and it is fun watching them spin their yarns.
> ...


The pursuit of truth? mkay


----------



## Hollie (Jun 17, 2015)

eots said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Here's you twoof:


----------



## Hollie (Jun 17, 2015)

eots said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Your silly conspiracy theories require a version of physics known as "twoofer physics". It operates in the universe of you Alex Jones groupies.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 17, 2015)

eots said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Twoofers / ID'eots / Alex Jones groupies are so silly.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 17, 2015)

Capstone said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Back to the OP...
> ...


Lets see how truthers piss on the graves of the victims of 9-11:

1. They tell the families of those who leaped to their deaths from the towers that conditions were not that bad....those people were not in danger from fires. A controlled demo brought those buildings down

2. They tell the victims family from the plane that hit the Pentagon that the remains returned to them are fake. A plane did not hit the Pentagon

3. They tell the families of those who died in Shanksville that those remains are not your loved ones. It was not a plane that crashed there

Can you imagine anyone as heartless as a truther?


----------



## Capstone (Jun 17, 2015)

rightwinger said:
			
		

> ...1. They tell the families of those who leaped to their deaths from the towers that conditions were not that bad....those people were not in danger from fires. A controlled demo brought those buildings down...



From what I've gathered over the years, not even the 'No-planers' generally deny that the buildings were _somehow_ set on fire prior to their respective "collapses", Wrongringer. 



			
				rightwinger said:
			
		

> ...2. They tell the victims family from the plane that hit the Pentagon that the remains returned to them are fake. A plane did not hit the Pentagon...



Well, as a strident Truther from way back, _I've_ never suggested that any of the remains of victims returned to their loved ones were fake. The means by which those victims actually died is a separate issue altogether.

As for the remains of the 25 victims buried collectively at Arlington National Cemetery back in 2002, under a 5-sided grainite marker inscribed with the names of all of the victims from the ncident at the Pentagon (including the five whose remains were never found), I don't doubt that that any of those individuals were killed.



			
				rightwinger said:
			
		

> ...3. They tell the families of those who died in Shanksville that thosee remains are not your loved ones. It was not a plane that crashed there..



Regarding the human emains from Flight 93:



> ...All human remains were found within a 70-acre (28 ha) area surrounding the impact point.[85] Somerset County Coroner Wally Miller was involved in the investigation and identification of the remains. In examining the wreckage, the only human body part he could see was part of a backbone.[86]*Miller later found and identified 1,500 pieces of human remains totaling about 600 pounds (272 kg), or eight percent of the total.[87] The rest of the remains were consumed by the impact.[88]*...



Again, at least in the opinion of _this_ Truther, the families fortunate enough to have received fragments of their loved ones bodies from that crash site most likely received properly identified remains. As for the families that weren't so lucky, I have no doubt that their missing loved ones were killed on 9/11.

The entire '9/11 Truth Community' can't be impugned for the opinions of those who believe that no legitimate airliners were hijacked and/or switched out in mid-flight for R/C drones. Many, if not most of us, _do_ believe that the passenger lists represent legitimate lists of victims, even if some of the details of the means of their demise remain in question.



			
				rightwinger said:
			
		

> ...Can you imagine anyone as heartless as a truther?



How about the small army of relentless douchebags whose concerted goal in life seems to be to deny justice to the victims' families?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 17, 2015)

Capstone said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
OK...then answer a few simple questions

1. Were the fires and structural damage at the top of the WTC enough to kill all the people up there?
2. Did a plane hit the Pentagon
3. Did Flight 93 crash in Shanksville and did the passengers fight with the terrorists?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 17, 2015)

eots said:


> Liffy said:
> 
> 
> > All your guys are wasting your time. It's over. Bush is 100 years old he'll be dead by the time we learn the 'truth' if we ever will. The only people who care about the truth are 'truth ers' the only ones who care about the 'facts' are people who don't believe in 'truth ers'. No one gives a fucj about what you gotta say on this topic except your own kind. /thread
> ...


for the diametrically opposed reason you are.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 17, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> ...1. Were the fires and structural damage at the top of the WTC enough to kill all the people up there?...



Obviously, those near the entry/exit 'impact zones' of the aircraft/drones would have been killed very quickly. As for those who were trapped above or immdeiately below the impact zones, the fires were apparently "enough" (whatever you meant by that) to prompt as many as 200 people to leap to their deaths (although video evidence suggests that a few may have been ejected in mysterious blast waves).



			
				rightwinger said:
			
		

> 2. Did a plane hit the Pentagon...



In my opinion, yes, but it wasn't a large passenger jet. In line with the puzzling accounts of several eyewitnesses close to the scene, I believe it was struck by a much smaller jet (something like *this*) which had been equipped for R/C flight.

That doesn't mean I doubt the legitmacy of the remains of the 25 individuals 'collectively buried' at Arlington National Cemetery, though. Nor do I doubt that any of the other names listed on that grave marker represent legitimate victims.



			
				rightwinger said:
			
		

> ...3. Did Flight 93 crash in Shanksville and did the passengers fight with the terrorists?



In my opinion, yes and no. Yes, it crashed; but no, I don't buy the in-flight fight story or the cell phone calls.

I believe, that following the in-flight switch-outs of Flights 11 and 175 (as corroborated by the radar data from RADES), all of the passengers and _unwitting_ crew members from those flights were herded (voluntarily or not) onto Flight 93 during an unscheduled stopover (the strangely small passenger lists from all three flights would have played perfectly into this scenario). I think Flight 93 was likely intended for Building 7, but only after the way had been cleared by the "collapses" of Buildings 1 and 2. This would have placed the remains of the passengers from the 3 airliners in NYC, and would have looked a whole lot better on national television.

Apparently, at least one interceptor pilot slipped through the cracks of the _war games stand-down_ and did his job.

Now, I'll readily admit that a lot of this amounts to speculation on my part; *but* none of it is _unfounded_ speculation, ...nor does any of it violate certain long-established laws of physics.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 17, 2015)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Liffy said:
> ...


false!


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 17, 2015)

Capstone said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > ...1. Were the fires and structural damage at the top of the WTC enough to kill all the people up there?...
> ...


 
OK...two out of three isn't bad

I do take offense to your view that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon

What happened to those passengers?
Are you claiming that the remains of passengers recovered from the Pentagon were not those from Flight 77?  Are you claiming their loved ones are mourning over fake body parts?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 17, 2015)

eots said:


> View attachment 42641 View attachment 42641
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> ...



another paid shill  to join agents rightwinger,dawgshit-aka sayit and his newest sock he is posting under now as well  on this thread.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 17, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> this troll above ^ is a sock puppet Eots . probably another one of Dawgshits the fact he ignores what a  troll Dawgshit  is.


when I point out that you are psychotic and a couple of posts later you prove it,?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 17, 2015)

Capstone said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





dont know WHY you do it dude.His handlers send him here to  go around trolling  saying the warren commission report is correct that oswald was the lone assassin. He knows perfectly well as we do the CIA and mossad were behind the JFK assassin as well as being behind 9/11.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 17, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> ^ ironic post is ironic


thats dawgshit for ya.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 17, 2015)

Capstone said:


> The main elevator systems, utility shafts, restrooms, and three stairwells each, were all housed in the core columns of Buildings 1 and 2.
> 
> In the words of Tom Sullivan, a former explosives technician with CDI (Controlled Demolitions Inc.):
> 
> ...


*Tom Sullivan*
From 911myths

Jump to: navigation, search
One of the often cited criticisms of 9/11 conspiracies is their lack of falsifiability. One will regularly encounter excuses why evidence isn’t readily available to substantiate a claim; eg- it’s a cover up, they destroyed it, etc. Such is the case of the “self-consuming thermite cutter charge”.

In this case we have an alleged demolitions device which also destroys itself leaving nothing but a pool of molten iron. Hence, why there is no evidence of demolition devices at Ground Zero; quite convenient. The idea of thermite cutter charges was awash across 9/11 conspiracy sites, but had its greatest peak with a specific article at Architects&Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Luckily, the authors found just the man to confirm what they were looking for in Tom Sullivan, former CDI, Inc. employee and alleged controlled demolitions expert.

“Having had the privilege of speaking with Tom Sullivan, an actual *explosive-charge placement technician*, we have some new insights to pass along as to how controlled demolition works…”(emphasis mine)
http://cms.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/315-explosive-evidence-at-wtc-cited-by-former-cdi-employee.html

Sounds impressive, right?

A small problem is that the job title “explosive-charge placement technician” exists nowhere except on AE9111Truth.org & other sites parroting their words. The evidence they present is Sullivan’s “powder carrier” license & Sullivan refers to himself as a “loader” in the article & in his AE911Truth profile; while after the publishing of the online article referring to himself as an “explosives technician”.

In fact, the City of New York outlines the responsibilities of those who work with explosives in building demolitions. According to those standards a powder carrier & explosive loader are nothing close to experts.

“The Powder Carrier is essentially an apprentice Blaster, assisting the Blaster with loading:…paperwork, such as recording quantities of explosives used and shot times. Explosives loaders help the Blaster and Powder Carrie in transporting explosives to and from the magazines and handling explosives during loading operations.” (emphasis mine)
http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/pdf/cof_study_material/e_14_study_material.pdf

So based on the evidence AE911Truth presents (the printed statements of Sullivan, & his ID) he was nothing more than an assistant; nothing close to an expert. But what does Tom Sullivan, the assistant, say about thermite based technologies in controlled demolitions?

“_n the case of Thermite cutter charges, that may also be the case [referring to being used in the World Trade Center]. *Thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings have been around since first patented back in 1984*.” (emphasis mine)(Source)

AE911Truth doesn’t want to seem like we are just taking the word of Tom Sullivan. They provide us with a patent specifically from 1984. They even go further by placing a caption: “This particular cutter charge designed for use with thermite” (Source).

The issue here is it’s not a cutter charge. If one were to follow the patent number, it’s used as an ignition source.
Tom Sullivan - 911myths_


----------



## daws101 (Jun 17, 2015)

eots said:


> View attachment 42641 View attachment 42641
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> ...


 yes your arguments all ways are


----------



## daws101 (Jun 17, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > ^ ironic post is ironic
> ...


 I point out that you are psychotic and a couple of posts later you prove it


----------



## daws101 (Jun 17, 2015)

eots said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


bitch please....


----------



## daws101 (Jun 17, 2015)

eots said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


eots knows jack shit about physics that's why he switched to the families of the victims ploy.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 17, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> ...Are you claiming that the remains of passengers recovered from the Pentagon were not those from Flight 77?  Are you claiming their loved ones are mourning over fake body parts?



As I said in reference to the Pentagon incident in my last post:



			
				capstone said:
			
		

> ...That doesn't mean I doubt the legitmacy of the remains of the 25 individuals 'collectively buried' at Arlington National Cemetery, though. *Nor do I doubt that any of the other names listed on that grave marker represent legitimate victims.*...



Emphasis added.

So, what I'm suggesting (not "claiming"), is that the human remains recovered from the Pentagon crash site were those of real victims. However, as far as I recall, only the remains of 25 persons were positively identified. Those fragments were collectively buried in Arlington, not distributed to their families, beneath a 5-sided marker that names _all_ of the victims from the Pentagon "attack".

If you have some information or documentation to the contrary, I'd be happy to see it.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 17, 2015)

From one of Dwas the Debwunker's more recent copy-and-paste jobs:



			
				daws101 said:
			
		

> . . .“The Powder Carrier is essentially an apprentice Blaster, *assisting the Blaster with loading:*…paperwork, such as recording quantities of explosives used and shot times.*Explosives loaders help the Blaster and Powder Carrie in transporting explosives to and from the magazines and handling explosives during loading operations.*”...[emphasis Capstone's]



You know the debwunkers are desperate when their efforts affirm the credibility of the character they're trying to assassinate! 

Obviously, simply by virtue of their preferred definitions, Tom Sullivan was in a position to observe and assist in the hands-on loading aspects of several large projects during his employment with CDI.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you want to learn of the real world obstacles to home delivery, ask a lowly delivery man.

Thanks, Dwas!


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 17, 2015)

Capstone said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > ...Are you claiming that the remains of passengers recovered from the Pentagon were not those from Flight 77?  Are you claiming their loved ones are mourning over fake body parts?
> ...


So.....we know those people boarded flight 77. Body parts and personal effects were recovered on site......yet flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon


----------



## Capstone (Jun 17, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> So.....we know those people boarded flight 77. ...



If you say so...



			
				rightwinger said:
			
		

> ...Body parts and personal effects were recovered on site......



Personal effects are notoriusly transportable, but whose body parts? How many passengers were positively identified by the remains now buried at Arlington Cemetery?

Link me to the corroner's findings, RW.



			
				rightwinger said:
			
		

> ...yet flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon



In my opinion, if Flight 77 took off as reported, with 64 people on board, neither it's ultimate destination nor the fate of those people were met at the Pentagon.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 17, 2015)

Capstone said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > So.....we know those people boarded flight 77. ...
> ...


More evidence of why Truthers are scum

These people morned and buried whatever remnants could be recovered of their loved ones. For you to imply, with zero evidence, that they somehow were taken to a different location and killed is absolutely despicable


----------



## Capstone (Jun 17, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Whose remains, RW? Show me the coroner's report(s).

In my eyes, for you to continue pushing the patently ridiculous narrative in a manner that shifts all focus away from the actual killers of the 9/11 operation...makes *YOU* a tool of the lowest form of life on the planet.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 17, 2015)

Capstone said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...


Sorry......been there, done that with Truthers

They demand evidence, reports, photos.....then dismiss whatever is provided

So I will maintain my claim that you are scum who is abusing victims family all for specious conspiracy theories


----------



## Capstone (Jun 17, 2015)

Ah. So you accuse me of having no evidence to support my beliefs, while refusing to provide any evidence to support your own? Perfect.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 17, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Ah. So you accuse me of having no evidence to support my beliefs, while refusing to provide any evidence to support your own? Perfect.



You are the one mocking victims family for believing their loved one died in a plane crash into the Pentagon

Burden of proof is upon you

Otherwise, you are the lowlife scum abusing victims families as accused


----------



## Capstone (Jun 17, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> You are the one mocking victims family for believing their loved one died in a plane crash into the Pentagon...



I'm not mocking anyone but you, RW.

If any families lost loved ones aboard Flight 77 on 9/11/01, *and I haven't claimed to know with any degree of certainty whether that's the case or not*, my heart goes out to them.

On the other hand, your assertions imply a degree of certainty that calls for the sort of evidence you've rebuked me for not providing.

So, one more time for good measure, point me to the coroner's findings of positively identified remains from the reported passengers of Flight 77, or quit suggesting that their families were given those remains.


----------



## Christophera (Jun 17, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Well, another 9-11 has come and gone and our Truthers have done their typical cut and paste of nonsensical truther videos. Conspiracy theorists are mostly harmless and it is fun watching them spin their yarns.
> The problem with truthers is that their antics go beyond typical "Evil Gubment" rhetoric. If they stopped at the government knew about it and let it happen they would be relatively harmless. But when they get into Flight 93 didn't really crash in Shanksville and it was a missile that hit the Pentagon they are pissing on the graves of brave Americans.
> To imply that these planes didn't really crash and the passengers are being secretly held by the government is outright cruel to the victims families
> These families may have received some fragment of their loved one to bury and honor. It is all the closure they got. For truthers to tell them it is not their loved one they buried, that the government is playing a trick on them, that their loved one may still be alive is outright cruelty.
> ...



Seeing as the truth movement was created by the perpetrators of 9/11, they made you correct, so all quest for truth would be marginalized.  

The facts that can be supported with independently verified evidence show that the core of the Twin Towers was misrepresented to the NIST WTC commission.  The misrepresentation attempted to depict the Twin Towers as having a steel framed core structure.  This is why it took years to get an investigation.  This is why the destruction of the Towers could not be understood.

What if the justice was completely subverted and all those soldiers died needlessly.  What if sending them off to kill people that did not not destroy the towers was what happened meaning that that the infiltration of government used the event as an excuse to attack ancient enemies?

Who would you blame in that case?  Would you still blame the tens of thousands of Americans deceived by the perpetrators psyops of disinformation misleading them?  Those Americans were actually trying to protect the soldiers from being unconstitutionally used.  They were trying to protect us all, but the power that perpetuated 9/11 saw them coming, and was prepared to use power to mislead then divide the nation.  Just like they used media to promote the war.

In that case, it is only your attitude that keeps the nation divided.  Because in a hot second those deceived truthers would forgive you for your attitude.

You can find many independently verified facts on my page about the core deception.

FEMA misrepresented core structure of the Twin Towers.

Curiously, there used to be a thermite thread in this forum, that is now gone.  Split from it was a concrete core thread, it seems gone also.  Why I don't know.

All that remains is the derogatory thread attempting to say that the concrete core shown here is invisible.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 17, 2015)

Christophera said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Well, another 9-11 has come and gone and our Truthers have done their typical cut and paste of nonsensical truther videos. Conspiracy theorists are mostly harmless and it is fun watching them spin their yarns.
> ...



Your claims that our own government intentionally blew up buildings sending thousands to their deaths with no supporting evidence is despicable and shows you to be nothing more than scum

How dare you mock victims families and those who jumped with such nonsense


----------



## Christophera (Jun 18, 2015)

How


rightwinger said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Your post tells me you have no idea of what I claim.

I mock no one.  You mock reason, justice and constitutional government.

How about we start at the beginning and determine what you say I say was blown up?

I can prove that the towers had a steel reinforced cast concrete core.  The WTC commission was decieved about the core structure.

Your position is concealing treason if you cannot produce evidence establishing that the core structure NIST Analyzed actually existed.  I prove it did not, with evidence in my last post.

Supporting secret methods of mass murder is not okay.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 18, 2015)

Christophera said:


> How
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> ...


 
You mock every victim who was in that building and every citizen of the United States

Like all truthers, you are nothing more than scum


----------



## Christophera (Jun 18, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > How
> ...


Scum is represented by those with no evidence and no reason.

You mock humanity itself.

Your text is empty words and characters with no substance behind it.  My words have facts behind them and stand to find justice for each and every person who died honoring them and their familes, myself and my family.

I fight today for each and every soldier who's courage is abused by an infiltrated government using and abusing them.   I work to help them fulfill their oath WITHOUT exposing them to danger.

SOLDIERS APPLICATION FOR ORDER OF INQUIRY INTO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CIVIL AUTHORITY STATUS ESTABLISHMENT OF LAWFUL MILITARY AUTHORITY.

The PTSD that afflicts them is something I've come to understand how to treat.  But our corrupt government will not allow it.  It will take their precious lives, their courage and waste it without a thought.  Here is the proof of the corruption I've faced and exposed.






The sheriffs department failing to appear on subpoeana.  You can tell they wanted to appear with the records subpoeaned because they expose the county counsel influencing their failure to appear, a serous civil rights violation.  They are like soldiers, they follow orders.

The records subpoeaned would have made it possible to develop a treatment for PTSD and other serious mental illness endangering all of us.  Here us a letter from the director of the mental health department providing a defacto approval of a proposed treatment that would help millions of people.






If your corrupted ass would get out of the way soldiers could see through to ending the abuse of their lives and families and truly protect Americans lives with their devotions.

Even yours scumbag, with your baseless support for secret mass murder and treason.

At least I have evidence and have posted it.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 18, 2015)

In Wrongringer's tiny world, anyone with the gall to question the officially authorized 9/11 story, no matter how badly it flies in the face of some of the evidence gathered and documented by the government's own sources, common sense, and even the laws the physics,...is scum!

In reality, there are three fingers and a thumb pointing back in WR's own scummy direction.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 18, 2015)

Capstone said:


> From one of Dwas the Debwunker's more recent copy-and-paste jobs:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


nice try! but only a desperate poster would try to twist the obvious fact that your hero know jack shit.
from the same article "So after all the “expert” testimony and two patents the only evidence that is left for a self-consuming cutter charge is, well it might exist but we need to find out more; aside from the fact that their expert claims a patent, publicly available if it did exist, has been around for over 25 years. Also of note, they backpedaled on using remote detonators. Who could guess that we “need a new investigation” to find out? What AE911Truth wants a new investigation for is to find out if their speculation based on non-authorities and shoddy research is valid."


----------



## daws101 (Jun 18, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


bravo.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 18, 2015)

Christophera said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...


gargantuan stack of pretentious bullshit!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 18, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Ah. So you accuse me of having no evidence to support my beliefs, while refusing to provide any evidence to support your own? Perfect.


it not and accusation it a fact. it been shown endlessly that when you asshats present so called evidence it either manufactured, cherry picked ,intentionally misinterpreted by non credible sources.
the best example  is that of the totally nonsense about wtc7.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 18, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > From one of Dwas the Debwunker's more recent copy-and-paste jobs:
> ...



Not so nice a try! My reference to Tom Sullivan had to do with his statement regarding access to the core columns and beams by way of the elevator shafts. It had nothing to do with the misremembered patent for the thermite coated igniter (as opposed to self-consuming cutter charges).

Clearly, according to your own source, his job descriptions as a Blaster apprentice, powder carrier, and loader put him in a perfect position to learn about such access points.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 18, 2015)

Capstone said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...


that proves jack shit .every contractor, electrician,  maintenance crews  janitor etc. could find out those points  if they had  not already  been shown them as part of familiarizing them with the building.
as to the elevators they almost without exception are not structural they are in fact a free standing frame with some attachment points to the shaft.
I've worked on elevators that's how I know.
to plant your fantasy explosives your "bad guys" would have to do the same kind of prep that regular cd crews do.
  the people in the right places ploy does not wash.
somebody would notice .
end of story.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jun 18, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Well, another 9-11 has come and gone and our Truthers have done their typical cut and paste of nonsensical truther videos. Conspiracy theorists are mostly harmless and it is fun watching them spin their yarns.
> The problem with truthers is that their antics go beyond typical "Evil Gubment" rhetoric. If they stopped at the government knew about it and let it happen they would be relatively harmless. But when they get into Flight 93 didn't really crash in Shanksville and it was a missile that hit the Pentagon they are pissing on the graves of brave Americans.
> To imply that these planes didn't really crash and the passengers are being secretly held by the government is outright cruel to the victims families
> These families may have received some fragment of their loved one to bury and honor. It is all the closure they got. For truthers to tell them it is not their loved one they buried, that the government is playing a trick on them, that their loved one may still be alive is outright cruelty.
> ...


I am really brokenhearted but the government and its out-of-control secret services are trusted to do things like that.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 18, 2015)

daws101 said:


> that proves jack shit .every contractor, electrician,  maintenance crews  janitor etc. could find out those points  if they had  not already  been shown them as part of familiarizing them with the building. ...



Uhh...it proved the point I intended it to prove; which was that Wrongringer's claim that the elevator shafts did "_not provide access to SUPPORT COLLUMNS_" (sic)...was nothing more than an unsupported pile of crap.



			
				daws101 said:
			
		

> ...as to the elevators they almost without exception are not structural they are in fact a free standing frame with some attachment points to the shaft. ...



In the case of the Twin Towers, the elevators were housed in the core columns, Dwas. Don't take my word for it; look it up yourself. Whether they served an auxiliary support purpose or not, a top to bottom renovation would have provided unfettered access to all of the core columns and beams. 



			
				daws101 said:
			
		

> ...the people in the right places ploy does not wash.
> somebody would notice .
> end of story.



Well, judging by the smell of your usual bullshit, _you're_ the only thing that doesn't wash around here. End of story.


----------



## Christophera (Jun 18, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



That's what mass murders and traitors want you to say.

Me, I work for truth, justice, peace and the best mental health care possible because our soldiers need it badly and I have just proved all of that prompting you to spew empty text supporting secret methods of mass murder and treason.

The NWO loves you.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jun 18, 2015)

Christophera said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...



You have proved nothing, except you aren't reasonable. I don't care whether you believe what you believe, but to expect others to believe it is pretty arrogant.


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Jun 18, 2015)

eots said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > The claim that there's all these false-flag attacks is like the overarching theme in "Ancient Aliens" that every kinda remarkable human achievement was only possible with alien help.
> ...



It did not fall at free fall speed


----------



## Christophera (Jun 18, 2015)

If uiu


Papageorgio said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



If you cannot use evidence you cannot bd reasonable and I posted enough to prove my point that needed evidence.

The traitor proved his own betrayal by doing the same thing you are doing, failing to use evidence.

I can prove what I know and have all of the evidence assembled here.

The truth of the Twin Towers structure and 9-11 demolition

You need to stick with the structural
Information first.  That makes a point which cannot he denied relating to the towers destruction.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jun 18, 2015)

Christophera said:


> If uiu
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> ...



People on this board are trying to silence you?


----------



## Christophera (Jun 18, 2015)

Mostly damaging my use of evidence by external redirects.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jun 18, 2015)

Christophera said:


> Mostly damaging my use of evidence by external redirects.



If you say so.


----------



## Christophera (Jun 18, 2015)

Papageorgio said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > Mostly damaging my use of evidence by external redirects.
> ...


I'm posting on a phone so assembling all the evidence and making a thread is really difficult, so I need active links to my website because it's hard enough to get deniers to use an active link.  They won't use the redirects.
I do have opportunity to get on a laptop with wifi occasionally so will make a point to build a thread for this forum.

All of the threads  I made in 2010-11 have been deleted and only my oppositions threads remain.  My avatar was changed and my sig altered.

I generally do not return to forums after being banned.  I was asked to return here so have.  I find the mass advertising very difficult to deal with on my phone with the new forum software.

It crashes my phones browser 1/3 of the time trying to load a page and jumps to the top of a post when pasting information.   Often I touch ads and end up leaving the page in scrolling up to reposition in the text.

Nasty software with way too many ads.


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 19, 2015)

I suggest anyone interested in Christa's Twilight Zone read the forward to his vanity publication, After The Event (no, not the T.A. Williams series) in which he describes his motivation as "a lifetime of post hypnotic control via somnambulism established at 3.5 yrs by an Indigenous Medicine woman" ... his baby-sitter. No wonder the poor guy is broke (and broken). He was a poster child for the "Truther" Movement.

After The Event - Kindle edition by Christopher A. Brown. Health Fitness Dieting Kindle eBooks Amazon.com.

Click the Amazon link then click on the book cover.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 19, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Well, another 9-11 has come and gone and our Truthers have done their typical cut and paste of nonsensical truther videos. Conspiracy theorists are mostly harmless and it is fun watching them spin their yarns.
> ...


*Appeal To Anonymous Authority:*

an Appeal To Authority is made, but the authority is not named. For example, "Experts agree that ..", "scientists say .." or even "they say ..". This makes the information impossible to verify, and brings up the very real possibility that the arguer himself doesn't know who the experts are. In that case, he may just be spreading a rumor.
The situation is even worse if the arguer admits it's a rumor.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 19, 2015)

Christophera said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Christophera said:
> ...


typical nut job yammering..


----------



## daws101 (Jun 19, 2015)

Capstone said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > that proves jack shit .every contractor, electrician,  maintenance crews  janitor etc. could find out those points  if they had  not already  been shown them as part of familiarizing them with the building. ...
> ...


butt hurt again?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 19, 2015)

Christophera said:


> If uiu
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> ...


a nut job blog as proof? nope, does not fly!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 19, 2015)

Papageorgio said:


> Christophera said:
> 
> 
> > If uiu
> ...


no, he like all those guys just wish's it was true.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 19, 2015)

Speaking of the evidence for _wishful thinking_, from a 2001 _Washington Post _article by Barbara Vobejda:

"_Steve Patterson, who lives in Pentagon City, said it appeared to him that a commuter jet swooped over Arlington National Cemetery and headed for the Pentagon 'at a frightening rate .‚.‚. just slicing into that building.'_ "

----------------------------------


More eyewitness accounts of a smaller jet have been documented *here.*

Donald Wright:* “*_I watched this—*it looked like a commuter plane*, twin-engine, come down from the south real low…it just dipped down and came down right over 395._*”*[140]


Steven Gerard: *“*_Out of the corner of my eye, I saw this plane coming down…I saw *what looked to be maybe a 20-passenger corporate jet*, no markings on the side, coming in at a shallow angle like it was landing right into the side of the Pentagon_…_ I was across the I-395 from the Pentagon in an office tower with a direct view of the Pentagon._*”*[186]


D.S. Khavkin:* “*_[From an 8th floor high-rise:] At first, we thought it was the jets that sometimes fly overhead. However, it *appeared to be a small commercial aircraft*…_*”*[187]

Meseidy Rodriguez:* “*_It was a *mid size plane*_.*”*[188]

...(among *many* other _ambiguous_ accounts as to the size and specifics of the plane.)...

-----------------------------



In the video at the following link, an eyewitness named Janet describes "a commuter plane".

Pentagon witness Janet ABC 9 11 09 51 - YouTube

And maybe the most damning eyewitness account of all, at the following link, Omar Campos can be heard in Spanish as his friend translates (correctly, BTW) his description of the plane - a description that perfectly matches the picture of the Lockheed Jetstar linked to in one of my previous posts. Omar was outside working on the grounds in dangerously close proximity to the crash site. He got a good, close-up look at the plane as it came in and struck the building.

Pentagon witness Omar Campo CBS 10 53 9 11 - YouTube

I realize there are many other accounts that match Flight 77's general description, but most of them are from far greater distances than those of the witnesses who saw the smaller plane.

There are also significant time anomalies and news reports of nearby evacuations due to additional threats after the first reported explosions at the Pentagon (one report had up to three additional inbound aircraft threats), so the evidence is there for a post-crash flyover of a silver jumbo jet, complete with a large secondary explosion which increased the damage at the site of the earlier impact. In other words, I think the wide variance in the plane descriptions and reported times of impact were due to a quickly orchestrated cover-up effort.

Can't "prove it", though...


----------



## daws101 (Jun 19, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Speaking of the evidence for _wishful thinking_, from a 2001 _Washington Post _article by Barbara Vobejda:
> 
> "_Steve Patterson, who lives in Pentagon City, said it appeared to him that a commuter jet swooped over Arlington National Cemetery and headed for the Pentagon 'at a frightening rate .‚.‚. just slicing into that building.'_ "
> 
> ...





Capstone said:


> Speaking of the evidence for _wishful thinking_, from a 2001 _Washington Post _article by Barbara Vobejda:
> 
> "_Steve Patterson, who lives in Pentagon City, said it appeared to him that a commuter jet swooped over Arlington National Cemetery and headed for the Pentagon 'at a frightening rate .‚.‚. just slicing into that building.'_ "
> 
> ...


The length of this post is rock solid proof that it's bullshit.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 19, 2015)

daws101 said:


> butt hurt again?



Yeah, the deaths of nearly 3,000 innocent people and the ever-rising death toll of the illegal wars wrongly justified by those initial casualties...sort of keep me in a state of perpetual 'butt-hurt'. 

On the bright side though, it's a nice emotional release to repeatedly hand you and other mindless tools your asses on a fairly regular basis. So, thanks for the pressure valve release, Chode.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 19, 2015)

daws101 said:
			
		

> The length of this post is rock solid proof that it's bullshit.



^Debwunker Logic 101.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 19, 2015)

Capstone said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > butt hurt again?
> ...


It's delusion's like that , that makes these threads so enjoyable.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 19, 2015)

daws101 said:


> It's delusion's like that , that makes these threads so enjoyable.



That would've been a nice comeback, Poindumpster, if only our little back-and-forth in this thread actually corroborated it.

Too bad, for you, the record's there for pretty much everyone else to assess for themselves.


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 19, 2015)

Capstone said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > It's delusion's like that, that makes these threads so enjoyable.
> ...



And pretty much everyone else has yawned, shook their heads at your continued inability to get a real life, and moved on. Your 9/11 "Truther" Movement is O-V-E-R, Cappy, and most of you _still_ haven't gotten laid.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 20, 2015)

More compelling evidence that fatally contradicts the Flight 77 aspect of the _9/11 Official Conspiracy Theory_ (hereafter the NEOCT):


Of course I realize that most of you probably won't bother to watch the above 45-minute presentation which both exposes the alleged FDR data from Flight 77 as fraudulent..._and_ shows, that even it were fully legitimate, it directly contradicts the NEOCT in several key respects anyway! 

For the collective benefit of those who _do_ take the time though, Dennis Cimino's experience and qualifications as a _Flight Data Recorder Expert_ are as follows:

_Electrical Engineer_
_Commercial Pilot rating, since 1981_
_Navy Combat Systems Specialist: RADAR, ECM, cryptographic communications_
_Flight Data Recorder Engineer Smiths Aerospace_
_BA-609, IDARS, Military and Commercial_
_Millimeter wave RADAR and countermeasures expert since 1973_
_Holder of two patents for Doppler RADAR ( Kavouras ): long pulsewidth RADAR droop compensation network, and wave guide arc detection for high powered RADAR_


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Jun 20, 2015)

Capstone said:


> More compelling evidence that fatally contradicts the Flight 77 aspect of the _9/11 Official Conspiracy Theory_ (hereafter the NEOCT):
> 
> 
> Of course I realize that most of you probably won't bother to watch the above 45-minute presentation which both exposes the alleged FDR data from Flight 77 as fraudulent..._and_ shows, that even it were fully legitimate, it directly contradicts the NEOCT in several key respects anyway!
> ...



He presents no evidence


----------



## Capstone (Jun 20, 2015)

Soupnazi630 said:


> He presents no evidence



*1.* From *HERE*:

"_A* presentation* is the process of presenting a topic to an audience. It is typically a demonstration, lecture, or speech meant to inform, persuade, or build good will. ..._"

*2.* Given Cimino's credentials and fields of expertise, his testimony of direct analysis of the NTSB-provided data would stand up as highly credible evidence in any court of law.

_You_ have presented no evidence.


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Jun 20, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> > He presents no evidence
> ...


I do not need to the burden is on you and you have presented zilch


----------



## Capstone (Jun 20, 2015)

Soupnazi630 said:


> I do not need to the burden is on you...



Wrong. *You* made the unqualified, unsupported, and frankly, _false_ claim that Cimino "presents no evidence". Now, having been shown how and why that claim was false, you simply deny any need (or burden) to support it, while simultaneously deriding all of the evidence I've cited in this thread thus far as having amounted to "zilch" (although direct eyewitness accounts and expert opinions have routinely been used in evidence in courts of law for as long as law has been practiced in the United States).

Just like Wrongringer before you, you've been exposed as a vacuous hypocrite.

Now run along, before I decide to drop the gloves on your hapless ass.


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Jun 20, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> > I do not need to the burden is on you...
> ...


Wrong youngster I stated fact no evidence was given in the video.

He stated uninformed opinion and nothing more now go look up what evidence means boy


----------



## Capstone (Jun 20, 2015)

Soupnazi630 said:


> Wrong youngster I stated fact no evidence was given in the video. ...



No, you stated an unqualified, unsupported falsehood; and now, apparently not content to leave _dumb enough_ alone, you've gone and further elaborated that stupidity thusly:



			
				Soupnazi630 said:
			
		

> ...He stated uninformed opinion and nothing more...



His recounting of his *expert analysis* of the FDR data was hardly "uninformed", and as I stated before, his "opinion" would stand up as 'expert evidence' in any court of law in the country.



			
				Soupnazi630 said:
			
		

> ...now go look up what evidence means boy



Okay. 

For the purpose of everyday use, *The Oxford English Dictionary* defines "evidence" as follows:



			
				The OED said:
			
		

> *1*The available body of facts *or information* indicating whether *a belief or proposition* is true or valid:...



Emphasis mine.

And just to cover the bases, for legal use, the term "expert evidence" is defined *HERE* as follows:



			
				Black's Law Dictionary said:
			
		

> Testimony related to a professional or scientific subject. It is *based on training and experience in a subject area. The expert must give their opinion to aid the court in a decision or judgement. *They are questioned before being allowed to testify. ...



Emphasis mine.

By _either_ definition, "evidence" is clearly presented in the video I posted.

I hope you don't expect any respect solely on the basis of your advanced age (?), S-nazi. I've dealt with far too many ignorant old farts to fall for that crusty "_respect your elders_" canard. In my book, respect is earned; and in terms of debate, it's all about the argument.

Class dismissed.


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Jun 20, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong youngster I stated fact no evidence was given in the video. ...
> ...


He. Stated uninformed opinion only and has no expertise


----------



## Capstone (Jun 20, 2015)

Soupnazi630 said:


> He. Stated uninformed opinion only and has no expertise



Uh huh. 

Listen Gramps, why don't you pop a little blue pill and go fuck yourself. I'm done wasting my time on your _old school_ nonsense. People like you bring out the worst in me; and to be perfectly honest, I don't particularly like it.


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Jun 20, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> > He. Stated uninformed opinion only and has no expertise
> ...


That's because there is nothing intelligent in you to begin with.

Your just mindless and believing what you see on you tube.

Sorry middle you are not very bright


----------



## Capstone (Jun 20, 2015)

And of course, no halfway decent accounting of the evidence that contradicts the Flight 77 aspect of the NEOCT would fail to include a certain FBI exhibit from the 2006 trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, in which the two calls reportedly made successfully aboard Flight 77 by Barbara Olson to her husband, Ted Olson, were exposed as fabrications.

Originally extracted from the trial exhibits *HERE*:







As you can see, the FBI exhibit confirmed in federal court that only one call was made by Barbara Olson..._and_ that it went unconnected (lasting for "0 seconds").


----------



## Capstone (Jun 20, 2015)

As noted and asked several years ago by the consummate researcher and patriarch of the _9/11 Truth Movement_, Prof. David Ray Griffin:

"_This rejection of Ted Olson’s story [...] especially [by] the FBI is a development of utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington. Also, if Ted Olson’s claim was false, then there are only two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife.17 In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should we not suspect that other parts were as well? _"

Great question. 

Preemptive Note to Dwas the Debwunker: Before you chime in with your usual ad hom idiocy, yes, I'm fully aware that Griffin's advanced degrees are in Theology and Philosophy, so spare me the blast of your chronic halitosis.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 21, 2015)

Capstone said:


> As noted and asked several years ago by the consummate researcher and patriarch of the _9/11 Truth Movement_, Prof. David Ray Griffin:
> 
> "_This rejection of Ted Olson’s story [...] especially [by] the FBI is a development of utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington. Also, if Ted Olson’s claim was false, then there are only two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife.17 In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should we not suspect that other parts were as well? _"
> 
> ...



Your conspiracy theory ramblings are boilerplate. 
Critique of David Ray Griffin s 9 11 Fake Calls Theory by Erik Larson 911Blogger.com

And yes, citing the ramblings of a 9/11 conspiracy theory loon who's training and degrees are in theology and philosophy tends to further lessen the credibility of the conspiracy theory.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 21, 2015)

Capstone said:


> More compelling evidence that fatally contradicts the Flight 77 aspect of the _9/11 Official Conspiracy Theory_ (hereafter the NEOCT):
> 
> 
> Of course I realize that most of you probably won't bother to watch the above 45-minute presentation which both exposes the alleged FDR data from Flight 77 as fraudulent..._and_ shows, that even it were fully legitimate, it directly contradicts the NEOCT in several key respects anyway!
> ...


Your silly YouTube video is a lengthy example of the failure of the twoofers to present a credible argument. 

The silly video is nothing but a twoofer rattling on for no apparent reason.


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Jun 21, 2015)

Capstone said:


> As noted and asked several years ago by the consummate researcher and patriarch of the _9/11 Truth Movement_, Prof. David Ray Griffin:
> 
> "_This rejection of Ted Olson’s story [...] especially [by] the FBI is a development of utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington. Also, if Ted Olson’s claim was false, then there are only two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife.17 In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should we not suspect that other parts were as well? _"
> 
> ...


Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and no phone calls were faked try real evidence you cool rather than lies


----------



## Capstone (Jun 21, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Your conspiracy theory ramblings are boilerplate.
> Critique of David Ray Griffin s 9 11 Fake Calls Theory by Erik Larson 911Blogger.comf...



Yet Larson had nothing to say about perhaps the most crucial point from Griffin's essay:

"_...in spite of the fact that two women from American Flight 77 – Barbara Olson and flight attendant Renee May – were generally reported to have made cell phone calls, the graphics for them did not indicate that either of them had used a cell phone. And when we look at a May 2004 FBI report on phone calls from AA Flight 77, which “was conducted in support of the U.S. Justice Department’s criminal case against Zacarias Moussaoui,” we find this statement: “All of the calls from Flight 77 were made via the onboard airphone system.”39 "_

Here's the referenced document:






Taken together, the FBI exhibit from my previous post and this FBI report confirming that *all* of the calls from Flight 77 were made via the onboard airphone system, we can only conclude that Barbara Olson was unsuccessful in any attempt to contact her husband.

This evidence strongly suggests one of two things: either Ted Olson lied about the two famous calls from his wife, or he was duped and the conversations he had were not with his wife. Either way, the widespread media reports of those calls were based on an intentional fabrication on _somebody's_ part.



			
				hollie said:
			
		

> ...And yes, citing the ramblings of a 9/11 conspiracy theory loon who's training and degrees are in theology and philosophy tends to further lessen the credibility of the conspiracy theory.



Right, because philosphers and theologians have historically contributed so little to _legitimate_ fields of knowledge (like science and math).


----------



## Capstone (Jun 21, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > More compelling evidence that fatally contradicts the Flight 77 aspect of the _9/11 Official Conspiracy Theory_ (hereafter the NEOCT):
> ...



Hilarious. Griffin's not to be trusted _because of_ his fields of expertise; Cimino's not to be trusted _in spite_ of his fields of expertise. Seriously, you duhbwunkers should try a little harder to keep your stories straight.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 21, 2015)

soupnazi630 said:
			
		

> Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and no phone calls were faked try real evidence *you cool* rather than lies



Hmm...I know the 'c' and 'f' keys are adjacent on most keyboards, but I can't help but wonder whether S-nazi's subconscious mind was trying to break through in the form of a typo.

Could it be, on some deep level, that S-nazi secretly thinks I'm kind of "cool"? 

Of course, not giving a rat's ass about what S-nazi (or anyone else, for that matter) thinks about me, I can happily point out the possibility...and not give it another thought.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 21, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Your conspiracy theory ramblings are boilerplate.
> ...


Right, because the Twoofer loons are left to philosophers and theologians to sustain them in their fantasy world of conspiracy theories.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 21, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...



Hilarious. Here we are, a decade and a half following 9/11 and you twoofers are still the sad, pathetic conspiracy theorists you were a decade and a half ago. 

Should we wait another decade and a half for you twoofers to enlist Harun Yahya as a credible source?


----------



## Capstone (Jun 21, 2015)

"Twoofers, conspiracy theorists, loons, philosophers, and theologians!", poor Hollie still rings hollow after all these years. 

His or her primary standard for judging the credibility of prominent commentators, scholars, scientists, professionals from highly relevant fields, and other researchers from the 9/11 Truth Movement is as dubious as it is transparent - *anyone* who doesn't support the patently ridiculous NEO*CT* (conspiracy theory) is a "twoofer" and a "loon" by default. How _super-de-duper_ convincing!


----------



## Hollie (Jun 21, 2015)

Capstone said:


> "Twoofers, conspiracy theorists, loons, philosophers, and theologians!", poor Hollie still rings hollow after all these years.
> 
> His or her primary standard for judging the credibility of prominent commentators, scholars, scientists, professionals from highly relevant fields, and other researchers from the 9/11 Truth Movement is as dubious as it is transparent - *anyone* who doesn't support the patently ridiculous NEO*CT* (conspiracy theory) is a "twoofer" and a "loon" by default. How _super-de-duper_ convincing!


Poor capstone. Her appeals to theologians, philosophers and social misfits such as Alex Jones are the promoters of their conspiracy theories. 

And here we are, a decade and a half past the events and the conspiracy theorists still have no credible case to make to placate their conspiracy theories. 

Do you conspiracy theory loons need another decade and a half to make a credible case?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 21, 2015)

Capstone said:


> As noted and asked several years ago by the consummate researcher and patriarch of the _9/11 Truth Movement_, Prof. David Ray Griffin:
> 
> "_This rejection of Ted Olson’s story [...] especially [by] the FBI is a development of utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington. Also, if Ted Olson’s claim was false, then there are only two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife.17 In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should we not suspect that other parts were as well? _"
> 
> ...


You mean something factual like he's totally unqualified to be taken seriously 
like yourself.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 21, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Your conspiracy theory ramblings are boilerplate.
> ...


Too bad he's not one of them.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 22, 2015)

Having cited several direct eyewitness accounts, the FDR analysis as recounted by a *highly qualified* analyst, and the FBI documentation that was entered in evidence in federal court back in 2006, all corroborating my beliefs that the Pentagon was struck by a small to mid-size "commuter plane"...and _not_, as widely reported, by AA Flight 77, I'll now turn my attention to supporting my beliefs regarding Flight 93.

First, corroborating the possibility that UAL Flight 93 was shot down by a _rogue_ interceptor who may have "slipped through the cracks of the *_war games stand-down_" (*an aspect I intend to cover in greater depth in a future post), the following excerpt is from a well-sourced *Concensus9/11.org article*, which was posted at globalresearch.ca on January, 21, 2015 (oh yes, the _9/11 Truth Movement_ is still *very much* alive and kicking):

"_[. . .]The 9/11 Commission claimed that Cheney did not issue a shoot-down authorization until 10:10 or later, whereas the evidence shows that Cheney gave the authorization by 9:50 – hence at least 20 minutes earlier than the Commission claimed. *This 20-minute difference means the difference between whether military pilots could, or could not, have been ordered to shoot down United Flight 93 (which reportedly crashed at 10:03).*
The Commission’s claim about the time of the shoot-down authorization was not the only part of the official account of the shoot-down authorization that was problematic: The press focused on the Bush administration’s claim that Cheney had transmitted authorization received from the President (rather than declaring it on his own, which would have been illegal), about which even the 9/11 Commission was skeptical.22

*More important to the truth about 9/11, however, was the 9/11 Commission’s claim that the shoot-down authorization was not given by Cheney until 10:10 or later, hence after United 93 had crashed. This claim is contradicted by reports from Richard Clarke, U.S. News and World Report, Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr, the FAA, and three military officers: Col. Marr, Gen. Arnold, and Brig. Gen. Winfield.*

Moreover, the 9/11 Commission’s 10:10-or-later claim presupposed the Commission’s claim that Cheney did not enter the PEOC, where he took charge, until almost 10:00, and this claim is contradicted by abundant evidence, as shown in Point MC-3.23_"

Emphasis mine.

Now, while the points highlighted above can't be claimed as direct evidence of a shoot-down, they do at least corroborate the possibility. Moreover, they _can_ be viewed as evidence of a cover-up on the part of the 9/11 commission, as well as evidence that directly contradicts several key aspects of the NEOCT as presented in the mainstream media, not least of which the in-flight passenger revolt story that came to us by way of a number of *reported cell phone/airphone calls (*another aspect I intend to address at length in a future post).

Anticipating the objection that a shoot-down order is counterintuitive to the notion that Cheney was _in-the-know_ and intentionally complicit in the 9/11 black operation, we need only look at the nature of the alleged order as it was understood by those who reportedly received it.

From the same article quoted above:


> [. . .]General Larry Arnold, the commander of NORAD within the Continental United States, said: “I had every intention of shooting down United 93 *if it continued to progress toward Washington, D.C.*”15
> 
> General Montague Winfield, the deputy director of the National Military Command Center in the Pentagon, reportedly said: “The decision was made to try to go intercept Flight 93. . . . The Vice President [said] that the President had given us permission to shoot down innocent civilian aircraft *that threatened Washington, DC.*”16 [...]


IF, as these accounts may suggest, the shoot-down order was intended to apply only to "civilan aircraft that threatened Washington D.C.", and in deference to the prospect that Cheney knew Flight 93's intended target was in NYC (Building 7, maybe?), then such an order wouldn't be counterintuitive in the least.

I'll leave it there for now.


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Jun 22, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Having cited several direct eyewitness accounts, the FDR analysis as recounted by a *highly qualified* analyst, and the FBI documentation that was entered in evidence in federal court back in 2006, all corroborating my beliefs that the Pentagon was struck by a small to mid-size "commuter plane"...and _not_, as widely reported, by AA Flight 77, I'll now turn my attention to supporting my beliefs regarding Flight 93.
> 
> First, corroborating the possibility that UAL Flight 93 was shot down by a _rogue_ interceptor who may have "slipped through the cracks of the *_war games stand-down_" (*an aspect I intend to cover in greater depth in a future post), the following excerpt is from a well-sourced *Concensus9/11.org article*, which was posted at globalresearch.ca on January, 21, 2015 (oh yes, the _9/11 Truth Movement_ is still *very much* alive and kicking):
> 
> ...


Good because no professional or expert analysis proves anything other than the hijacked airliner hit the Pentagon. The FDR analysis is neither.

There is no evidence as you claim for Cheney's order either


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2015)

Soupnazi630 said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > Having cited several direct eyewitness accounts, the FDR analysis as recounted by a *highly qualified* analyst, and the FBI documentation that was entered in evidence in federal court back in 2006, all corroborating my beliefs that the Pentagon was struck by a small to mid-size "commuter plane"...and _not_, as widely reported, by AA Flight 77, I'll now turn my attention to supporting my beliefs regarding Flight 93.
> ...


I wouldn't expect the rabid twoofers to let a few incidentals like facts get in the way of their cutting and pasting.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 22, 2015)

Lol truthers are still a thing?????


----------



## Capstone (Jun 22, 2015)

For the benefit of anyone interested in serious discussion, I'll respond only in reference to *specific* information or evidence that refutes or seemingly contradicts the information and evidence I've cited. Posts with nothing more to offer than unsupported pronouncements and/or adolescent name-calling will receive from me the attention they deserve - none.

Regarding Cheney's shoot-down order applying to a specific _Washington-bound_ aircraft (bear in mind: this would have been after the "Flight 77" incident at the Pentagon), his own words have confirmed this.


Between 0:07 and 0:18

Interviewer: "..._you were the one who gave the direct order to shoot down *a plane* that you were told, *as it turns out incorrectly*,* was headed for Washington.*"
_
Cheney_: "Right. That's correct."
_
This televised confirmation indicated his _belief_ at the time the order was given - a belief apparently based on incorrect information - that the target of the order was headed for Washington.

Since that specific target was identified as Flight 93 by a number of high-ranking officers who reportedly received and at least intended to obey the shoot-down order (see the article in my last post), it seems reasonable to conclude that Cheney was indeed knowingly speaking of Flight 93.

Obviously, if Cheney knew Flight 93's intended target was supposed to be in New York, then the erroneous information that it was headed for D.C. would have indicated a problem in the RC flight system, which would have made the ultimate destination of that aircraft/drone an unacceptable wildcard_._


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2015)

Capstone said:


> For the benefit of anyone interested in serious discussion, I'll respond only in reference to *specific* information or evidence that refutes or seemingly contradicts the information and evidence I've cited. Posts with nothing more to offer than unsupported pronouncements and/or adolescent name-calling will receive from me the attention they deserve - none.
> 
> Regarding Cheney's shoot-down order applying to a specific _Washington-bound_ aircraft (bear in mind: this would have been after the "Flight 77" incident at the Pentagon), his own words have confirmed this.
> 
> ...


Alex jones predicted all of this.



You can't deny the twoof.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 23, 2015)

Using the _WaybackMachine_, early anecdotal evidence for the shoot-down hypothesis can be found in abundance.

*This* _Daily News_ article from November, 2001, for instance, documents a strange consensus among the locals near the Shankesville crash site. I encourage everyone to read this _very balanced_ article in its entirety.

Some excerpts:



> [. . .]"I know of two people - I will not mention names - that heard a missile," Stuhl said. "They both live very close, within a couple of hundred yards. . .This one fellow's served in Vietnam and he says he's heard them, and he heard one that day." The mayor adds that based on what he knows about that morning, military F-16 fighter jets were "very, very close." [...]





> [...]Laura Temyer, who lives several miles north of the crash site in Hooversville, was hanging some clothes outside that morning when she heard
> airplane pass overhead. That struck her as unusual since she'd just heard on TV that all flights were grounded.
> 
> "I heard like a boom and the engine sounded funny," she told the Daily News. "I heard two more booms - and then I did not hear anything."
> ...





> [...]*THEMYSTERY PLANE. Many people in the Shanksville area, including some interviewed by the Daily News, saw a fast-moving unmarked small jet fly overhead a very short time after Flight 93 crashed. Several days later, authorities said they believe the plane was a Falcon 20 private jet that was headed to nearby Johnstown but was asked to descend and survey the crash site. Yet officials have never identified the pilot nor explained why he was still airborne roughly 30 minutes after the government ordered all aircraft to land at the closest airport.[...]





> [...]Just a few days after the crash, a federal flight controller told a Nashua, N.H., newspaper that an F-16 was "in hot pursuit" of the hijacked United jet, following so closely that it made 360-degree turns to stay in range. "He must have seen the whole thing," an unnamed aviation official said.[...]





> [...]a number of residents saw a small, unmarked jet circling over the crash site shortly after. Workers at a marina saw it, and so did Kathy Blades, who was in her small summer cottage abut a quarter-mile from the impact site.
> 
> Blades and her son ran outside after the crash and saw the jet, *with sleek back wings and an angled cockpit*, race overhead. "My son said, 'I think we're under attack!' " She said she was so shocked by the crash she can't say exactly how long after the impact it was.[...][emphasis Capstone's]





> [...]Most Americans are quite comfortable with the conclusion that the struggle between the passengers and the hijackers caused the crash of Flight 93. Roxanne Sullivan, who lives at the end of Skyline Drive in Shanksville and helped erect and maintain one of the memorials, says she has absolutely no doubt that's what happened. How does she know?
> 
> "Right here," she said, thumping her heart.
> 
> ...



Sadly, as noted *here*:



> During the sentencing phase of the 2006 trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the contents of the cocpit voice recorder of Flight 93 were played for the jury. *On April 12, the government released a transcript of the recording, but not the recording itself.* The last entry in the transcript has the timestamp 10:03:09, consistent with the 9/11 Commission's story that the crash was at 10:03. *A report two years prior to the publication of the Commission's Report -- when the crash time was widely recognized as 10:06 -- stated that "the last seconds of the cockpit voice recorder are the loud sounds of wind, hinting at a possible hole somewhere in the fuselage."* 1 [...][emphasis Capstone's]



The decision to release a written transcript (with questionable timestamps?) instead of the actual audio has only further fuelled the fires of public suspicion.

Not to imply that a US-based lettered agency would ever dream of altering or fabricating evidence! 

It should also be pointed out that the previously "widely recognized" time of 10:06 had also been _widely reported_.

*One such example*:



> [. . .]The Federal Aviation Administration said yesterday it turned over to the FBI a radar record of United Airlines Flight 93's route.
> 
> *The data traced the Boeing 757-200 from its takeoff from Newark, N.J., to its violent end at 10:06 a.m., *just outside Shanksville, about 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh. [...][emphasis Capstone's]



*Here's another*:



> [. . .]Forty-five seconds after telling Fritz to evacuate the Johnstown tower, Cleveland Air Traffic Control phoned again.
> 
> "They said to disregard. The aircraft had turned to the south and they lost radar contact with him."
> 
> *It was 10:06 a.m. *[...][emphasis Capstone's]



...among many other local and mainstream reports in the days and weeks following those dastardly "terrorist" attacks.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 23, 2015)

For the goofy conspiracy theorists / twoofers:


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 23, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Not to imply that a US-based lettered agency would ever dream of altering or fabricating evidence! ...



Is there any chance that you will _ever_ provide the number of "US-based lettered" agencies and the number of co-conspirators you believe took part in the CTBS you are selling here?


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 23, 2015)

A coincidence or a conspiracy? Was the now defunct "Truther" Movement just another cover for insipid anti-Semitism?

Thirteen years of 9/11 CTs with a strong dose of "the Jews did it" just won't die because they serve those for whom hate trumps truth.

Charlie Veitch was once one of Britain’s leading 9/11 conspiracy theorists and friend to David Icke and Alex Jones but when he had a change of heart, the threats began...

When asked if he found anti-Semitism in the 'truther' movement he responded: “Loads. Loads.."

"...I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch


----------



## daws101 (Jun 23, 2015)

"I'll leave it there for now."- crapstone post # 485.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 24, 2015)

...picking up from where I last left it (for _then_), we know, as a matter of congressional record (S9497, from September 19, 2001) that a specific group of F-16 interceptors, the "Happy Hooligans", from the 119th Wing of the Air National Guard out of Fargo, North Dakota (not Langley!) were scrambled on 9/11.

From that record:

"[. . . ]_For some time, the Happy Hooligans have kept a permanent detachment with four F–16s, pilots, and crews on alert at *Langley* Air Force Base to provide air defense of the United States. *I am not going to get into the details because it is important for national security not to reveal what they were doing, but they were very much in harm's way.* I will not get into any more detail other than to say, these pilots —the Happy Hooligans, and any others who were involved in that scrambled mission to protect our Nation's Capital, and the region here in the DC area—really were willing to give their lives in a generally undefended position."
_
Emphasis mine.

It had been rumored in the early 2000's that one of the Happy Hooligans, (now Col.) Rick Gibney, took out Flight 93. This rumor reemerged in 2008ish, even though it had supposedly been "debunked" by the long-exposed shills at _Popular Mechanics_ back in 2005.

The following excerpt is from a somewhat *lengthy critique* of that PM effort.



> [. . .]All said and done you can rest assured any mention of Mr. Joseph Allbaugh was intentionally excluded from the Popular Mechanics article and for obvious reason then and on that note I contend Popular Mechanics went out of its way to whitewash the shooting down of UA flight 93 by quoting the false statement made by Edward F. Jacoby, Jr. Having demonstrated why that intended alibi was a ruse that means one thing. Lt. Col. Rick Gibney's whereabouts and actions on 9/11 (between his leaving Fargo, North Dakota and his arrival in Albany, New York) remains completely unaccounted for.
> 
> Before moving on with this treatise I wish to make my point of view on the matter of UA flight 93 and Lt. Col. Rick Gibney crystal clear. *In no way am I maliciously attacking or blaming Lt. Col. Rick Gibney for anything and despite my believing it was at least possible for him to have shot down UA flight 93 on 9/11, in no way then am I saying that's what happened, nor do I believe that action would constitute a traitorous and/or criminal act on his part, had he done so. In fact, when considering the events of the day and the dire circumstance of UA flight 93, the military truly had no other option but to fire upon that aircraft.* Hopefully then time will tell of that, but with that said I've no doubt anyone up to and including Lt. Col. Rick Gibney wouldn't have experienced a profound sense of empathy, sadness and consternation at the time. Which in and of itself is the very definition of our being all too human whereby we're often manipulated by credentialed experts into doing bad things to good people.[...][emphasis Capstone's]



Wholeheartedly agreed. 

I'll leave it there..._for now_.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2015)

Capstone said:


> ...picking up from where I last left it (for _then_), we know, as a matter of congressional record (S9497, from September 19, 2001) that a specific group of F-16 interceptors, the "Happy Hooligans", from the 119th Wing of the Air National Guard out of Fargo, North Dakota (not Langley!) were scrambled on 9/11.
> 
> From that record:
> 
> ...


Here's the twoof.


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 24, 2015)

Capstone said:


> ...It had been rumored...



That's pretty much the "Truther" theme song.
_I'll_ leave it there..._for now_.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 24, 2015)

it must be remembered  that the CT community has had almost 15 years to perfect their bullshit .


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 24, 2015)

daws101 said:


> it must be remembered  that the CT community has had almost 15 years to perfect their bullshit .


 
It's their unwillingness to let go of what "had been rumored" after 14+ yrs of getting their noses rubbed in it that makes their agendas so suspect. They not only don't seem to care that others see them as raving lunatics, they find a perverse satisfaction in it. 
I get the Pied Pipers who making their living selling 9/11 CTs on coffee mugs, t-shirts and DVDs ... they gotta eat. 
I sorta get those who concoct elaborate YouTubes ... they get 15 seconds of fame.
What I didn't really get - until insider Charlie Veitch spilled the beans - was just how little the truth mattered to the "Truthers" and how motivated by their hate they were:

When asked if he (Charlie Veitch) found anti-Semitism in the 'truther' movement he responded: “Loads. Loads..."

"...I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch


----------



## deep_space (Jun 26, 2015)

it is disturbing to see anyone post hate, in any form, hatred for any specific group without regard for the fact that said group is made up of individuals and a random sample of said individuals may or may not fit your criteria for being the focus of your hate.  With that said, I'd like to at least attempt to address an issue about the whole truth movement business.  Its a given that without even attempting to name suspects,  the events of 9/11 are of such a nature as to be very much evidence of there having been no hijacked airliners at all,  and that the towers & 7 were blown up rather than simply being victims of the damage inflicted by airliner crashes and in the case of 7 damage from fire + stuff thrown by the collapsing towers.  The whole official story STINKS!  and you don't have to even attempt to name a perpetrator to see the basic features of the events and know there is something very wrong with this picture.


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 26, 2015)

deep_space said:


> it is disturbing to see anyone post hate, in any form, hatred for any specific group without regard for the fact that said group is made up of individuals and a random sample of said individuals may or may not fit your criteria for being the focus of your hate.  With that said, I'd like to at least attempt to address an issue about the whole truth movement business.  Its a given that without even attempting to name suspects,  the events of 9/11 are of such a nature as to be very much evidence of there having been no hijacked airliners at all,  and that the towers & 7 were blown up rather than simply being victims of the damage inflicted by airliner crashes and in the case of 7 damage from fire + stuff thrown by the collapsing towers.  The whole official story STINKS!  and you don't have to even attempt to name a perpetrator to see the basic features of the events and know there is something very wrong with this picture.



Wow. Just wow. No wonder you are disturbed by those who find 9/11 "Truthers" to be way less than honest.
You have the right to make up your own mind ... not your own facts.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 26, 2015)

The audio recording from Flight 93's CVR, which has still not been released to the general public and reportedly captured "the loud sounds of wind, hinting at a possible hole somewhere in the fuselage" during the "last seconds", may be corroborated by one of the only two "cell phone calls" that had not been misrepresented as such prior to the damning revelations made by the FBI during the 2006 trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. The 911 call reportedly made via cell phone by Edward Felt (from the restroom onboard Flight 93) was confirmed by a trial exhibit, BUT unlike the other successfully connected calls (including the only other actual _cell phone_ call), neither the duration nor the recording of his communication with the 911 call-taker were provided.

The gravity of those omissions further compounded that of the 9/11 Commission's earlier failure to have so much as mentioned Felt's call - a call in which a number of early media reports claimed that he spoke of an "explosion" and "white smoke" prior to the crash.

As documnted in *this 2004 article* by Michel Chossudovsky:



> [. . .]The alleged call by Edward Felt from the toilet of the aircraft of UAL 93 was answered by Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor in Pennsylvania who took the call.
> 
> *It is worth noting that Glenn Cramer was subsequently “gagged by the FBI.” *(See Robert Wallace`s incisive analysis published in Sept 2002 by the Daily Mirror, (What Happened to Flight 93).
> 
> *Ironically, this high profile cell call by Ed Felt, which would have provided crucial evidence to the 9/11 Commission was, for some reason, not mentioned in the Report.* [...]



Emphasis mine.

More _strange_ than "ironic", really. 

It seems, to this day, the FBI's gag order on Cramer and the active prevention of public disclosure of the recording/transcript of Felt's 911 call (which the agency confirmed in federal court actually _did_ take place)...remain in effect, without explanation.


----------



## deep_space (Jun 26, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> deep_space said:
> 
> 
> > it is disturbing to see anyone post hate, in any form, hatred for any specific group without regard for the fact that said group is made up of individuals and a random sample of said individuals may or may not fit your criteria for being the focus of your hate.  With that said, I'd like to at least attempt to address an issue about the whole truth movement business.  Its a given that without even attempting to name suspects,  the events of 9/11 are of such a nature as to be very much evidence of there having been no hijacked airliners at all,  and that the towers & 7 were blown up rather than simply being victims of the damage inflicted by airliner crashes and in the case of 7 damage from fire + stuff thrown by the collapsing towers.  The whole official story STINKS!  and you don't have to even attempt to name a perpetrator to see the basic features of the events and know there is something very wrong with this picture.
> ...



OK, what "facts" support the idea that commercial airliners were used as weapons?  exactly how much of any given aircraft was accounted for and where is that accounting?
People bring up a "domino effect" with reference to how WTC1 & 2 collapsed, however note that a row of dominoes must be specifically set up to do what a row of dominoes does, in the case of the skyscrapers, the buildings were specifically built with the intent to have them stand and not fall down.

What facts convince you that airliners were hijacked?  do tell.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 26, 2015)

Capstone said:


> The audio recording from Flight 93's CVR, which has still not been released to the general public and reportedly captured "the loud sounds of wind, hinting at a possible hole somewhere in the fuselage" during the the "last seconds", may be corroborated by one of the only two "cell phone calls" that had not been misrepresented as such prior to the damning revelations made by the FBI during the 2006 trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. The 911 call reportedly made via cell phone by Edward Felt (from the restroom onboard Flight 93) was confirmed by a trial exhibit, BUT unlike the other successfully connected calls (including the only other actual _cell phone_ call), neither the duration nor the recording of his communication with the 911 call-taker were provided.
> 
> The gravity of those omissions further compounded that of the 9/11 Commission's earlier failure to have so much as mentioned Felt's call - a call in which a number of early media reports claimed that he spoke of an "explosion" and "white smoke" prior to the crash.
> 
> ...


Ah, yes.  Michel Chossudovsky. Another conspiracy theory loon from the internet tabloid _global research_.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 26, 2015)

Moving on from one world-reknowned scholar's article (namely that of Prof. Chossudovsky - a man who could only qualify as a "loon" by the default standard of the duh-bwunker crowd) to the analysis drawn from a *consensus of experts*, whose defining methodology is described as follows:



> [. . .]The Consensus Points were derived from a Delphi survey of over 20 expert panelists, who, blind to each other’s identities and responses, ranked each proposed point on a scale of 1-6 through three rounds of review and feedback.
> 
> *The Delphi Method is a standard consensus tool which uses an established methodology to advance scientific knowledge in fields such as medicine.*
> 
> The ranked Consensus Points have thus achieved at least 90% agreement by over 20 people. (This is considered a high percentage in scientific literature.)[...]



Emphasis mine.

Panelists include (or included, prior to their deaths) such _wacked out conspiracy loons_ as the former head of the Dept. of Aeronautical Engineering at the USAF Institute of Technology/Director of Advanced Space Programs Development (“Star Wars”) under Presidents Ford and Carter, *Dr. Robert Bowman* (now deceased); former Director for Research Engineering and Aerospace Projects at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center/ recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award, *Dwain Deets*; former geography and environmental science instructor at Berkeley, San Francisco State and Laney College, *Tod Fletcher*_,_ M.A., C.Phil. UC Berkeley (now deceased); former Chief Health Officer, Maricopa County, AZ/Medical Director, LA County Dept. of Health Services/Director of the Department of Health and Social Services, Wyoming/President of the American Association of Public Health Physicians (AAPHP)/editorial consultant, _American Journal of Public Health_ and author of over 40 academic articles, *Dr. Jonathan B. Weisbuch*, M.D., M.P.H.; among other highly qualified, well-respected professionals and academicians.

The following excerpts are from a consensus911.org article (*HERE*):



> [. . .]*3. A Priori Reason to Doubt the Second Account*
> 
> The 2006 FBI account entails that all of the reported calls that had been presented in the first official account as cell phone calls had actually been – except for those by Felt and Lyles – calls from onboard phones. That is, the calls by seven passengers – UA 93 passengers Mark Bingham, Marion Britton, Tom Burnett and Jeremy Glick; UA 175 passengers Peter Hanson and Brian Sweeney; and AA 77 passenger Barbara Olson – had been misascribed.
> 
> ...



Emphasis mine.



> [...]*5. The Calls Received by Deena Burnett*
> 
> Deena Burnett, a former Delta Airlines flight attendant, told FBI interviewers, shortly after the calls had come, that she had received three to five calls from her husband, Tom Burnett, on UA 93. [15]
> 
> ...



Emphasis mine.

So, although not quite to the extent Barbara Olson's calls were *completely debunked* by the FBI's trial exhibits, the legitimacy of the three calls reportedly made by Tom Burnett to his wife, Deena, was still thrown into serious doubt by the FBI's exhibts in relation to the agency's interviews with Deena Burnett shortly after the "crash". This means: either the trial exhibits were in some way dubious, or a number of the FBI's own previous reports involving crucial aspects of the NEOCT were bold-faced lies.

I lean more toward the latter, BTW.


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 26, 2015)

deep_space said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. Just wow. No wonder you are disturbed by those who find 9/11 "Truthers" to be way less than honest.
> ...



Gee, I dunno. Maybe it was watching it happen on live TV? Sheesh.


----------



## deep_space (Jun 28, 2015)

"Gee, I dunno. Maybe it was watching it happen on live TV? Sheesh."

Wow man, I saw it on TV so it must be REAL.


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 28, 2015)

deep_space said:


> "Gee, I dunno. Maybe it was watching it happen on live TV? Sheesh."
> 
> Wow man, I saw it on TV so it must be REAL.


 
For the TV people to have faked that would require you to add the entire media and all those who witnessed and recorded 9/11 live to all the gov't agencies and technicians who planned, prepped and covered it up in your twisted view of reality.
Once you apply the same level of skepticism to the myriad of alternative universe explanations produced by the "Truther" movement over the past 13+ yrs as you do to the official reports, you too will join the army of former "Truthers" like Charlie Veitch:
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong."


----------



## deep_space (Jun 28, 2015)

so anyone's incredulity over how it may have been pulled off, negates the fact that the video(s) of the alleged "FLT175" constitute B movie special effects.


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 29, 2015)

deep_space said:


> so anyone's incredulity over how it may have been pulled off, negates the fact that the video(s) of the alleged "FLT175" constitute B movie special effects.


 
The fact you so assiduously avoid is that thousands of people in NY saw the planes hit the WTC (and millions watched on TV) and dozens took pictures. Are they all in on your insipid insistence that none of what they saw and recorded actually happened?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 29, 2015)

deep_space said:


> so anyone's incredulity over how it may have been pulled off, negates the fact that the video(s) of the alleged "FLT175" constitute B movie special effects.


since ass hats like yourself don't know jack shit about how sfx are done that statement is as non credible as the "tower were rigged to explode as they were being built horse shit.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 29, 2015)

Having shown good reason to doubt various portions of the Flight 93 aspect of the NEOCT (citing the FBI's contradictory evidence and inconsistent treatment of various witnesses' accounts in the process), and having supported my belief that "Flight 93" was shot down by one of the handful of interceptors unaffected by the _war games stand-down_ of US air defense systems (citing eyewitness/anecdotal evidence, a strangely worded entry in a 2001 congressional report, and the 911 call made by Edward Felt), I'll now support my belief that the slew of military exercises that were being conducted on 9/11/01 _did_, in fact, greatly compromise the effectiveness of US air defense systems on that fateful day.

Again from *one of the consensus points* drawn from the panelists at consensus911.org (quoted excerpt italicized between the asterisks):

_**I. Although the 9/11 Commission mentioned only one military exercise – Vigilant Guardian – that was scheduled for 9/11, evidence shows that at least 12 exercises had been scheduled for that day:*
Vigilant Guardian: An annual NORAD exercise held traditionally in October, __[8]__often in conjunction with Global Guardian. __[9]__ On 9/11, all levels of command at NORAD Headquarters, including NEADS, were participating in this command-post exercise (CPX), __[10]__“24/7”. __[11]_
_Global Guardian: A massive annual Command Post-Exercise (CPX) and Field Training Exercise (FTX), __[12]__ which was sponsored jointly by the U.S. Strategic Command, US Space Command, and NORAD, and was linked to Vigilant Guardian and Amalgam Warrior. __[13]__ Global Guardian is traditionally held in October or November each year. __[14]__ According to a military newspaper dated March 23, 2001, __[15]__ the over-arching Global Guardian exercise had indeed been originally scheduled for October, __[16]__ but was subsequently moved to early September.
Crown Vigilance was sponsored by Air Combat Command and was linked toGlobal Guardian. __[17]_
_Amalgam Warrior was also running — a large-scale live-fly exercise involving two or more NORAD regions, traditionally held twice a year in April and October. __[18]_
_Amalgam Virgo: NORAD officers told the 9/11 Commission Team 8: “On 9/11 there were two FDX exercises planned:Amalgam Virgo and Amalgam Warrior.” __[19]_
_Northern Vigilance: A large annual real-world NORAD operation that on 9/11 diverted much of the US air defense fleet to Canada and Alaska to counteract a Russian drill. __[20]__ This operation involved NORAD’s Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC) in Colorado. __[21]_
_Apollo Guardian, linked to Global Guardian and run by the US Space Command, was also running on September 11, 2001. “Hijacks were included in these exercises to exercise transition in Rules of Engagement (ROE).” __[22]_
_W-105 at Otis Air Force Base: Six F-15’s from Otis (out of a contingent of 18) took off on a routine ocean training exercise at 9:00 AM, eight minutes after two “alert” F-15’s on the same runway were scrambled in response to the first WTC attack. The six training jets were recalled at 9:25 AM to be armed and to join the response. __[23]_
_Andrews Air Force Base (outside Washington, DC): There were only seven pilots available in the AAFB 121st Fighter Squadron on 9/11 because many had not returned from the large-scale training exercise “Red Flag” in Las Vegas. __[24]__ Three F-16 fighter jets took off on a training exercise at 8:36 AM from Andrews AFB and did not return until 2:35 PM. Flight strips indicated that Andrews-based fighters were not scrambled in response to the hijackings until 11:12 AM. __[25]_
_New Jersey Air National Guard: When the World Trade Center was hit, two F-16 fighters from the 177th Fighter Wing based in Atlantic City were on a routine training mission eight minutes flying time away from New York, but the pilots were not informed of the hijackings until after the second Tower was hit at 9:03 AM. Two other fighters from this Wing were also on a routine training exercise. No jets took off from Atlantic City in response to the attacks until after the Pentagon was hit at approximately 9:37. __[26]_
_Washington DC Army Aviation Support Unit: Members of this Unit were attending annual weapons training, 90 minutes drive away. __[27]__ The Unit’s mission was to maintain “a readiness posture in support of contingency plans,” to exercise “operational control” of the Washington area airspace, and to provide “aviation support for the White House, US government officials, Department of Defense, Department of the Army, and other government agencies,” __[28]__ including the Pentagon.
National Reconnaissance Office: NRO, a large intelligence agency of the Department of Defense, had planned a 9:32 AM simulation of a small plane crashing into one its own towers near Washington’s Dulles Airport. __[29]_

_The rescheduling from October to early September of seven aerial drills — the two largest having been Global Guardian andVigilant Guardian, and the five related aerial drills that accompanied them — resulted in an unprecedented number of simultaneous drills that morning.

This was an enormous departure from other years.

These drills included at least two hijackings (a Boeing 747 flying from Tokyo to Anchorage, and a Korean Airlines Boeing 747 flight from Seoul to Anchorage), [30]and one drill in which a plane was planned to simulate hitting a building (the National Reconnaissance Office).

*II. One would expect that having so many exercises would have caused some confusion, which might have slowed down the military response. Indeed, statements to this effect have been made:*
According to a summary of a 9/11 Commission interview with Canadian Lt. Gen. Rick Findley, who was at NORAD as the Battle Staff Director at Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC) on September 11, 2001, there was, following the second attack on the Twin Towers, “confusion as to how many, and which aircraft, were hijacked. There was no situational awareness that was directly credible, and CMOC was relying on the communications over the phone lines with its operations sectors. Findley opined that AA 11 was reported still airborne and headed towards Washington, D.C. because of the added confusion of many hijack reports.” __[31]_
_At Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, DC, FAA Air Traffic Controller James Ampey, stationed at Andrews Tower, reported in a 9/11 Commission interview that there were an unusually high number of aircraft taking-off and landing at Andrews that morning because previously scheduled military exercises were underway. The radar screens were showing “emergencies all over the place.” __[32]_
_General Larry Arnold, commander of NORAD’s Continental U.S. Region, said: “By the end of the day, we had 21 aircraft identified as possible hijackings.” __[33]_
_Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke: “There were lots of false signals out there. There were false hijack squawks, and a great part of the challenge was sorting through what was a legitimate threat and what wasn’t.” __[34]_
_FAA Deputy Administrator, Monte Belger, said:“Between 9:20-9:45 there were many confusing reports about various aircraft being unaccounted for.” __[35]_
_An independent study in 2011 gave detailed accounts of nine falsely reported hijackings on 9/11, plus nine other reported aircraft emergencies. [36]_

_Conclusion
Because of the rescheduling of military exercises normally scheduled for different times, there were an extraordinary number of exercises underway the morning of September 11, 2001.

The Department of Defense and the 9/11 Commission failed to report all but one of the exercises that occurred that morning.

They also denied that such exercises slowed down military responses to the attacks.

Had the 9/11 Commission reported the full extent of the exceptional number of exercises it knew were operating that morning, the above-quoted statements by military officers such as Eberhart, Marr, and Myers – that the exercises did not, by causing confusion, slow down the military response – would have seemed implausible. [...]_ ***

--------------------------------

The following clip includes relevant commentary from Mike Ruppert (who reportedly "committed suicide" in April of 2014, BTW):


Some of the confusion fomented by the war games was documented *here*, in an article titled '_Let's Get Rid of This Goddamn Sim': How NORAD Radar Screens Displayed False Tracks All Through the 9/11 Attacks._



> The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 took place in airspace that was the responsibility of NEADS, based in Rome, New York. NEADS was therefore responsible for trying to coordinate the military's response to the hijackings. *And yet, in the middle of it all, at 9:30 a.m. that morning a member of staff on the NEADS operations floor complained about simulated material that was appearing on the NEADS radar screens. He said: "You know what, let's get rid of this goddamn sim. Turn your sim switches off. Let's get rid of that crap." [1] Four minutes later, Technical Sergeant Jeffrey Richmond gave an instruction to the NEADS surveillance technicians, "All surveillance, turn off your sim switches." (A "sim switch" presumably allows a technician to either display or turn off any simulated material on their radar screen.) [2]
> This means that at least some of the radar scopes at NEADS were still displaying simulated information--presumably false tracks--57 minutes after an air traffic controller at the FAA's Boston Center called there and announced: "We have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York."
> This means that at least some of the radar scopes at NEADS were still displaying simulated information--presumably false tracks--57 minutes after an air traffic controller at the FAA's Boston Center called there and announced: "We have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York." Forty-eight minutes had passed since the first attack on the World Trade Center occurred, and 31 minutes since the second tower was hit and it became obvious that the U.S. was under attack. It was only three minutes after Richmond gave his instruction, at 9:37 a.m., that the Pentagon was struck in the third successful attack that morning.* [3][...]



Emphasis mine.

As it turned out, there were twelve separate exercises, one of which had the bulk of America's interceptors in Alaska and north-western Canada playing tiddlywinks with the Russians, while a couple other major annual drills had also been rescheduled from their regularly scheduled times of occurence in October and November...to September. There's no way in hell those concurrent exercises didn't cripple America's air defenses on 9/11, and the proof can be seen in the collective (non)response on the day of the incident.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 29, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Having shown good reason to doubt various portions of the Flight 93 aspect of the NEOCT (citing the FBI's contradictory evidence and inconsistent treatment of various witnesses' accounts in the process), and having supported my belief that "Flight 93" was shot down by one of the handful of interceptors unaffected by the _war games stand-down_ of US air defense systems (citing eyewitness/anecdotal evidence, a strangely worded entry in a 2001 congressional report, and the 911 call made by Edward Felt), I'll now support my belief that the slew of military exercises that were being conducted on 9/11/01 _did_, in fact, greatly compromise the effectiveness of US air defense systems on that fateful day.
> 
> Again from *one of the consensus points* drawn from the panelists at consensus911.org (quoted excerpt italicized between the asterisks):
> _
> ...


oh shit not the combat exercises ploy again..


----------



## deep_space (Jun 29, 2015)

"thousands of people in NY saw the planes hit the WTC"  I see this all too often cited, where are the reports from these "THOUSANDS"
how many people actually looked up at the right time, and just happened to have a clear line of sight to get a visual on "FLT175" and indeed have the skills to discern a missile from a commercial airliner?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 29, 2015)

deep_space said:


> "thousands of people in NY saw the planes hit the WTC"  I see this all too often cited, where are the reports from these "THOUSANDS"
> how many people actually looked up at the right time, and just happened to have a clear line of sight to get a visual on "FLT175" and indeed have the skills to discern a missile from a commercial airliner?


oh fuck me! you've never been to nyc have you ? the wtc towers were visible from everywhere in Manhattan.
it takes no skills to tell the difference between an airliner and a missile ..
next  specious  guess.?


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Jun 29, 2015)

deep_space said:


> "thousands of people in NY saw the planes hit the WTC"  I see this all too often cited, where are the reports from these "THOUSANDS"
> how many people actually looked up at the right time, and just happened to have a clear line of sight to get a visual on "FLT175" and indeed have the skills to discern a missile from a commercial airliner?


Tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands.

Their "/reports "/are easily available and you have seen them you simply ignore them like a fool


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 29, 2015)

Soupnazi630 said:


> deep_space said:
> 
> 
> > "thousands of people in NY saw the planes hit the WTC"  I see this all too often cited, where are the reports from these "THOUSANDS"
> ...



As already noted, any facts which do not comply with the 9/11 CT loon's conclusions are to be assiduously avoided like the plague.


----------



## deep_space (Jun 29, 2015)

some of the witnesses said they saw a commuter jet, or small aircraft, some reported seeing a military aircraft, plane spotting skills anyone?
& truly, where are these "thousands" of witness reports who say they saw an airliner?


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 29, 2015)

deep_space said:


> some of the witnesses said they saw a commuter jet, or small aircraft, some reported seeing a military aircraft, plane spotting skills anyone? & truly, where are these "thousands" of witness reports who say they saw an airliner?



If you can find the few who believe they saw something other than AA-11 and UA-175 which hit the WTC Towers, then you can certainly find the many who saw and recorded those passenger jets. You just don't want to and I'm not wasting any more time doing the legwork for idiots who just don't want to.


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Jun 29, 2015)

deep_space said:


> some of the witnesses said they saw a commuter jet, or small aircraft, some reported seeing a military aircraft, plane spotting skills anyone?
> & truly, where are these "thousands" of witness reports who say they saw an airliner?


No one reported seeing a military aircraft.

Tens of thousands saw airliners or a non specific aircraft in general.

You know this and are being willfully dumb asking to view what has been wide spread public KNOW she for years.

This is a lame ct move asking for reports which you have already seen and know about.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 30, 2015)

Ahem...


...just a quick break in my previous line of thought, and posted in response to nobody in particular.


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Jun 30, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Ahem...
> 
> 
> ...just a quick break in my previous line of thought, and posted in response to nobody in particular.


And long since debunked bs


----------



## Capstone (Jun 30, 2015)

Make up your mind, S-nazi. Is it that "_No one reported seeing a military aircraft._", or is it that all of those reports have been "_long since debunked _"? 

A little thing called 'logic' dictates that you can't have it both ways.


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Jun 30, 2015)

Capstnowying said:


> Make up your mind, S-nazi. Is it that "_No one reported seeing a military aircraft._", or is it that all of those reports have been "_long since debunked _"?
> 
> A little thing called 'logic' dictates that you can't have it both ways.



No you are now lying.

They were debunked because the voice overs were proven to have been added years later.

No one in the original film stated such things.

Much like all of your other claims debunked long ago and you know this to be true.

This is why like all consp theorists you wait a while and repost garbage which has been proven false in hopes people forgot it was proven so


----------



## Capstone (Jun 30, 2015)

Soupnazi630 said:


> Capstnowying said:
> 
> 
> > Make up your mind, S-nazi. Is it that "_No one reported seeing a military aircraft._", or is it that all of those reports have been "_long since debunked _"?
> ...



Let's see that debunking effort then.

Just claiming that all of those reports have been exposed as voice-over hoaxes without providing so much as a link to the exposition in question...holds about as much water as your usual _empty_ proclamations.


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Jun 30, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> > Capstnowying said:
> ...


On no no no little boy.

As I said you HAVE seen it already and are going in circles hoping it was forgotten.

Now deal with fact it was proven to you already and you know it and are lying to deny that fact.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 30, 2015)

Soupnazi630 said:


> ...As I said you HAVE seen it already and are going in circles hoping it was forgotten. ...



I've seen no such thing; and as usual, your consistent failure to support your claims only highlights the mendacity of your approach to these matters in general.

I don't doubt that some person or group has attempted to debunk the numerous eyewitness accounts of a "large, gray, unmarked, cargo/military plane" (some of which appeared in print in various newspapers, BTW), but I have even less doubt that all such efforts have themselves been "debunked" to varying degrees.

If you're not capable of specifying - much less defending - the work of your unnamed sources, then you're doing much more harm than good to the causes you share in common with those folks.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 30, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Ahem...
> 
> 
> ...just a quick break in my previous line of thought, and posted in response to nobody in particular.


not this false shit again!


Emphasis mine.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 30, 2015)

^Another shining example of the most glaring difference between duh-bwunkers and legitimate truth-seekers.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 30, 2015)

Capstone said:


> ^Another shining example of the most glaring difference between duh-bwunkers and legitimate truth-seekers.


whoever gave you the idea you and your cohorts   were  legitimate has got a cruel streak a mile wide .


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Jun 30, 2015)

Capstone said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> > ...As I said you HAVE seen it already and are going in circles hoping it was forgotten. ...
> ...


Yes you have seen it period.

You just waited a while and pretended you never said it.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Jul 1, 2015)

The reaction makes sense.  Truthers are saying that all of the people who can believe that airliners weighing less than 200 tons can totally destroy buildings weighing more than 400,000 TONS in less than two hours without even demanding the obvious necessary data are idiots.

Where was the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower?  Where have experts discussed that in 14 years?  Most ot the Truther Conspiracy Theorists don't even ask about that.  But then they think they can find Justice.  JeeZ!

psik


----------



## Soupnazi630 (Jul 1, 2015)

psikeyhackr said:


> The reaction makes sense.  Truthers are saying that all of the people who can believe that airliners weighing less than 200 tons can totally destroy buildings weighing more than 400,000 TONS in less than two hours without even demanding the obvious necessary data are idiots.
> 
> Where was the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower?  Where have experts discussed that in 14 years?  Most ot the Truther Conspiracy Theorists don't even ask about that.  But then they think they can find Justice.  JeeZ!
> 
> psik


Twoofers are fools they say things like yoi just did.

Who ever said it was just a plane which brought the buildings down


----------



## SAYIT (Jul 1, 2015)

psikeyhackr said:


> The reaction makes sense.  Truthers are saying that all of the people who can believe that airliners weighing less than 200 tons can totally destroy buildings weighing more than 400,000 TONS in less than two hours without even demanding the obvious necessary data are idiots.
> 
> Where was the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower?  Where have experts discussed that in 14 years?  Most ot the Truther Conspiracy Theorists don't even ask about that.  But then they think they can find Justice.  JeeZ!



What is left of the "Truther" Movement - their rational comrades having already abandoned them - are interested neither in truth nor justice. They have their beliefs which are impervious to logic, reality and facts and they reserve their skepticism solely for the official reports while ignoring the gaping holes in their CTs.
   "I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong."  - Charlie Veitch, former "Truther"


----------



## SAYIT (Jul 1, 2015)

Soupnazi630 said:


> psikeyhackr said:
> 
> 
> > The reaction makes sense.  Truthers are saying that all of the people who can believe that airliners weighing less than 200 tons can totally destroy buildings weighing more than 400,000 TONS in less than two hours without even demanding the obvious necessary data are idiots.
> ...



The way I read psik, he is ridiculing the 9/11 CTs for their half-assed methodology.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 1, 2015)

psikeyhackr said:


> The reaction makes sense.  Truthers are saying that all of the people who can believe that airliners weighing less than 200 tons can totally destroy buildings weighing more than 400,000 TONS in less than two hours without even demanding the obvious necessary data are idiots.
> 
> Where was the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower?  Where have experts discussed that in 14 years?  Most ot the Truther Conspiracy Theorists don't even ask about that.  But then they think they can find Justice.  JeeZ!
> 
> psik


every time you post  I can't help but thinking " if you can't dazzle um' with brilliance baffle um' with BullShit".


----------



## psikeyhackr (Jul 1, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> > Twoofers are fools they say things like yoi just did.
> ...



Wow, someone who can actually understand what I am saying.

And I don't think I am saying anything complicated.

I went to one of Retard Gage's dog and pony shows in 2008.  I think at least a third of the people there I would not even want to have had a conversation with.  I got into his line for questions afterwards.  I asked him about the mass distribution of the towers.  First he looked at me like I had grown a 2nd head.  Then he said the NIST was not releasing accurate blueprints.

But in 7 years his group has not tried to make a decent model, either physical or virtual, explaining why airliners and fire could not have brought the buildings down.  Just more money collection and propaganda.  It is like neither side wants a definitive  and comprehensible solution.

psik


----------



## SAYIT (Jul 1, 2015)

psikeyhackr said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Soupnazi630 said:
> ...


I think given the time and cash constraints, NIST did a reasonable (though not perfect) job of explaining what happened on 9/11/01. In the 13+ years since, the "Truther" movement has done little more than produce some DVDs, YouTubes, t-shirts coffee mugs and ... Internet Noise.

BTW, it isn't that your content is complex but rather how you say it that can be read more than one way.


----------



## Capstone (Jul 1, 2015)

psikeyhackr said:


> The reaction makes sense.  Truthers are saying that all of the people who can believe that airliners weighing less than 200 tons can totally destroy buildings weighing more than 400,000 TONS in less than two hours without even demanding the obvious necessary data are idiots.
> 
> Where was the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower?  Where have experts discussed that in 14 years?  Most ot the Truther Conspiracy Theorists don't even ask about that.  But then they think they can find Justice.  JeeZ! ...



While it's not entirely clear what you're talking about (re: "the center of mass"), the 'south tower tilt' and its apparent violation of conservation-of-momentum laws (minus explosives) has been on the long list of obvious problems with the NEOCT, practically from the word go.

*This essay*, for instance, an earlier version of which served as the basis for a series of lectures back in 2005, briefly covers the point:



> [. . .]_South Tower Tipping and Disintegration:_
> If the north tower’s antenna drop was anomalous (from the perspective of the official theory), the south tower’s collapse contained an even stranger anomaly. The uppermost floors---above the level struck by the airplane---began tipping toward the corner most damaged by the impact. *According to conservation-of-momentum laws, this block of approximately 34 floors should have fallen to the ground far outside the building’s footprint. “However,” observe Paul and Hoffman, “as the top then began to fall, the rotation decelerated. Then it reversed direction [even though the] law of conservation of angular momentum states that a solid object in rotation will continue to rotate at the same speed unless acted on by a torque” (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 34).*
> 
> And then, in the words of Steven Jones, a physics professor at BYU, “this block turned mostly to powder _in mid-air_!” This disintegration stopped the tipping and allowed the uppermost floors to fall straight down into, or at least close to, the building’s footprint. *As Jones notes, this extremely strange behavior was one of many things that NIST was able to ignore by virtue of the fact that its analysis, in its own words, “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached” (NIST 2005, p. 80, n. 12).* This is convenient because it means that NIST did not have to answer Jones’s question: “How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives?” (Jones, 2006).
> ...



Emphasis mine.[*]

Notice that, as always, being the prominent _philosopher/theologian/academician/researcher/author_ he is, Prof. Griffin cites professionals and scholars with expertise in the relevant fields (in this case demolitions and physics) to support his analysis.

The tilt was also covered in Richard Gage's 2008 documentary, _9/11: Blueprint for Truth - The Architecture of Destruction_.

True, it hasn't received as much attention as other apparent violations of physical law (such as the 105 ft. freefall admitted by NIST in its multi-stage analysis of Building 7's "collapse"), but I think that's partially because the NIST group downplayed the severity of the tilt to a degree which _they felt_ it could be rationalized (around 2° if memory serves) - nevermind that charted estimates drawn directly from video/photographic analysis had the tilt at up to 23°. 

[*] _Yes, Dwas, despite your childish ridicule, I'll continue to point it out whenever I emphasize something._


----------



## psikeyhackr (Jul 1, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> I think given the time and cash constraints, NIST did a reasonable (though not perfect) job of explaining what happened on 9/11/01.



The NIST has never explained the collapses of the twin towers.  The report only says "collapse was inevitable".



> NISTs official report says global collapse is inevitable following the establishment of the conditions for the initiation of collapse. This is dependent on a 2002 paper proposing a mechanism for progressive collapse of a steel structured building. However the 2002 paper also clearly states that it is based on a hypothesis that the upper section is rigid at the instant of impact with the lower section and makes assumptions of the mass of the upper section, the design load capacity of the lower section and the stiffness of the structure to calculate the overload ratio. Using data in NISTs report and information available online it can be shown that there were major errors in these assumptions and in fact the overload ratio was less than 1 for both the north and south towers. As every explanation of how the supporting structure collapsed relies on this overload ratio then collapse was not inevitable, as NIST state, rather it was unlikely without some extra action or system to remove the supporting structure, or extra mass to overload the supporting structure.


http://www.physics911.net/pdf/scott-jones-nist-assumptions-analysis.pdf

psik


----------



## SAYIT (Jul 1, 2015)

psikeyhackr said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > I think given the time and cash constraints, NIST did a reasonable (though not perfect) job of explaining what happened on 9/11/01.
> ...



So lurking beneath your apparent disdain for failed 9/11 CT methodology is a raging 9/11 CT lunatic. Do I have that about right?

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## psikeyhackr (Jul 1, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> So lurking beneath your apparent disdain for failed 9/11 CT methodology is a raging 9/11 CT lunatic. Do I have that about right?
> 
> Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation



I am so impressed by name calling.  Conspiracies are irrelevant to physics.  If the top of the north tower could destroy the lower portion by falling then it should not be difficult to model.  But Richard Gage and his cronies should have created models to explain why collapses could not happen because of aircraft impact and fires.

So the situation is absurd no matter what the truth is.

psik


----------



## daws101 (Jul 2, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> psikeyhackr said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


sorry I should have warned you about psik too.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 2, 2015)

psikeyhackr said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > So lurking beneath your apparent disdain for failed 9/11 CT methodology is a raging 9/11 CT lunatic. Do I have that about right?
> ...


  " Conspiracies are irrelevant to physics",  if that were true than why don't you post some actual  physics and not  twoofer trash ?


----------



## Capstone (Jul 2, 2015)

Speaking of "trash", how funny is it that the standard-bearer for the duh-bwunkers for several years was the pseudoscience rag, _Popular Mechanics_, the typical content of which includes NASCAR paraphernalia, monster trucks, and lawn tractors? This _highly credible_ source continues to reap the profits from its 2006 book, _Debunking 9/11 Myths_, despite the fact that its _scientific_ explanation for the destruction of the towers - the so-called "pancake theory" - was experimentally disproven by Underwriters Laboratories *in fucking 2004* and had therefore been abandoned by NIST prior to its 2005 report on the "collapses" of Buildings 1 and 2. Yep, nine years and running of pushing a theory that had been disproven and discarded two years prior to the initial publication of the book. Get your brand new copy today at *Amazon.com* for only $14.74! 

Other notable "facts" listed in PM's book that were themselves later debunked as _myths_ involved the severity of the structural damage caused by fallen debris from Tower 1, the role played by the Con-Edison substation, and the postulated diesel fuel fires inside of Building 7, all of which were dispelled by none other than NIST in its 2008 report on the "collapse" of Building 7.

Of course, the PM propaganda book was also exposed as having largely been the work of shills, with 3/4 of the actual "Structural Engineering / Building Collapse experts" listed in the book's appendix being contributors to other 'official reports' on the WTC.


----------



## Capstone (Jul 2, 2015)

As for NIST's _stellar_ contribution...


----------



## Capstone (Jul 4, 2015)

That's Kevin Ryan talking in those two videos. He's one of several "9/11 whistleblowers" the duh-bwunkers claim don't exist. The man was fired from his supervisory position at the environmental testing division of Underwriters Laboratories, when, in the course of carrying out the testing his company was contracted to perform by the NIST group, he refused to play along with the scientific fraud they were apparently trying to perpetrate.

Several other high-profile whistleblowers are listed *here*, in a 2010 article by James Corbett.

The fact that nobody who was directly involved in either the planning or in any of the 'hands-on' aspects of the 9/11 black operation...should come as no surprise. Think about it. These "people" (if it's even proper to call them that) are guilty of mass murder (with an indirect death toll at 1.3 million and rising) and a whole slew of other crimes against humanity. Those psychopaths would be among the last _individuals_ in the universe to step forward and publicly take responsibility for their actions. They simply don't have the moral fiber or courage to 'man up' like that. This, along with their complete lack of empathy, just goes to show how much _*less*-than-human_ they really are.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Jul 4, 2015)

daws101 said:


> psikeyhackr said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Oh right, pointing out that the Potential Energy of a skyscraper can't be accurately computed without accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete is twoofer trash.

psik


----------



## daws101 (Jul 4, 2015)

psikeyhackr said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > psikeyhackr said:
> ...


Since its not relevant it's twoofer trash.


----------



## SAYIT (Jul 4, 2015)

psikeyhackr said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > psikeyhackr said:
> ...



You certainly can waste your time arguing what the definition of "is" is if you like but what we know about 9/11 is that fires _initiated_ by tons of jet fuel weakened enough support for the upper portion of the Towers to cause them to dislodge and crush the floors below. Nearly 14 years later there is still not a lick of evidence which supports any of the foil-hatted CTs generated by the "Truther" Movement. Not a lick.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> psikeyhackr said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## Capstone (Jul 6, 2015)

daws101 said:


>



More like...


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2015)

Capstone said:


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


with you guys it have to be this


----------

